F-1000 Rear Diffusers

[Stan Clayton]

Stan:

You may have backed yourself into a corner!

Oh...if I did it wouldn't be the first time!

To reiterate:

R. Pare
...can the diffuser be split into two 47.5cm wide openings...?

Response: Stan:
Section 9.1.1.C.6. reads "A diffuser is permitted behind the front of the rear tires." The term "A diffuser" is singular, so I would think two diffusers are not legal.

If that is the logic flow that is to be used, then any car with a 2 (or more) piece stressed floorpan would be illegal.

F1000 rules, B.1.4 : "A stress bearing floorpan/undertray is permitted.......[/i]

Nothing in the GCR implies a floorpan must be a 'single piece'. On the contrary, the glossary starts the "floorpan" definition with the words "The section(s)...", which clearly implies it may be a multi-piece device making up the floorpan. Just as "A carburetor" is an assembly of pieces, a floorpan may be as well.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the definition of an undertray or a diffuser which implies that it must be a single piece, and in fact they are NORMALLY an assembly of pieces. That said, what you specifically asked above was if I considered "two 47.5cm wide openings that are separated by a whatever-wide dropped section in between" to be legal. The key word is "two". That doesn't imply to my mind that it must have a "flat roof"...just as it doesn't imply that it has to have flat-vertical walls. But it does imply to me that one may not have two separate diffusers.

I would propose, therefore, that the rules be amended to state that the width of the diffuser opening as viewed from the underside be a maximum of 95cm wide for its full length, from the leading edge of the rear tire to its rear edge.

I cannot support this. For those who are not reading carefully, what Richard suggests here would open up diffusers to permit widths above the opening (when viewed from below) that could bulge out to whatever width would fit between the rear tires or 150 cm, whichever occurred first, so long as the bottom opening was no more than 95 cm wide.

Stan

[S Lathrop]

Stan:

I think you may have caught Richard with an interpertation/configuration that he did not anticipate.

The rules clearly allow a 95cm wide diffuser. The question is: can the 95 cm wide diffuser be divided to pass on either side of some mechanical component such as a rear drive unit? I don't think the rule is specific enough to prohibit dividing the diffuser section so that at any corss section there is never more than 95 cm total width of the diffuser. Most, if not all FC have the diffuser split because of the transmission. In this case the divider would certainly have to extend down to the same plane (or even lower) as the outer edges of the diffuser.

I would be comfortable in front of the Stewards arguing that the rules allow 95cm wide diffusers. You can not have any more behind the front of the rear tire. At the same time the rules do not require you to have less.

I also think that measuring right at the bottom edge will get people disqualified for minor imperfections in the diffusers such as a void under the surface coat that is exposed during a race. Or having to examine the entire lower surface for minor imperfections in the radius at the edge of the diffuser. Or a sizeable chip. Remember that we are allowing 25mm for tolerance forward of the rear tires, Why not behind? You are including the radius in the width of the diffuser are you not?

[R. Pare]

Nothing in the GCR implies a floorpan must be a 'single piece'. On the contrary, the glossary starts the "floorpan" definition with the words "The section(s)...", which clearly implies it may be a multi-piece device making up the floorpan. Just as "A carburetor" is an assembly of pieces, a floorpan may be as well.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the definition of an undertray or a diffuser which implies that it must be a single piece, and in fact they are NORMALLY an assembly of pieces.Stan

Just for the sake of this debate, I'll stipulate that temporarily.

That said, what you specifically asked above was if I considered "two 47.5cm wide openings that are separated by a whatever-wide dropped section in between" to be legal. The key word is "two". That doesn't imply to my mind that it must have a "flat roof"...just as it doesn't imply that it has to have flat-vertical walls. But it does imply to me that one may not have two separate diffusers.

You just argued 2 opposing definitions of what a diffuser is! Oops - previous stipulation withdrawn!

You just argued that the "key word is two" openings that makes the item illegal, NOT the fact that two 47.5 wide openings separated by anything would make the total width go over the 95cm mark. By your arguement, the implication is that the opening width measurement is to be the summation of the individual openings!

