F1000 Final Spec - Rev 1
I have uploaded a slightly revised spec based on the discussions that have taken place over the last couple of days. This is in a new thread because the discussions were spread over more than one thread. I believe the changes address all the points that were raised (I'm sure someone will let me know if I missed something).
Dave
OK. A couple of reletively minor, but still important, points:
1 - D.5. - 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: "No point on the lower surface of the car may be below the plane.....".
Is that sentence also controlled by the "For the full width of the body" designator in the first sentence? Club past practice is that it would be, even though it is a separate sentence (since it is describing the same surface and is in the same paragraph). If it is, then the downwards limitation is only within the "full width of the body", and you can therefore drop down whatever you want (except for skirts, which is addressed elsewhere), when out past the max body width.
To avoid that, change the first part of the 1st sentence away from the "full width of the body" designator to "for the full width of the body and underside surface".
Yea - I know that it may seem to fall under the "convoluted or strained interpretation" rule, but protests have been won and lost over that same issue!
2 - D.8. - Sounds OK now. Shouldn't give too much heartache to anybody.
3 - In the Dimensions drawing: That wording, coupled with nothing stated in the written portion (D.) of the Bodywork rules, means that there is now no maximum width for the bodywork! Both places refer only to the Lower Surface! You could simply add "(150cm)" after "....exceed the maximum width of the bodywork...." in D.8, and/or add "and bodywork" to "J" in the drawing.
It's getting closer!
Richard:
With regard to your point about D.5, I think an easier and better fix is to simply drop the introductory clause (For the full width of the bodywork,) entirely. That way, either all points on the lower surface (between the tires) pass the rule or they don't.
Then, the fix for the lack of a specified bodywork width is to insert a new sentence at the beginning of D.8 so that it now reads:
D.8 The maximum permitted width of the bodywork is 150cm. The width of the entire lower surface of the car between the rear of the front tires and the front of the rear tires shall not exceed the maximum width of the bodywork by more than 50mm and shall not exceed 150cm.
And, as you suggested, make the corresponding addition to J in the table.
Dave
Yes - that is definetely a better way to do it - it gets rid of any possibility of confusion as to what is controlled by what words.
However ( there he goes again!), does dropping the use of the phrase "For the full width of the bodywork, no point on the lower surface.........." possibly create another undesired scenario? It possibly could, depending on what is included in the definition of "lower surface".
For instance, lets say that the "lower surface" includes everything that can be seen when looking straight upwards from under the car. In this case, if there is a bit of bodywork (say, something like a small deflector on a radiator side exit) that sticks out slightly past the undertray, but is more than 1 inch higher than the reference surface, then the car would be illegal.
In reality, this is something that is currently illegal in FF/FC at the moment also, if a strict interpretation of the 1' deviation rule is applied (and lots of cars would be illegal if it was applied that way!). Actually, a strict interpretation of the rule with that phrase would give the same problem on most cars!
Example - the rear leg of a front upper a-arm mounts at a point behind the trailing edge of the front tire, and has a small shroud around the mount. Unless that shroud is "shadowing" the undertray directly below it, the car is illegal.
While you and I know what we want this rule to do, and to us the interpretation seems fairly obvious, the problem becomes making sure that future builders and tech people don't go about the interpretation in this manner, IF that interpretation is not what you want.
Is there any way you can think of to further clarify what it is that we are wanting to be subject to the 1 inch "lower surface" rule?
Sigh. You know the old that saying: if you build something that is idiot proof, someone will build a better idiot. Well, I just don't know how to make this better than it is right now. If someone chooses to insist on the interpretation in your last example, we simply have to trust that somewhere along the line, the right thing will happen. If someone out there knows how to fix this (without breaking what we already have), speak up, please.Originally Posted by R. Pare
Dave
Dave,
My suggestion would be to leave it alone and enforce the rule as truly requiring a flat bottom as viewed from below. How hard is it really to put a shadow plate under your suspension mounts, mirrors, etc? If you have a situation where a bit of bodywork sticking out just a little bit past the undertray makes your car illegal, how is this any different than having a wing that is "just a little bit" too big?
