F1000 - Latest Spec - Small Glitch

[R. Pare]

Rennie:

I'll grant that the likelyhood of the Stewards acting on their own to enforce the rule as I've outlined is remote, but, guess what? All it will take is someone to decide to take a picture of a car cresting a rise that is obviously non-compliant, file a protest, and the Stewards will have no choice on the matter because that is exactly how the rule is worded!

Or is logical thought, and properly worded rules, something that you can't comprehend?

[Rennie Clayton]

Richard,

Ad hominem attacks will get you about as far with me as it's gotten you with making any headway towards modifying these rules which you find so offensive: nowhere. That right there is a treasure trove of implications.

Tell you what. You say that faced with such a protest, the Stewards would have no choice but to declare a competitor illegal. Put your money where your mouth is, and prove it: you protest my car at the Runoffs, and see how far it gets you. I'll even provide the picture. Deal?


Cheers,
Rennie

[Dave Gomberg]

Rennie:

The only thing that I can say with certainty at this time is that I intend to examine every FC at the Runoffs next week to look at diffusers. I looked at four of them at a regional this weekend and all of them - 3 VDs and a Tatuus with 6 different diffusers - were completely legal under the strictest reading of the one inch or one-half inch allowances (or a zero inch allowance).

Dave

[Rennie Clayton]

Dave,

Fair enough, and it would certainly be prudent to have this kind of documentation at hand for future reference. I'd be interested to hear from Sean O'Connell as well as to how the underbody on his F1000 is configured, as that is a straightforward FC conversion. I suppose the argument could go something like this:

If your FC diffusor doesn't pass the 1" test at the front edge of the rear tyre, then you can always move it aft until it does meet the rules. I suppose it depends on whether or not the intention is to basically lock the rules down to "essentially flat bottom", i.e., within a small tolerance range, or whether some small degree of freedom is desired.

Either way, thank you for taking the time to address my question about how to verify legality of the underbody.


Cheers,
Rennie

[R. Pare]

Ad hominem attacks will get you about as far with me as it's gotten you with making any headway towards modifying these rules which you find so offensive: nowhere. That right there is a treasure trove of implications.
Rennie

C'mon, Rennie - let's try worrying more about getting the rules worded correctly than protecting your ego turf.

It is sad to watch when personal egos get in the way of the writing of rules that are supposed to be for the benefit of the long term health of a new class. Thankfully, the majority of Comp Board and BOD members seem to have that result in mind, so the refusal shown by some towards applying logic in the persuit of that goal is rather puzzling.

I can't wait to see just what these rules will look like in their final form if the process continues along the lines that it has so far. As I've stated before, I have almost zero business stake in the outcome of the rules, so I could personally care less exactly what the final rules will permit performance-wise, so long as the wording is such that those who are planning to put their money and time into it know with decent assurance that there aren't loopholes due to poor wording that could come back to haunt them all eventually.

Arts suggestion of a maximum diffuser height restriction does make sense as a means to help restrict downforce production (I don't agree that it it the best way, but that is not the arguement we are on at the moment), but from a purely technical and practical enforcement viewpoint, it is only a good, logical rule if the wording is that the measuring is to be done at rest, with the driver on board. If there are those who think it is necessary to then prohibit ride height jackers to keep the smart ones from fudging the static height during measuring (remember the old F1 minimum ride height controversies?), then add that in. Just to let everyone know, I have a ride height system available just for that purpose that I would love to sell to everyone, so my willingness to promote such a restriction shows my desire to get the rules right, as opposed to nudging them in a particular direction for my personal benefit. If there is some business there for me to persue, great. If not, then I'll look elsewhere.

As to why I don't think it is the best way ( with no claim that the following suggestion itself is the best way, only maybe a bit better), as I've suggested before, you have to keep it simple, easily enforceable, and look at some means of mitigating the implications of venturi-shaped undertrays by trying to making sure that there is a LOT of turbulent inflow from the sides.

One way of doing this could be to make sure that the outer area of any venturi has no "wall' by stating that when measured from the centerline outwards, any surfaces that rise above the reference plane may not then drop back down. Reletively simple to word AND police, and should help kill the ultimate effectiveness of the outer half of any venturi formed.