Using your second arguement that a single diffuser becomes two diffusers if there is a separating wall, the diffuser undertray pictured earlier by Mike Devin is illegal - by your logic of declaring a single diffuser as being in fact two separate diffusers if there is a separating wall, that particular undertray has five diffusers - the width of the "separator" that I alluded to doesn't need to be anything more than that of a strake as used there ( or even greater than a nanometer in thickness!)


As I said before - you are publicly trapping yourself into an interpretation philosophy that, if used for this particular rule, HAS to be used for every other rule in F1000, AND it has to be used for every possible permutation of the multiple diffuser opening scenario that I asked about as well as the floor scenario - a stepped floor by definition has a separating wall, albiet of a vertical thickness rather than a horizontal one! You cannot argue the segmented floor in total is legal, and then argue that a segmented diffuser is illegal as you just did!

You might want to re-think your arguements!

So the question I originally asked is still unanswered: Since there is no official definition as to what a diffuser is, just what are we going to officially declare the "diffuser" to be when we measure its width? The total of the width? Or the summation of the individual widths?

And just what constitutes the "start"?

In reality, Stan, you and I actually agree on what the width dimension should be referring to - the opening widths (as viewed from any position) have to remain between two planes that are 95cm apart - it just needs clarifying so that future builders and stewards know what it means exactly - if you, as one of the writers, cannot put forth non-contradictory arguements, how do you expect a future steward, manufacturer, or competitor to understand what the rules mean?

I cannot support this. For those who are not reading carefully, what Richard suggests here would open up diffusers to permit widths above the opening (when viewed from below) that could bulge out to whatever width would fit between the rear tires or 150 cm, whichever occurred first, so long as the bottom opening was no more than 95 cm wide.Stan

Sorry - I did not wish to imply that interpretation! My bad. Change it to read "full length and depth", or some such wording to eliminate that possibility.

[Stan Clayton]

Sorry about not getting back to this yesterday, but I have a house full of company.

You just argued 2 opposing definitions of what a diffuser is! Oops - previous stipulation withdrawn!

You just argued that the "key word is two" openings that makes the item illegal, NOT the fact that two 47.5 wide openings separated by anything would make the total width go over the 95cm mark. By your arguement, the implication is that the opening width measurement is to be the summation of the individual openings!

Using your second arguement that a single diffuser becomes two diffusers if there is a separating wall, the diffuser undertray pictured earlier by Mike Devin is illegal - by your logic of declaring a single diffuser as being in fact two separate diffusers if there is a separating wall, that particular undertray has five diffusers - the width of the "separator" that I alluded to doesn't need to be anything more than that of a strake as used there ( or even greater than a nanometer in thickness!)

Nonsense. I made no such argument. I answered YOUR question, which for those who have lost their place, was this:

2: If that is determined to be the case, can the diffuser be split into two 47.5cm wide openings that are separated by a whatever-wide dropped section in between? In this scenario, the actual diffuser sections when combined are still only 95cm wide, as allowed, but the overall width is greater than 95cm. I'm not sure what, if any, aero benefit there would be to this arrangement, but the logic behind this interpretation is still valid, as only the actual "diffuser" opening(s) are 95cm in total wide.

And to reiterate my answer...the rule states in plain English:

"A diffuser is permitted behind the front of the rear tires." In my opinion that permits one diffuser. That said, IMO nothing in the GCR implies that the diffuser has to be one-piece, that its walls and/or ceiling have to be "flat", that guide vanes are not permitted within it, or that it even has to be "regular". But there can be only one.

Furthermore, the rule states "The maximum width of the diffuser is 95cm." Since there are no "qualifications" to the width, arguments along the lines of "Gee, it's only 95cm wide at point X or opening Y are likely (IMO) to lose on protest.

With apologies to Pennon, here is a photo to illustrate my point.



Added in guide vanes notwithstanding, there are two diffusers as in Richard's question above. Each is 47.5cm wide, has separate openings, and are separated by "a whatever-wide dropped section in between" (fogged out area). IMO such a configuration would not be legal in F-1000.