Cheers,
Rennie
I agree with you, Rennie, but the real question that hasn't been answered in a way that precludes future screw-ups is just what the intent of the rule is - Do those litte bits count as subject to the 1" rule, or not? Is this something that might be subject to "interpretation drift" and therefore more strict enforcement over time, and/or be subject to a strict interpretation by a new-to-the-club designer?
Club history would say that for the most part, these bits have not been consciously subject to the rule. Witness the leading portion of the tail of the DB1, the suspension inner pickup shrouds around any number of cars, etc. - while the rule would seem to preclude them, no one has raised an objection as yet.
If that continues to be the case, at what height above the reference surface does that "exclusion" start - ie - it is not considered to be part of the "lower surface"?
As you stated, if you go to a "shadow" rule, then the issue I am raising is moot. Maybe just saying something like "As viewed from below, all surfaces shall..." and the rest be the statement of the 1" rule. Gets rid of the problem, and is probably the last revision we will need.
Dave,
This is good so far, but I have an issue with Dimension L - Minimum cockpit opening - 45 cm = 17.7".
I just measured my RF96 (same as Sean O's car), and the top frame rail inside width goes from 14.5" near the steering wheel to 14.75" at the rear just forward of the rear roll hoop.
Dimension L will not work for older converted cars. We will need about 36.8 cm for dimension L.
You could say that converted cars must meet 36.8 cm and new cars must meet the original spec.
My RF99 does not meet that spec either. It is 17" wide.
Regards,
Rob
Rob:
Just so I'm clear about what you are telling me: is there no part of the cockpit in your car that meets the 45cm requirement?
Dave
Same as my RF93(s), too. BUT, that's the way the '06 FC rules are written, and I suspect years before that, as well. Now how did THAT happen?! Are we missing something?
Something is screwy...
Yes Dave. No part of my RF96 meets rule L.
a number of my ignored/rejected inputs would have fixed this before it became a problem. the problem with the latest draft F-1000 rule is the location for the cockpit opening width measurement to be taken to verify compliance is NOT specified.
see FFord D.7.a Bodywork
the bodywork opening giving access to the cockpit shall have the following minimal dimensions:
argue all you want about intent but at least the FF rules are objectively verifiable as written.............
added for reference:
F1000 Rules Proposal thread; post #298: dated July 20th, 2006, 3:01 PM
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
Last edited by Art Smith; 07.10.07 at 6:07 PM.
Look at the ff1600 versions of the wording for pre 86 and for 86 plus:
D.13 C 1 a (pre 86) uses the 45 mm (17.72 inch) width BUT makes it clear that it is for bodywork only. "This minimal rectangular opening may exist anywhere forward of the firewall. Forward facing roll bar/cage bracing and required padding will not be considered in these dimensions".
D.7 a (86 plus) has the same dimension but the two sentences above seem to have been combined with words dropped which not only screws up the "english" but changes the wording.
FYI my 85 VD FF1600 (aka Swift DB1 copy) has just over 18 inches between the inner flanges of the very flexible bodywork. The distance between the forward facing roll bar braces is about 15.25 inches.
Dick
Rob,
Your post calls out the width between the frame rails as being too narrow, however the rule you cite applies to the bodywork only. Check the width of the cockpit opening in the bodywork - are you really sure your car doesn't meet the rules?
Cheers,
Rennie
Thanks Rennie,
Dimension L does not say "body" nor "chassis". Above is how I interpreted the rule. if I interpreted it that way, then someone else might too. The Body section of the rules alludes to the table, but it is not directly clear that Dimension L refers to only body.
In my view, it is silly to specify a min body width rule at the cockpit opening when it's the chassis rails that will get in the way of a driver trying to quickly exit during an emergency.
The min width cockpit rule should specify the minimum width of everything - body and chassis. Since I have been able to easily and rapidly exit myself from that RF96, I recommend that we use the 14.5" minimum cockpit exit opening.
Rob
Rob:
Go re-read the FC rules. FCS B.4.c last paragraph states specificly that the forward-facing bracing and required padding will not be considered in the cockpit opening dimension shown in the table.
If that got dropped out of the F1000 rules, just re-insert it.
Richard,
I'm not talking about the forward facing bracing. On the RF96, the main upper frame rails between the front roll hoop and the rear roll hoop are between 14.5 and 14.75 inches at the inside dimensions.
Rob
Is the minumin weight with or without driver, rules don't seem to state. I'm assuming with driver.