A second method might be to mandate that that starting at the original FC bodywork width, any additional width has to be flat and at a minimum of 1.5 inches ( or some other decent height) above, and in a plane parallel to, the reference surface. I believe that as a method of decreasing the performance potential of a new car over a converted FC with the original width bodywork, this might be pretty effective. It will also help kill the effectiveness of the undersides if purely flat-bottom ground effects are utilized.

Whatever method is finally agreed upon - whether one of these or something else - should reflect the cost and desired performance philosophy of the class. If you want the cars to be faster than all get out, keep the restrictions limited, but be prepared for the accompanying cost escallation, and don't whine when it eventually does happen. If you want to try to keep costs in check, you really don't have much choice but go for the more restrictive methods.

[sidney]

Rennie:

The only thing that I can say with certainty at this time is that I intend to examine every FC at the Runoffs next week to look at diffusers. I looked at four of them at a regional this weekend and all of them - 3 VDs and a Tatuus with 6 different diffusers - were completely legal under the strictest reading of the one inch or one-half inch allowances (or a zero inch allowance).

Dave

I looked at my diffuser for a Tatuus, and it would meet a zero inch rule, so why not make it a 0.25" allowance and incorporate the "additional width beyond the current FC bodywork must be flat in the same plane as the floor licked by the airstream 1.5" above verbage as well?" Seems resonable and apparently everybody doesn't have to go buy another diffuser that is converting. Since all the builders are waiting for guidance, they obviously have not started on a final design, so it shouldn't be an issue for them either.

[Rennie Clayton]

Richard,

My ego is the last thing that's going to get bruised by some pedantic F1000 rules twitter on an internet forum. I am simply trying to point out to you that your best chance of making headway with your pursuit of rules clarification and correction is to change the cut of your gib. You might think it's stupid that because it's people that you need to convince, the vagaries of human emotion will play a part in your quest, and that's your prerogative. You can take it, or as you've already demonstrated, leave it for what it's worth.

Those sections of the GCR that specify minimum weights "as raced without driver" must really make your head explode, huh? I will say this only once:

"As raced" is not even close to semantically equivalent to "while racing". To wit:


as [az; unstressed uhz]

–adverb

1. to the same degree, amount, or extent; similarly; equally: I don't think it's as hot and humid today as it was yesterday.
2. for example; for instance: Some flowers, as the rose, require special care.
3. thought to be or considered to be: the square as distinct from the rectangle; the church as separate from the state.
4. in the manner (directed, agreed, promised, etc.): She sang as promised. He left as agreed.

I.e., in the manner raced. This is all a far cry from your illogical interpretation of "while you are physically in the act of driving."

Or is logical thought, and properly worded rules, something that you can't comprehend?


Ian,

Since all the builders are waiting for guidance, they obviously have not started on a final design, so it shouldn't be an issue for them either.

Lee Stohr will have his F1000 offering live and in the flesh on display at the Runoffs, starting this coming weekend.


Cheers,
Rennie

[sidney]

If the rules have not been finialized, then how can anybody produce an F1000 car?

[Rennie Clayton]

Ian,

At this point, we're really talking about pedantic nit-picking of the rules package. Lee is a consumate business man, and I feel pretty certain that he has hedged his bets by making the car with a flat bottom and semi-aggressive diffusors at the rear of the car. Lee has a car which is track ready and will be legal, or will require minor modification to make so, ready to sell to the waiting throngs of F1000 newbies (?). Meanwhile, everybody else is just getting started on designing a car because they refused to budge while something as insignificant to overall car configuration as underbody shape has kept them from getting started.


Cheers,
Rennie

[sidney]

Rennie,

Maybe my sarcasim isn't coming through, but I kinda figured that the aero package that Lee shows in Topeka is probably not the final version. I'd like to see some pics, if someone is willing to post them after getting back from the big dance.

[Rennie Clayton]

Ian,

No worries. I'm more or less barrelling through my day here getting ready to leave for Topeka tomorrow morning, and I'll have camera in hand. I'm going to try to keep a running blog going, and that will include pictures of the new shiny bits!


