F1000 Final Spec - Rev 1

[Mike Devins]

[SIZE=1]"The driver/passenger volume within a car in which driver control[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]

devices, gauges, and seating are provided."

This is from the glossary in the GCR - I do not see a differentiation between frame tubes and body work.

I vote for the 14.5 including glass and tubing. My RF92 is 15.25" (38.75mm).

[/SIZE][/FONT]

[Mike Devins]

I know I saw this discussed ealier but what is the thinking behind all pistons in the calipers being the same size?

[R. Pare]

There was quite a debate about forming the brake rule to keep out the ultra-expensive calipers, both on the fact of their expense, and the increased performance over much less expensive alternatives. Most top-end calipers are differential bore, so this is an attempt to keep them out without the rule getting too silly in its wording.

[Dave Gomberg]

Independent of how the cockpit opening rules got to where they are now, suddenly changing them to an arbitrary chassis opening dimension is not something the advisory committee or the CRB should entertain. Perhaps such a change could be considered after sufficient data was gathered to insure a substantial number of existing cars don't become illegal. If it turned out that there were one or two chassis that needed to be specifically exempted, that could be done. Exempting everything homologated before some arbitrary date is not a good solution for those wishing to convert an existing chassis for use in another class.

Dave

[John Mosteller]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LJennings
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

Dave,
Could you clarify your above statement.If you mean that all chassis tubes between the main and front roll hoops have to be 1" x .080 that will probably render almost all if not all FF/FC conversions illegal. By the GCR the forward main hoop braces that have to attach within 6" of the top have to be 1" x .080 and if they don't go all the way down to the lower frame rails then a 1" x .080 has to go from the point of attachment at the upper frame rail to the lower frame rail to keep the upper rail from collapsing. Also 1" x .080 is required from the front roll hoop to the front bulkhead to protect the drivers feet etc. But there has never been a requirement for all vertical and diagonal chassis tubes to be out of 1" x .080 in FF or FC.

Thanks,
John

[Matt Conrad]

To me it seems a bit strange that this cockpit opening rule is only limited by the bodywork and not by the chassis...especially when I think the intent of the rule was to make sure the cockpit opening was large enough for drivers to exit the car in an emergency...and chassis tubes don't move at all...and bodywork might....but it appears as if the only requirement is that the bodywork meets the requirement....so we move forward.

Our F1K car easily meets the bodywork requirement and the chassis opening (actual chassis tubes) is much wider than many typical formula cars....as little as 14.5".....as ours is 17".

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.

[Dave Gomberg]

Dave,
Could you clarify your above statement.... But there has never been a requirement for all vertical and diagonal chassis tubes to be out of 1" x .080 in FF or FC.

Thanks,
John

John:

First, the wording in the F1000 spec is copied almost exactly from the FF 1986 construction rules (D.6.c). My statement is simply my reading of that section. Whether or not anyone builds to that rule (as I read it), I can't tell you. I suppose that one could argue that smaller diameter (or cross-section), but thicker walled tubing could be equivalent to the roll hoop bracing material.

Dave

[RobLav]

Dave,

I don't agree with you here. Richard, John, Dave, Russ, and Matt all have it right.

A specification for minimum chassis width will not be arbritrary. And many of us have said that we don't understand the logic and history of the rules and how they have morphed over the MANY years. Let's fix this now.

Rob

[Dave Gomberg]

Dave,

I don't agree with you here. Richard, John, Dave, Russ, and Matt all have it right.

A specification for minimum chassis width will not be arbritrary. And many of us have said that we don't understand the logic and history of the rules and how they have morphed over the MANY years. Let's fix this now.

Rob

To fix it, a specific dimension must be chosen. Without knowing what the dimensions of existing cars (FF/FC) are, we risk making them illegal in F1000. Until we have that information, a change to the spec would be arbitrary.

I didn't say we shouldn't fix it. I said we need to understand the parameters of the problem. What's more, if we do change the F1000 spec, we should change it for (at least) FF and FC at the same time.

Dave

[Lee Stohr]

I think the cockpit opening dimensions came from FIA rules, the dimensions have been standard in Europe for many years. I think most SCCA safety rules originally came from FIA.