That and $250 will get you a ruling from the Court of Appeals...

Stan

PS - Oh yeah...

And just what constitutes the "start"?

"A diffuser is permitted behind the front of the rear tires."

[S Lathrop]

Stan:

Thanks for taking the time to illustrate your argument. I take it that you think that the section forwad of the rear tires is acceptable as long as it is less than 25mm above the reference plane?

Another variation, that I think will be more likely, would have the diffuser joining at some point prior to the exit. At the exit there would be a single diffuser with a width of 95 cm. It thus could be argued that because the exit is a single 95cm wide exit, there is only a single diffuser and, if it is built such that the active area of the diffuser is never larger than 95 cm, then it is legal.

This is infact what I want to build. If I build it to your definition, I will loose a lot of down force verses building the single diffuser that splits as it goes forward. The rule is not clear enough.

The delima, as I see it is: (1) I build what you think is the legal diffuser (spending several thousand dollars of time and materials) and get to spend $250 enforcing your interpertation (which may or not hold up in appeal) when I get beat. Or (2) I can build what I think I can defend, have a better performing race car and see who comes after me. In the second option it will be the plantif's responsibility to prove that the comp board intended the more restrictive interpertation. Without a rules clarification from the Comp Board, I think that might be an up hill battle.

There is a third way this could go. I could win the protest and loose the appeal but not be penalized because I had a perfectly valid interpertation. It has happened with this very subject in another class.

Any way, thank you for taking the time to respond to this argument. The feed back I am getting from competitors reading this is positive.

[Stan Clayton]

Thank you, Steve. I appreciate the effort that you and Richard (and others) have put into the issues raised here, and I concur that it has been worth pursuing the answers.

I take it that you think that the section forwad of the rear tires is acceptable as long as it is less than 25mm above the reference plane?

Yes, that is the inescapable conclusion I come to.

Another variation, that I think will be more likely, would have the diffuser joining at some point prior to the exit. At the exit there would be a single diffuser with a width of 95 cm. It thus could be argued that because the exit is a single 95cm wide exit, there is only a single diffuser and, if it is built such that the active area of the diffuser is never larger than 95 cm, then it is legal.

Sort of a hybrid between of the situation Richard outlined and the purely unitary diffusers seen on many FC and S2 cars. I guess we'll see what your competitors think. I agree that you face a dilemma, and will be interested to see how you work it out.

The Committee which wrote the rules chose that language after extended debate. I believe they did so at least in part to leave room for innovation while not throwing away an undertray aero rule altogether. Some may see the language as sloppy or unclear, while others thrive on the freedom it gives them. Sounds to me like you guys are giving it a lot of thought and will come up with an innovative implementation. And I am sure lots of folks are eager to see your car on track.

Best regards, Stan

[Rick Silver]

I have to say I very much disagree with the approach you guys are taking here. The 1 inch rule and the 95 cm diffuser rule were NOT intended as they are being interpreted here. That is, the literal written word does not properly capture the spirit of the intended rules. The 1 inch rule was suppose to mean a flat bottom car and not a pandoras box for development of 1 inch curved undersides or side pods. The 95 cm rule was suppose to mean total body width behind the front of the rear tires.

The rules here should be clarrified by those who wrote them and not determined by lawyerly and court interpretation. These are two very substantial rules and their interpretation should be agreed on by those with vested interest and those who wrote the rules.

-Rick

[RobLav]

Why don't we do a compromise? Use a 1cm rule for the floors but keep the 150cm width with 95cm diffuser width for behind the front of the rear tires.

It's real tough trying to identify "intent".

BTW, I was one of the "rulewriters", and my perspective is that our "intent" was to follow FC practice wrt the floor - hence the 1" rule.

[carnut169]

I believe Rick is pretty close to the truth here.

Think about a regular FC (flat bottom, diffuser with the upturn starting after the leading edge of the rear tires) and take out the Pinto... put in a 1000cc bike motor... F1000!

We really did not want the issues that we have witnessed in DSR.