Cheers,
Rennie

[R. Pare]

Richard,
"As raced" is not even close to semantically equivalent to "while racing".
Cheers,
Rennie

Since you seem to be intent on continuing in this vein:

You might want to re-check your understanding of the word "raced" as used in this case. The word "raced" is used as a "an expression of action or state of being", a verb (Websters definition), with the adverb "as" being a modifier stating "when taken into consideration in a specified relation or form" - ie - the phrase "as raced" means, in short : "when considered in the manner in which it was racing".

"As raced" can only mean the condition in which the car was actually physically performing the act of racing - what the state of the car is while in impound can, and is, physically different, and in fact, the car is not in the same "state of being" as it was whilst in the physical state of being raced. Remember how F1 finally gave up on trying to specify a minimum ride height while the car was out on the track? They realised that what it was measured to be by the "drive over" test bore no resemblance to what the car was while in the physical state of being raced, which was what the control intention.

If we were to modify the wording to be "As it leaves the track" it would still NOT be physically in the same state as "as raced", but the condition which it is in at the point of return to the pit area. Ever watch guys purposely drive thru the gravel at tracks edge while the tires are still sticky? Do you really believe that the car was actually raced with those rocks on the tires? (Ever see the tech guys ask for the rocks to be scraped off? )

" as in impound" would mean the condition it is measured only at the time it is in impound, NOT what it is out on the track. The IRL had a maximum ride height rule that was supposed to be a limit for the car while out on the track, but could only be accurately measured in the tech shed. Lyendyke got around it by using a jacker on the front monoshock at Indy the year he won - raising the nose a quarter inch on the straights was worth about 4 mph. The rest of the teams found that they could put in an ungodly stiff front swaybar and blades, and use a single jacker on the right front to raise and lower the front of the car to gain that same speed - the abuse to the front tire be damned - yet pass muster in the pits or tech shed. Once tech finally caught on, the teams were limited to a single .5" stroke jacker on the rear where it could not produce the same "as raced" results.

In all cases, the "as raced" results can be fudged by a bit of ingenuity and sleight-of-hand when the only place the measurement can be made is away from the track racing surface. Witness how many guys drink about 4 bottles of water at the end of a race, and just barely make the minimum weight in impound. Or the few extra wrenches that somehow find their way under the helmet in the seat.

What is confusing you is that the issue is NOT what the car actually is out on the track, BUT what can be realistically measured by tech with the expectations of a minimum of "creative" ways to get around the requirements. In that light, it makes no sense to specify "as raced" when you cannot actually measure it while it is racing, nor expect it to comply on all parts of the circuit - somebody will eventually try this approach.

In reality, this is no different an arguement than that which your father would use ( and has)against the rule "Ground effects are prohibited" - while we all "know" what the rule is supposed to refer to, in actual fact it it states the need to comply to a physical impossibility.

Meanwhile, everybody else is just getting started on designing a car because they refused to budge while something as insignificant to overall car configuration as underbody shape has kept them from getting started.

These cars are already going to be very fast, and if they're allowed unfettered underbody aerodynamic freedom outside of a small zone between the rear edge of the front tires to the rear rollover hoop bulkhead, they will be dangerously fast. I know y'all don't want to hear it, and there's plenty of dissent and disbelief on this forum about how fast it will make the cars. But trust me: it really will...........................Stan and I kept on hammering the point home to Lee that tunnels would be remarkably effective, and I think we all know where that went.

Umm, make up you mind, will ya? Is it "pendantic nit-picking" over an "insignificant" rule concerning the "insignificant" shaping of the undersides, or concern over things than can be "remarkably effective" in making the cars "dangerously fast"?

This will be the last I will bother to argue on this subject - it really is not worth my time, nor really yours either for that matter.

[Rennie Clayton]

Richard,

Well then, the description for checking contact patch size in the GCR is sure to be torturous to you. This whole approach that you've taken is a blazing neon portent of why you haven't been able to accomplish anything with respect to rectifying these small issues in the rules. And yes, despite your protestations, they are small issues - I'm sure you can't imagine how the Club has been able to get along for 50+ years with such slovenly ineptness rife amongst the ranks, but there it is. Like I suggested earlier - put your money where your mouth is, and protest my car at the Runoffs to see how far this gets you. I will be happy to provide the "incriminating" pictures. I'll even fill out the paperwork for you and everything, you just have to sign it and hand it to them, if you really think that this interpretation has legs.

For the record, what I actually said is that the underbody rule is "insignificant to overall car configuration" - not that it's an insignificant rule from a safety standpoint. You have joined together two things which are not equivalent - the ability to discern accuracy and exactness of the rule (pedantic nit-picking), and the moral implications of the results (dangerously fast). I have no need to make up my mind, because you've pointed out an "inconsistency" that simply doesn't exist. Think in more than one dimension. Spelled out enough for you?


Cheers,
Rennie

[Lee Stohr]

Rennie,
Did you get your Ralt CSR finished?
We should be in Topeka Friday with the F1000 display car, the body is coming from the painter tonight, about 11pm. Hopefully everything will go together tomorrow and the trailer leaves Wednesday morning.
We'll snap some photos Wednesday morning and we'll get them on the web site ASAP.

[Art Smith]

Dave-

I'm at a complete loss to understand the significance of examining the "flatness" of existing FC diffusers. to the best of my knowledge no potential "flatness" non-compliance has ever been attributed to existing FC diffusers; rather material potential non-compliance problems have been associated with the "diffuser" and "venturi-tunnel" provisions in the current draft. if "flatness" is all you intend now to specify (ie: deleting the diffuser language and the undefined venturi-tunnel provisions), neither of the two configurations shown in the attached figure should give you any pause. since "flat" and "level" are two different words, designers and competitors would then be left with only their own cleverness or lack there of in how to configure and orient their compliant "flat bottom"..............................


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Rennie Clayton]

Lee,

I wouldn't go so far as to say that we're finished with it. We're kind of at that stage you were last year at this time... If I'm lucky it will show up sometime before the race next Friday, and I'll even get to drive it!


Cheers,
Rennie

[Anonymous Lee]

Engine Rules

E. Engines
1. Motorcycle-based 4 cycle up to 1005cc.
2. Bore, stroke, compression ratio and maximum camshaft lift must remain stock. The competitor must possess an original factory manual for the engine to allow compliance verification.
3. The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed. Devices that modify inputs to the ECU (e.g., Power Commander) may be used. Stand alone after market ECUs are not permitted.
4. Turbochargers and superchargers are prohibited.
5. Carburetion and fuel injection are unrestricted.
6. The exhaust system and exhaust manifold are unrestricted, within SCCA safety regulations.
7. The lubrication system is unrestricted; a dry sump system is permitted.
8. Oil coolers are unrestricted.
9. Radiators and water pump are unrestricted. Radiators, if housed in or incorporating a cowl air-scoop deflector, shall comply with body regulations.

F. Single Inlet Restrictors
The use of a GCR-compliant Single Inlet Restrictor is mandatory. The maximum inside diameter of the Single Inlet Restrictor shall be 23.0 mm.

[SIZE=3]Ren or Stan can you enlighten us on the consistent push for an SIR. Have you overcome the limp home mode problem? [/SIZE]

[carnut169]

I thought that the crb took out the sir rule.... fwiw I am for NOT having a sir. Just something else to buy that does not make the car any faster!

[Wren]

so are the wide sides staying?

[Mike B]

I'm responding to Anonymous Lee against my better judgement. Lee (or do you prefer John? Mr. Holmes?)
Please refer to the most recently published set of rules instead of using an old revision. The current rules can be found here:
http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/Fil...0-fastrack.pdf starting around page 31. I think the section you're looking for is "F."

[Rennie Clayton]

Anonymous,

Ren or Stan can you enlighten us on the consistent push for an SIR. Have you overcome the limp home mode problem?

1. As Mike mentioned, the first bit of enlightenment you should avail yourself of is the current rules package. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you'd need enlightenment on.
2. That would be a problem for individual competitors to overcome, based on their choice of engine management system.

Cheers,
Rennie