[Art Smith]

it's my opinion given the process to date has been riduled with
arbitrary, unilateral, and caprious dicisions, posts expressing concern
about making arbitary decisions are humorous at best! until this recent
post I was prepared to accept the possibility of amateur decision maker(s)
without a complete understanding of writing objectively verifiable rules,
the ability to recognize constructive comments with merit, the confidence
to ask questions when they don't understand, or the maturity to accept
inputs from those who have been openly critical of their previous drafts;
no more! the linkage of FC and FF with an ineptly written F-1000 draft
rule(s) is the straw that breaks the camel' back.

the solution has been and continues to be obvious even to a casual
observer if fixing a poorly drafted F-1000 rule is the only objective! specify
the opening is to be in the bodywork just like FF / FC AND as suggested in
posts at this board and to the CRB (see post #12 this thread for input and
reference). how can anyone with a straight face express concern about
the compliance to F-1000 rules of non-compliant FC's and FF's................?
non-compliant is non-compliant; it's a safety motivated rule!!

continued avoidance of the obvious by the keeper(s) of the draft in my
mind underscores the need for more agressive concern. what is the
objective??


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Lee Stohr]

I think the FIA F3 rules require a template of the dimensions we discussed above, to be inserted down only 25mm into the cockpit(bodywork) opening. So that would not really include the frame. or carbon tub in their case.

[M.L.Sauce]

The cockpit opening rule is superfulous with the intended meaning of the rule.I was thrown out of qualifying at the 04 Runoffs because my bodywork opening did not meet the rule.It is a safety rule and when the cockpit side bars are narrower than the dimension allowed it becomes a safety concern when having to extricate a driver from the car.This rule should have been updated to actually be effective for the original intent.I am the poster child for how big the cockpit opening needs to be.The bars should be the opening dimemsion because they are the only thing that is not easy to remove should you need to get a driver out of a car.The GCR has many ridiculous rules like this one that do not match the intent.
I blamed myself for not paying close enough attention to my bodywork construction.It is a safety concern only.

[RobLav]

Thanks Mike for providing some sense to this.

[RobLav]

The cockpit rule should specify not only a minimum inner dimension width (at the minimum obstruction - body OR chassis - recommend 14.5" as a start), but that the height of the upper frame rail should be above the driver's shoulder in normal seated position.

[John Mosteller]

IMO now would be the time to update the cockpit rules by specifing that in all 2007 and newer FF/FC/F1000 cars the frame/chassis is no longer exempt from the dimensions in the chart and grandfather the previous cars as they were built under the previous rule.

[S Lathrop]

The cockpit opening rule goes back to the early 70's. The first 2 FF I owned did not meet the rules. The Titan Mk 6 A and B had narrow cockpit openings but the Mk 6 C of 1972 or 73 had the wider cockpit, as did all the cars after that year. The frames were low and the roll bars were braced to the rear. In 1974. the Zink Z10 had the deepest frame with the upper rails 15 inches above the bottom rails at the firewall. The roll bar was still braced to the rear. The cockpit opening waas just inside the fiberglass. In the late '70s SCCA required that the roll bars be braced to the front. We met the rules in the Z16 (1978) by running the braces down the drivers back. The upper frame rails were lower that the Z10 and the cockpit opening was below the top of the drivers shoulders.

The roll bar braces were always a problem. For aerodynamic performance you wanted the narrowest car you could get. Because the runoffs were held at Atlanta with its long streight and high speeds, a lot of compromises were made for aerodynamics. Further more, the roll bar rules made driver comfort and safery difficult to accomplish and still have tha smallest car possible. The British adopted a minimum height and width for the firewall which was not required by SCCA. By 1984 both Bruns and I came up with the roll bar arrangement found on all tube frame Swifts and Citations from 1984 to 1994. What you are referring to as upper frame rails started as modifications of the forward roll bar braces. We ran short braces from the roll bar to a point above the drivers shoulders. This point was supported with 3 additional braces one of which ran over the drivers shoulder and to the base of the bash hoop. The rules allowed this brace system to intrude into the cockpit opening because it was clearly safer than what came before and did not put new cars at a disadvantage to old cars.