I also don't understand the wheel size restrictions.
Rules state:
13" diameter with a maximum of 10" are the only wheels sizes permitted
Is the 13" diameter the only size permitted, or the 10" width, or both?? Shouldn't it read 13" diameter wheels are required with a maximum width of 10"?
Justin:
You aren't quoting the rule correctly. It says:
M. Wheels and Tires
Thirteen (13) inch diameter wheels with a maximum rim width of ten (10) inches are the only wheel sizes permitted. Material is unrestricted providing it is metal.
Now, what part of that is not clear?
Dave
You are correct that it might be misinterpreted because it does require linking the first part of D.1 to the table, but Rennie is correct about what is meant. I'll find a way to make it clear.
Remember, one of the goals of the specification is to make sure that currently legal FCs will be legal as conversions in F1000.In my view, it is silly to specify a min body width rule at the cockpit opening when it's the chassis rails that will get in the way of a driver trying to quickly exit during an emergency.
Dave
More potential rule problems
Dave,
As per Section C.3 last paragraph "For either method ....roll hoop brace material" which tubes "chassis braces" between the front roll hoop and the rear roll hoop fall under this rule?
As I read it, any vertical or diagonal tubes connecting the top and bottom chassis tubes.
Dave
Has anybody checked their chassis to see if they conform to this rule?
Rob:
Interpretation of what is included as "forward facing bracing" has morphed into allowing primarily horizontal tubes as well as those that are on a definite diagonal. After all, the absolute orientation of the tube is not what determines whether or not it is a "brace", and in a pure interpretation, any tube running forward from the main hoop that slopes down even the slightest, is "forward facing"!
Yea, it could be written better but so far the traditional designers for those classes have had no issues with it high enough fro them to ask for clarification.
That sure seems "morphed" Richard.
Cockpit opening
Guys,
There's a problem with the cockpit opening rule.....
I've measured three different cars (FF and FC's and none are 17.72" wide.....none.....so how is this??????
I also measured the Maloy chassis and it barely meets the rule and it has the widest opening I've ever seen as it was designed for someone 6'3" and 25o pounds....
What gives????
Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.
Matt: The opening is supposed to be at the fiberglass. If you are measuring to the tubes and/or the padding, you are measuring the wrong stuff. If you are indeed measuring to the 'glass, then the cars are plainly and simple illegal. If that's how they came from the manufacturer ( and were supposedly built to these opening specs - FFs and FCs are supposed to pass this rule, but I've never bothered to look at the DSR, etc, rules)) the manufacturer ought to be shot!
Hmm? Not true. The GCR is quite clear on this issue, and if my recent experience at the Runoffs is any guide the meaning has not "morphed" in any sense.
From GCR 18.5.3.A., second sentence:
Only composite chassis cars are exempt from this requirement, and then only with an accompanying PE study showing the design meets minimum required load tests.Braces must be attached as near as possible to the top of the hoop but must not be more than six (6) inches below the top and at an included angle of at least thirty (30) degrees. [Ed. Figure 8 of the GCR illustrates the concept.]
Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
At the Runoffs this year, I observed Tech repeatedly measuring open wheel cars' cockpit openings, and they were taking the inside measurement of the narrowest firmly attached part of the car (tubes or bodywork), exclusive of forward braces and padding or horsecollar.
Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Richard, the C/DSR rules are exactly the same as for FF/FC. FWIW, I observed the Tech guys measure all the CSRs at the Runoffs, and all passed.
Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Stan:
While that is indeed the GCR placement spec for the required forward braces, those are not the only possible location and orientation of tubes that can be described as "bracing" parts of the chassis. this has been the accepted "standard" amoung these classes for, oh, maybe 20 years now!
You're missing my point, Richard. For the purposes of complying with 18.5.3.A., the bars must attach within 6" of the top of the main roll hoop at an included angle of at least 30 degrees. Other bracing may be present, but they are properly considered part of the roll cage, and not main roll hoop forward braces.
That said, they need not include even the slightest downslope, either, since high front bars are permitted, and the forward braces could be perfectly level between the two hoops.
Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Then I guess that I have no clue as to what your observation has to do with what Matt, etc., are asking about and what I am attempting to explain to them!
cockpit opening
I think what Richard is trying to say is that every designer for the last 30 years assumed this rule only applies to the fiberglass, not the frame. Because that is the way it is written. It might seem to defeat the purpose of the rule if the frame just beneath the fiberglass opening is much smaller than the fiberglass opening, but we do not include that frame in the rule. More weirdness- Formula Vee's actually have no minimum cockpit opening whatsoever.
It seems silly to have a minimum cockpit opening measured to the outside of a structure - in this case measured to the body instead of the chassis.
Again, how about we make the minimum cockpit opening about 14.5" measured from the inside of the tube structure, and the specified angular roll bar support braces are not included?
After rereading the entire thread this morning, with its weaving together of at least three sub-threads, it appears that Richard's and my posts may have gone past each other like ships in the fog...so I apologise for any confusion I may have contributed.
Lee, thank you for your elucidation of the cockpit opening issue, and I agree with your analysis as applied to FF/FC. The verbiage in the GCR is pretty clear, as it specifies the "bodywork opening giving access to the cockpit". Equally clearly, "the bodywork" is not "the tubes", and while I saw a lot of cockpit measuring going on at the Runoffs, the Techs were no doubt applying the rule as written, as no cars were deemed unacceptable - my statement above notwithstanding.
FWIW, the cockpit opening issue is not addressed in the FA rules either. OTOH, the C/DSR rule specifies the dimensions (identical to FF/FC) for a "cockpit opening" without further specification. These cars must have been the ones where I recall the Techs measuring whatever was narrowest, tubes or bodywork.
Rob, you never answered Rennie's question about the opening in your car. Does the "bodywork opening" on your FC have a 45cm x 30cm retangular opening, irrespective of any bars? If so, it is legal. This photo of a Swift DB1 FF cockpit illustrates the issue:
Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
The outside measurement of the RF96 top frame rails is between 17" and 17.25". If I attached an aluminum panel (body) directly to those tubes, then that would be the measurement for body opening.
However, my point here is completely different.
I assume that we have a minimum cockpit opening size so that a driver (with or without help) can quickly exit in an emergency. So who gives a crap what the body width is? The important thing is that a driver can exit between the most constricting obstruction, and that is the chassis rails.
As we have gone through these F1000 rules, we have consistently run into anomalies and issues that have not been discussed in many years from FF and FC. We have addressed and clarified those issues. I'm saying to fix this one too, by specifying the minimum cockpit width using the most constricting obstruction - the chassis. 14.5" seems to be a reasonable number.
Rob
Is the rule in place to make sure the opening is not too small as to hinder exiting of the car?
On edit (after seeing Rob make the same point): The rules are so screwed up in so many places, I agree we should take every opportunity (within reason) to fix dumb or out of date rules. This is a great example.
Racer Russ
Palm Coast, FL
be very careful what you ask for!!
Russ-
unless the club is willing to hire a professional(s) to rewrite "dumb or out of date rules", I'd advise extreme caution in what you ask for! thanks to "the keeper of the draft" who ignored, rejected, or didn't understand repeated constructive inputs and is now willing to entertain discussion of bodywork rules change, I have a frame compliant with heritage FF/FC bodywork rules and an engine bracket compliant with the F-1000 draft as written. while the gate keeper may not agree or understand, I think 20-40 square inches of frontal area in F-1000 is a big deal !!
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
Last edited by Art Smith; 11.04.06 at 5:18 PM.
Yes, the rule at this date does seem a bit silly, or strangely worded!
What needs to be explained is that the cockpit opening rule pre-dates the '86 FF rules, back in the dark ages when no one used frame rails up near the top of the cockpit opening - only the main hoop forward braces were present.
When over-the-shoulder rails started being used ( a HUGE safety improvement), it was decided that they too could be deemed "forward facing braces", and therefore fit the exclusionary content of the old rule. As cockpits shrunk over the years to the absolute minimum requirements for aero considerations, the space between the tubes also shrank out of necessity. Unfortunately, the majority of Club members do not know that history of that rule, so it becomes confusing to them.
So far as I know, these smaller cockpits have not proven to be a hinderance to egress to anyone, with the exceptions being those who might be a tad too portly for their own good!
This was one of the many re-worded rules in the complete FF/FC re-write I did many years back that was rejected. This sort of rewrite should be considered again - as technology changes, and as personnell change, the original "logic" get lost.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote