F1000 Final Spec - Rev 1

[Bill Maisey]

William,

Carbon Chassis can give competitive advantage without doubt, they will be much stiffer and the car will be more responsive in every way. It affects the way everything works on the car so if one were to do a straight A-B swap it probably wouldn't make much if any difference.

If enough people express their preference for carbon I believe the CRB will eventually take notice, but probably not in F1000. It seems the goal of F1000 is principally converted FC, FF2002 etc. The folly of this, in my opinion, is that cars designed specifically for the new series will always be quicker, so all the guys who thought they had a great place to race their old car and be competitive again will just be disapointed.

Having said that I think the series will be great, and you have made a good choice to go with the Stohr.

Ian

So, Ian . . . given equal stockish motors, no real aero, same tires/ wheels/weight, just how will new cars be superior to converted FC's with their years of development? I am predisposed to believe the new cars will be better, but not sure that is logical.

[RobLav]

I completely agree with Bill here. A well designed conversion will be just as good.

As to the carbon chassis, we debated a LONG time on that one, with input from very many people. We felt that the carbon tubs belong in FA.

The dollar cost numbers Stan provided is too small of a sample size for me to be convinced, and I don't know the details of what comes with the chassis regarding various bracketry / etc. They also do not include life cycle costs. In the FA forum here, one of the first things people say to look at is evaluting the older carbon tub when considering its purchase. X-Rays / etc are not cheap.

But thank you Stan for researching those costs that you did. Trying not to be be critical here.

We all have seen or been in some pretty good crashes in our tube frame cars. I'm amazed at how well I came out of mine - nevermind some of the far worse ones. The crush structures are a critical element to this record.

During the rules process, I had suggested allowing stressed metal chassis as a compromise solution between tube frame and carbon, but that was shot down. In some sense, it really doesn't matter now. Any recommended changes have to go through the CRB.

[ianashdown]

Bill & Rob,
Here is my logic.

A new car is better than an old one of identical design. Everything wears, and its performance deteriorates gradually over time.

Design is always improving. A 2006 vintage car will likely be better that a ’94 vintage.

Design of the new car will be optimized around the new rules and package; the conversion will be a compromise.

The biggest factor is weight distribution. Take a Pinto engine and Hewland transmission that weigh what 300+ Lbs and replace them with a 150 Lb M/C unit. It’s a big change. I’m not sure that the original design can be changed enough to achieve the ideal weight distribution.

Lastly. History; it has always been the case that the new car designed specifically for the new formula beats the conversion.

We’ll all know soon, but if anyone wants to make a sportsman’s bet, I’m in!

Rob, My business is composites and the figures Stan found are completely consistent with my own costings.

Ian

[RobLav]

Thanks Ian... I inderstand your logic.

So why don't we make a case for carbon tubs (with 1300cc m/c engines) in FA, where they are already allowed.

[Matt Conrad]

For the record....I am very concerned about safety.....because as many of you may know I had a very bad crash earlier this year at PIR where I suffered a broken leg from a-arm/chassis intrusion into the cockpit of my Maloy DSR.....so I understand firsthand what is at stake here.

I know this gets over-used, but the reality of this situation is that racing is inherently dangerous and whether you are in a tube frame car or in a carbon-tubbed car, bad things can happen. I know of several instances where drivers were severely injured or killed in carbon tubbed cars (roll hoop connection failure, cockpit intrusion of an a-arm). I'm sure the same can be said for tube framed cars as well. To make it seem that carbon tubs are safe and tube-frame cars are not is irresponsible as almost every SCCA class consist of tube framed cars.

There's no question that carbon-tubbed cars offer additional safety as the driver is 90% surrounded by the tub, but there are other factors to consider...

1. Repairs. Very expensive...and poorly executed repairs could cause serious issues...just look at the pictures of the Ferrari F1 car that split in half at the drivers hips...fortunately the driver was unhurt. The chassis repair from my major crash cost me $950...and it was done in the jigs by the same welder who builds our chassis.
2. Service life. Most Pro Series tubs are only used for a few years and then replaced. What's a realistic service life of these units and what maintenance needs to be done to maximize that service life.
3. Certification. Sorry, but I don't have my GCR right here...and I know there are some requirements....but what certification and testing is required for carbon tubs in SCCA? Can anyone just build a tub and go race....without any of the stringent FIA (or similar) certification?
4. Cost. I know some are touting "cheap" tubs, but there's more to it than just the tub itself...and Rob hinted at it...you need to mount things to it. So you'll also need to buy all the suspension brackets, pedal assemblies,a-arms, motor mounts, etc, etc or design your own...which could be even more expensive. The least expensive carbon-tubbed car I know of is the Pro FM and the cost is double what our F1K car costs.

What I've said from the beginning of the discussions of the F1000 class is that we would build a car....and we are. And I'm very excited about it because it appeals to me as a racer as well. I feel pretty confident that the F1000 class has great potential to be a strong class in SCCA for a long time, but let's build this class with the rules as they are for now.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.

[RobLav]

Having gone through all this F1000 stuff for quite a while now, I can say that I am entirely happy with the way the rules have come out. The discussions now seem to be on the one end - carbon tubs (the more expensive route), and on the other end - cheap Chinese chassis and no diffusors. (the cheaper end). It seems to me we are right in the middle and have created a nice $$ per performance formula.

[ianashdown]

Rob & Bill,

I think that F1000 will be a great series, with cars built by manufacturers and home conversions, the difference in performance will come more from the driver, engine, set-up and general preparation than from a carbon chassis or whatever. F1000 is probably not the right formula for some of the things I hold dear, so maybe the idea of a multi-level structure is appropriate – I saw that concept posted somewhere. I’m just not sure there are enough entrants/drivers to make the concept viable. My hope was that F1000 would be an open wheel DSR, but it isn’t and I accept that.

I think the overall concept is good and I’m sure it will do well. The balance is about right for where the demand seems to be.


Matt,

I would never suggest that tube frames are not safe, just potentially not as safe. I have throughout my career made safety a very high priority and it’s difficult for me to accept anything less that I know is the best in this area. There are good and bad of both types and we must all make our own decisions before getting into, or putting someone else into, either type of car.

I have some level of agreement with you on all of the points you raise, but time also marches on. Everybody buys a new helmet as required, because we understand that the increased safety brings potentially shorter life of the helmet. This may be the case with the chassis. Having only been involved in professional racing in the past it’s perhaps difficult for me to know how long these chassis are reasonably expected to last; having said that I believe that a well built composite chassis can have a long life. Repairs must be done correctly, true of both types, and I believe that in the past some who had no business repairing chassis have done so. They are not boats – they need some very different techniques to affect a solid repair, but too many have applied very low level technology to ‘patch-up’ chassis.

The certification is strict and very good. But this is what puts it beyond the ability of the home builder. I would suggest that the SCCA develop a set of construction standards and an expert or two to approve design, then perhaps the destructive testing could be relaxed to some extent.

The cost is greater, just not as much as many would like you to believe. When we (Reynard) first introduced Carbon chassis to F3 back in ’84 we had to agree a price that was similar to the aluminum sheet chassis of the Ralt. This overcame some of the fears. When the car won it’s first race and championship, no one cared any more!

It a difficult subject, and I believe that Composite chassis have their place in SCCA racing, perhaps not F1000, maybe F1300 is an option. Worthy of discussion perhaps.

Good luck with your car, by the way, it looks great!

Ian

[Dave Belz]

This seems like a good time for me to say "Thank you!" to many of the biggest antagonists during the F1000 rules debate. I've always been a bottom level participant (observer really) in this conversation, but there were times when I was downright depressed by the tone of the arguments going on. Since this thread began, I've been very impressed by the positive tone of some of the same people who depressed me earlier this year. Thanks for proving to me that my fears and pessimism were unfounded.

As excited as I was when the F1000 forum was created I will, unfortunately, not be joining you on track in F1000 for the foreseeable future.

If one of you decides to build and market a bolt on F1000 conversion for a mid 90's VD, please let me know.

Dave

[Mark Beckman]

You Guys are speaking retail and not mentioning that a tubular chassis can be built at home for very low cost and to have carbon in the class gives home builders one step further away in their thinking that they can be competitive.

Stan can you point out why you believe your Son's crash was safer in the carbon tub? was there A-arm attempted intrusion for example?

The talk about cockpit dimensions is relevant to this I believe because the narrow tube cockpits, although legal due to the bodywork having the correct dimensions, dont give very far when a driver is hard up against them (the tubes) whereas the carbon tub has more room, correct me if I'm wrong please.

I hope that this cockpit dimension problem will be corrected in some years to come and Im glad to hear the Stohr has a big opening, the Pheonix may too according to the size of a driver reported who fitted and I can assure you my tubes meet requirements as well I already have A-arm intrusion bars and are retained by cable.

With the high weight limit cant cockpit panelling be increased in thickness by the rules?

[Mark Beckman]

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

Dave my english is quite good and I tell you that no where in the rules does it say that 1000cc is the limit for the class nor how many engines I can use.

It does state that each engine can be 1000cc.

Even though this may be pedantic about the 1000cc limit, it certainly does not say that I cant run 4 x Yamaha YZ250 motors etc. (= 1000cc and producing 220hp total), in fact 'E' states quite clearly "engines" (plural).

The Australian Drysdale 1000cc V8 is a limited production motorcycle, can someone use this motor?
http://home.mira.net/~iwd/index.html

[Mark Beckman]

and another thing, maybe 1000cc V-twins can be given a 900lb limit and the Triumph triple 950lbs? They wont beat the i4's but makes things more interesting and these motors are in good supply.

Or just run a reconised class for twins within the class.