Seems to me that if people took all the time they spent trying to "beat" the rules and instead built some cars we'd have a bunch more out there! Is it really going to make that much of a difference? There are so many other things that you can experiment with to give you an advantage over a competitor without having to absolutely push the envelope with this 1"/ diffuser/ and flat bottom stuff.



FWIW- by "beat" I don't mean "cheat"

[RobLav]

Sean,

We are trying to clarify the rules so we (well - me too) can build one of these things. Since the intent was to run a "flat" bottom, then I propose we change the rule to 1 cm, rather than 1". I believe that would fly with our rules committee.

[S Lathrop]

Rick:

If you want the bottoms to look like FC then make the rule 1 cm not 1 inch. The 1 cm rule produced what you see in FC. Please remember that racing is about winning. Winning is about maximizing performance within the rules. Building race cars to win is not about being politically correct and doing what we might wish the rules said. It is about building the most competitive car possible. In any event this rule will limit the down force from the flat bottom just as the 1 cm rule will.

A 1 cm rule would be much cleaner and better. But the rule is 1 inch.

The 1 inch rule in FF comes from the same rule in FV which goes back to the pre '69 Zink and Bobsy FVs. That rule came about as a part of the tube frame definition. It was applied to FF aerodynamics in '69 or '70 because Ed Zink and I put a car on the market that had a "venturi tunnel". The 1cm rule was an English thing that came with FF2000 which was an English class before it was adopted by SCCA. The Pro series kept the English rules.

Sean:
Winning is about getting every thing maximized. This arqument is like some one running rear wing a few inches wider than the FC width. If that was legal, every one would have new rear wings. Maximizing this rule may translate into 100 rpm more at max speed because I can match some ones down force with a few degrees less rear wing. At 140 mph you can't build that much more horse power legally. It may be the difference of starting from the pole or second place. I am use to working in series where 1 second off will mean you get lapped twice in the race and you will finish out of the money, where positions are decided by .001 seconds.

The real fix is to change the rule.

[carnut169]

Sean:
Winning is about getting every thing maximized. This arqument is like some one running rear wing a few inches wider than the FC width. If that was legal, every one would have new rear wings. Maximizing this rule may translate into 100 rpm more at max speed because I can match some ones down force with a few degrees less rear wing. At 140 mph you can't build that much more horse power legally. It may be the difference of starting from the pole or second place. I am use to working in series where 1 second off will mean you get lapped twice in the race and you will finish out of the money, where positions are decided by .001 seconds.

The real fix is to change the rule.

True, assuming everything else is the same, which its not. Compare your car to the Stohr, Phoenix, Gloria, Speads, or even my car. They are all completely different in much larger ways than this! Shocks, wings, engines, bodies, wheels, tires, length, width.... all of these are variables that can be altered without debate. Is there a perfect combination? Doubt it. Certainly not for different tracks, and at our level the largest and most important variable is the driver and seat time. This is not possible to improve while everyone is not building cars and instead debating diffuser width.
Hey, I'll take all this development time and give you that extra wide 2 part diffuser.

[RussMcB]

I see Steve's point. He's stuck between a rock and a hard place. If the rules allow the diffuser to start earlier (because there is a 1" leeway), he's almost forced to use it almost in defense, because someone else will.

It may be too late, since the rules have been published and cars are being built, but if the rules makers and competitors do not want that big 1" leeway, they'd better try to get the rule changed to the same wording as FC PDQ.

[S Lathrop]

Sean:

I will tell you about 2 experiences I have had. You can draw your own conclusions but I will say that if a car is not right changing your driving style will not fix anything.

First, I was asked to work with a Japanese driver whose English was not good. At Homestead he was 2 seconds off the pace and his lines were not good. After examining the data, I decided that car setup was not any better. We did 3 days of testing before the race. In all that time I only worked on the car setup. Most of the input I worked with was what he could tell me. I never told hiim how to drive the track. As the car got better, his lines got better. End of the story, he screwed qualifying and qualified second. He took the lead in the first corner, first lap and that was the last time any one challanged him.

Second was a test day at Blackhawk Farms with John LaRue. At 3:00 PM we had gone through all the normal setup proceedures and we were circulating at the then track record. I then started making a series of shock changes that were too subtle for John to tell me what I had changed. Within an hour he had gained 1 second an lap and still, he could not feel the difference. I think we had 75 miles on the tires.

I would say the most important thing is the chassis setup and the fine tuning of that setup. Of these two, the tuning of the setup to the track conditions is the most important. If the car is right, most drivers will be reasonably quick. The fast line requires that the car be setup to drive the fast line. No amount of practice will enable you to drive a fast line if the car is not setup correctly.

The little details of the diffuser design that I have been squabbling about will be just like the the Blackhawk test.

I am convinced that most amature drivers are better drivers than they know. They watch someone go through a corner faster and think it is just better driving. My experience is that it is more often that the faster driver has a setup that allows him to drive the faster line with no more effort than the slower driver.

[R. Pare]

The issue is a combination of things that I have been bringing up way too many times over the last 12 months (make that 20 years!), and the last exchanges between Stan and I illustrate my points perfectly:

1 - "Intent" of the rules is meaningless - if it ain't written down, it ain't a rule - it's an opinion that can be contested, and that contesting always ends up costing someone money and time that doesn't need to be spent if the rules are written clearly.

2 - The are two basic approaches that can be taken when thinking about and arguing over the meaning of any particular rule. One is the "liberal" approach, and one is the "conservative" approach.

Liberal Approach: If it doesn't say you can't, then you can.

Conservative Approach: If it doesn't say you can, then you can't.

3- Each class has at it's core a philosophy that favors one of the two approaches - ie - DSR favors the Liberal Approach, and FF favors the Conservative Approach.

The thing I and others are fighting against is the continual haphazard adoption of the two approaches within one class - and the last arguements were a perfect illustration.

In the case of the diffuser, we have a rule stating that "a" diffuser is allowed behind the front of the rear tire.

If we are to take the Conservative Approach, this would mean that this is the ONLY area in which a diffuser is allowed ( using the arguement that "a" stands for a singular entity only - the rules make no statement that diffusers are allowed in any other area, therefore they are not allowed in any other area). In this approach, it is by definition that the "start" of the diffuser can at a maximum be as far forward as the front of the rear tires.

However, we also have a 1" rule governing the area immediately in front of the rear tires (and the Conservative diffuser "start") that allows shaping an upsweep leading to the diffuser - clearly not allowed using the Conservative Approach : these upsweeps are definetely "diffusers" as per the Simon McBeath definition that Stan quoted.

If you use the Conservative Approach to declare that only a single diffuser is allowed, then any upsweeps ahead of the rear tires that lead to the allowed diffuser are clearly illegal.

If you use the Liberal Approach, you can shape that forward area any way you like, as long as it passes the measurement test.

You CANNOT use one approach for one area and use the opposing approach for the other area - THEY ARE IN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER.

If you design an undertray with upswept "roof(s)" that start forward of the rear tires (an example being how Stan drew on Devin's undertray picture), the "start" of the diffuser is clearly ahead of the rear tires, and will be legitimately argued as illegal by someone using the Conservative approach.

Yet, that same shaping will be perfectly legal using the Liberal Approach.

Since we have no concrete definition as to what constitutes the "start" of a diffuser, as designers we have no idea which Approach to use when drawing up the car - one will give us a potentially illegal car, the other an underperforming car.

The same problem arises if someone tries to satisfy both approaches and says that the Liberal shaping is legal as long as the "diffuser" undertray is split away from forward undersides at the leading edge of the rear tires (giving a clear "start" to the "diffuser" incorporated behind the front of the rear tires)- this will force designers to make a separate undertray section from there forward to the front of the engine ( the lesser complex-to-hang and less-expensive-to-produce method is to make the rear undertray one piece, extending from the end of the main chassis to whatever-rear overhang, and the sidepod bottoms as two separate pieces). This is not a good solution to the dilemma of what we call the "start" of the diffuser!

If we have no clearly written method of determining which approach is being taken - Liberal or Conservative - how in gods name can we expect future Stewards, CRB members, Directors, designers and competitors know what is or isn't legal? How can current designers, Stewards, etc., know what is or isn't legal?

Diffuser Width:

The second diffuser issue I brought up was the "width" question.

The question I asked was designed to point out that too many people are using both Approaches when thinking about what these rules mean. The question was stated such that it could elicit either a Liberal answer, or a Conservative answer. Stan gave a Conservative answer that was in severe conflict with his other Liberal interpretations - ie - the diffuser section ahead of the rear tires.

The legality question could have been answered in only one of two possible ways:

1 - No - the two openings PLUS the wall thickness add up to greater than the allowed 95cm. (Conservative Approach)

2 - Yes - each opening by itself (and only the actual opening) constitutes a "diffuser", and as the separating wall is not a "diffuser" (it is a wall separating two diffuser sections), its thickness does not count in the summation of the diffuser width. (Liberal Approach)

Unfortunately, the counter arguement was that because there were two separated openings (and NO, ZERO, NADA, mention of the widths involved, which was the basis of the original question), you therefore had TWO diffusers, which would be contrary to the Conservative Approach of only "a" diffuser being allowed.

Yet the undertray picture posted as an illustration clearly shows there to be more than one opening, AND shows there to be diffuser sections AHEAD of the allowed diffuser area.

So which is the correct interpretation by which a designer can base his design decisions on? Which Approach can a Steward legitimately use to argue a case against you?

If the Conservative Approach is correct, there are a ton of items that can be deemed illegal that most present wouldn't think twice about if the designer doesn't heed the conservative interpretation of what "A..." means, but his opponent does.

If the Liberal Approach is correct, conversion-car guys have a LOT of work to do to bring their cars up to their performance potential, never mind get close to the performance potential of bespoke designs build to the limits of the rules.

Whichever approach is deemed by everyone to be the desired one, that same approach has to be used accross the board on ALL the rules that pertain to F1000.

So far, the approaches used vary WAY too much - it getting to be a bit like dealing with a certain other major sanctioning body when they dismiss as an issue their inability to make the same measurement of the same object by the same guy the same twice - "Well, it's the same problem for everyone!"

How the hell do you design to an unpredictable moving target?

I don't know about you, but I think this is a lousy way to run a railroad!

Anyway, I've said my piece and will back away for a while - I've got 2 months of work to somehow get done in one!

[Matt Conrad]

Richard,

Thanks for the last post. I now see clearly the issue at hand and realize that our floor/diffuser design could be ruled legal or illegal, depending on how you look at it.

We cannot wait for this issue to be resolved so we will move forward with the conservative approach, even though we may be leaving something on the table....for now.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.

[Purple Frog]

Dr. Pare presented the dilemma in great fashion.

I personally wanted the rules to be 'liberal'. In fact I didn't want any aero rules at all when the team was working on them last spring. My only rule would have to forbid devices that intentionally rub on the pavement. I wanted to make DSR look like a conservative spec class. Formula Liberity here we come. Yee haw! let's go racing!

Of course that liberal direction would have ruined the homebuilts chances. So a compromise was made.

Well... now the way I see it Richard has to jump up and be a "pioneer" and build a 'liberal' version. You do know what happens to pioneers... they either become rich by opening up a new frontier, or they get shot full of arrows. But they didn't get a guarantee before they crossed the big muddy going West. Just took the chance.

[R. Pare]

Sorry, but until I win the Lottery for 50 mil or so, I'm having zero involvement in building new cars ( Steve is a different story - he can do as he wants!) The only financial chances I'm willing to take on these rules and this market is to make differentials and brakes!

[Matt Conrad]

Froggy,

Not to mention....."Donner Party".....

But seriously....

I wanted to see the conservative approach to the rules....and not as a car builder....because we were in a position to design and build a car to whatever the rules were and not have to adapt our car to the rules. My reasoning was that one of the keys to this class getting numbers built was with FC conversions, and having the rules stay close to FC would make those cars the most competitive without having to re-design them, and thus many people making the swap over.

My fear for a long time is we would end up with a " laissez-faire " rules strategy which would have made all the conversions obsolete before they were even built and provide an instant path to cost escalation like has happened in DSR over the past few years. Even as it is....announced prices for some advertised cars have already went up by 20% and the car hasn't even raced yet!

I believe the current ruleset (even though not perfect) is workable as it is and I hope is stays pretty stable for a while to keep the momentum building.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.

[S Lathrop]

Matt:

The sad fact is the F1000 has to be a prupose built car. The rules almost required it.

For the Citation, only the roll bar forward is interchangeable for F1000. That is the frame, central body sections, nose cone and wings. We will need all new suspension, side pods, engine cover, engine undertray and diffuser. Some of the parts could have been used if the rules had not been so different.

The rear drive assembly will be significantly less costly than an FC bell housing and transmission.

Because of the wider wheels, FCs that were built to the maximum width are going to have trouble with the 2 inch wider wheels. This requires that I build control arms that are unique to the F1000.

I know that the brake rules were intended to keep the cost down but they will actually make the costs very much higher. The best setup will be specially built F3 systems. A new business opportunity for Richard.

The wider limits for the body means new sidepods. The FC body width makes it difficult to get good radiator air flow so the F1000 will want new side pods and different radiators (or at least modified radiators).

The underbody and diffuser is wider and will require a completely new mold for the largest body part on the car.

Because these parts are not shared among the different classes, the cost for all will be higher.

Now, I still think that converted cars will be competitive. But to be competitive the conversion will not be just the changes imposed by the different engine. It also means more people will consider changing to Zetec power and staying in FC. Additionally the new engine prep. rules in FC may breath new life and expense into the Pintos.

[sidney]

2 - The are two basic approaches that can be taken when thinking about and arguing over the meaning of any particular rule. One is the "liberal" approach, and one is the "conservative" approach.

Liberal Approach: If it doesn't say you can't, then you can.

Conservative Approach: If it doesn't say you can, then you can't.

3- Each class has at it's core a philosophy that favors one of the two approaches - ie - DSR favors the Liberal Approach, and FF favors the Conservative Approach.

Not trying to pick a fight here, and clearly folks have a better handle on this, but...If I read the first few lines of the GCR with respect to F1000, it clearly states, "IF IN DOUBT, DON’T." Mybe this is a over-simplification, but doesn't this point the focus down the conservative path?

[carnut169]

Ian is correct here (and good point!) I know guys who will protest a car they feel is illegal.... or even might be.

Also Steve, we have no idea if wider tires are going to be an advantage or not. I suspect its like everything else- a compromise. Tighter tracks will probably like the wider rubber while long straights may like the skinny ones.

That, and many of the items you listed require changing on conversions anyway.
We cut the frame behind the rollbar and modified both the rear cover and 2 of the rear wishbones. The diffuser and floorpan both had to be modified. I did not change front suspension- why will you have to do that? I've already got ICPs on the rear of my car and could save some weight with ICPs on the front... F3 brake stuff is really just an option and is certainly not necessary to be competitive. Width is like the tires... yes more surface area on the floor means better aero/ downforce but it is at a price. Will one be better all the time at every track? Doubt it. I always go back to it but look at Cole's skinny Swift. No where near the max width but able to spank just about every modern car it comes across.

[R. Pare]

Ian:

I always laugh when someone brings up that "rule". My retort to it is always this : Prove that I had any doubt!

[S Lathrop]

Sean:

The change of the front suspension is required for me because the front track was right at the limit for car width on 6 inch front wheels. To keep the over all width the same with 8 inch wide front wheels the extra 2 inches have to go all to the inside. Such a change will place the center of the tire inboard of the steering axis. It may be a good thing or it may change the feel of the car where the driver is uncomfortable. I do not have any idea.

At the rear, adding 2 inches to the back space is no big deal. If the wheels are available.

The whole aerodynamic package of side pods, undertray and diffuser is so different that this is all new technology. There is nothing like this in small bore formula car racing that you can look at for guidance. The underbody is almost free down force (very low drag), so getting it right will be a big advantage. I have questions about the F1 look alike approach to the areo. I think F3 is more the lead. Neither case has underbody aerodynamics as effective as F1000.

The brake issue is a big question mark for me. With the bigger tires, more down force, and higher speeds, I have real questions what will be necessary. It is possible that 2 piston calipers on .625 vented rotors will be the way to go. Or it may require bigger brakes. I have no idea. Initially I will go with what we have done for FC and S2000 and see if I need more. No reason to carry more brakes than necessary.

In any event F1000 is going to be very interesting over the next several years while things get sorted out.

[sidney]

Ian:

I always laugh when someone brings up that "rule". My retort to it is always this : Prove that I had any doubt!

Richard, I'm now archiving all of the past posts to the F1000 section to my laptop so that I have an accurate account of the questions/doubts/conundrums posed by this set of rules.

[John LaRue]

I once thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken....

[Jim Garry]

I'm confused. No wait ... maybe I'm not.

[R. Pare]

Don't fret it, Jim. Most of us understand you completely..........

[willpelton]

Hi guys, I have a question about who's who in the zoo. I know who a few of you guys are and what you do. Carnut (Sean) is a racer, Lee Stohr and Matt Conrad are builders etc etc. Who is R. Pare? Is Mr. Pare the guy that writes the rules for F1000? I kinda wish all of you guys in the middle of this would start a thread of who's who and reintroduce yourselves. I am new to this forum and would like to know. This is a polite and respectful request so please take it that way. F1000 may attract alot of new racers, old racers and members on this forum. I may be able to put together 4 to 6 car owners here in my town to race F1000. I will of course direct everyone to this forum. It would help alot if we all knew who you guys were and what part you play in this class. Racer, Rulemaker, Parts Supplier, Parts Manufacturer, Car Builder, Race Support Shop, would be a good start for titles. Thanks for the replies gentlemen.,,,,,,,,,William

[carnut169]

Hey Will.

Yes, I play a racer on lucky weekends. Crutchfield built my car without the luxury of having cars built prior to mine for ideas (came out pretty good though)... I'm also a member or the F1000 rules committee with the following guys:
Mike Beauchamp (Gyrodynamics and car builder), Sean Maisey, Ed Dicckinson, Rob Laverty, Mike Eakin, Ben Cooper, Marshall Mauney, and Loren Tieman.

Richard Pare and Steve Lathrop are ICP- builders of the Citation and general formula car experts.

Several other folks are currently designing/ building F1000s (both one-offs and cars for sale).

The Claytons are heavily involved with SCCA... (CRB?)
Yes, Lee and Matt are builders (Stohr and Phoenix) but 10/tenths is the prep shop selling/ supporting the Stohr F1000. Matt's car is not done yet...

Who else?

[Matt Conrad]

Sean,

The car may not be done, but I'm already feeling like I'm in the cockpit......



As you can see we're heavy into the final shaping process....it goes to the painter for final prep on Thursday. Obviously we'll share some shots of the finished surface when it gets back.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.

[S Lathrop]

I hate to bring this subject up again. Last January this was thrashed to death.

But there is some life left. At the run offs this subject came up with regard to an FF. Because I think that any thing that meets the one inch deviation rule and is within the defined boundries is legal. But there is some condition of the under surface that makes it illegal. Exactly what is that condition? Is it any vertical surface? What if the surface is just wavy when viewed from the rear? Or what does the shape have to be to be considered a diffuser?

To limit the scope of this discussion, I hope we confine the subject to that portion of the bottom of a car bounded by the rear edge fo the front tires, front edge of the rear tires and the maximum width allowed by the body work rules. Then lets assume that tech has measured the entire bottom surface of the car bounded by this area and found that no where is there any thing, portion or surface that is below the reference plane or more than one inch above. In fact I am picturing something like a limit of 3/4 of an inch to allow some imperfection in the surface of the measurement technique.

As I read the rules any car that would fit the above criteria would be absolutely legal. Or is there some other condition that would make it illegal? If so where is it written in the GCR or Fastrack issues since that publication of the revised 2007 GCR?

Am I missing something?

[John Mosteller]

So far there has been no shape restriction that I have seen only the 1 inch above and nothing down except the 4 rubbing blocks.