The over the shoulder bracing gave us a frame that was 50% stiffer than its predicesssor. The next step was to add a brace from the junction above the drivers shoulder to the dash. That little addition doubled the stiffness of the frames. Again safety and car performance improved. Even today, the body work is against the drivers shoulders. In my new design, cockpit opening has a continuous piece of 1.125 x .080 wall 4130 tubing just inside the opening. The frame fixture locates the tube so that the outer edge is equal to the minimum for the cockpit opening. In this case the frame assures compliance with the rules.

While I have fixtured the frame to be right at the cockpit minimum opening, the structure shrinks in welding. We then use wood to shim the body out. Our cockpit opening inside the frame is 2.5 inches less than the body minimum. If you allow converted cars to run in F1000, then you should leave the rules as they are. The picture of the Swift earlier in this post should illustrate the problem. The car is clearly safer with the upper rails even though the cockpit opening is smaller. You should encourage designers to move the frame rails up and outward as far as possible.

When the minimum cockpit opening rules were written, no one had frame rails any where near the top of the body.

The over riding considerations was not to force new cars to be at a competitive disavantage to existing cars and at the same time incouraging improved safety.

The cars and the rules have arrived at this point in a logical and rational manner if you know the history. It is when rules makers and interperters do not understand how we got here that we get in to trouble.

[RobLav]

Steve and John's post both add justification for my case - to fix the rules to represent modern and rational thinking.

- The reason for the minimum cockpit opening is for safety purposes
- The driver should be able to escape (or be pulled out) relatively easily in an emergency
- The exiting obstructions in modern tube frame formula cars are the upper frame rails
- Let's call them upper frame rails and not rear roll hoop braces
- The minimum cockpit opening width should be measured at the most constricting element of the car - either bodywork or chassis.
- Again, as a start, 14.5" is a start. Someone measure an early narrow cockpit Van Diemen RF97 and see if that number works. I'd be interested to know the Citation's measurement.
- While we are at it, recommend designate that those upper frame rails must be up to the lower portion of the driver's helmet. We already specify .063" aluminum or Kevlar there. It seems silly that I could design a car with just aluminum or kevlar ABOVE an upper frame rail that is only halfway up the driver's body.
- Our cars have significantly evolved over the past 35 years or so. The rules should have too, especially the safety ones.

[Mark Beckman]

Steve and John's post both add justification for my case - to fix the rules to represent modern and rational thinking.

- The reason for the minimum cockpit opening is for safety purposes
- The driver should be able to escape (or be pulled out) relatively easily in an emergency

- Our cars have significantly evolved over the past 35 years or so. The rules should have too, especially the safety ones.

Simple, a box, 14.5" x 12" x say 10" deep should be able to be inserted out of view into the cockpit. Its not the end of the world to change some tubing and bodywork to for older cars to suit. Maybe older cars could be given a years grace to see if competitors want to stay in the class and justify the mods.

Great news about 1000pound rule, this will encourage cheaper home builts filling the fields in the future.

[RussMcB]

Good idea:

Simple, a box, 14.5" x 12" x say 10" deep should be able to be inserted out of view into the cockpit.

Bad idea:

Its not the end of the world to change some tubing and bodywork to for older cars to suit. Maybe older cars could be given a years grace to see if competitors want to stay in the class and justify the mods.

[S Lathrop]

New cars should be able to pass a rectangle 15 wide by 9 long through the upper opening of the cockpit. The 10 inch down needs more thought. Things like the slope of the seat back, shoulder harnes mounts, and safety padding might conflict with the opening rule. These dimensions allow a roll bar sized tube inside the body opening.

The depth of the cockpit, height of the sides, is very similar for most cars. At the front of the cowel, 24 inches seems to be about right. The sides are comfortable at about 1 to 2 inches lower beside the drivers head. This is for visability.

The idea of having competitors change the frames to meet a rules change is very bad. With very few exceptions, few people are qualified to make modifications to a frame safely.

As an example, in my frames, the tubes going over the drivers shoulders are some of the most highly stressed tubes in the frame when the car is cornering. Ask Swift owners about frame cracks in the area of the gear shift. With the full cockpit surround that load is better distributed. The point is that only the original designer or someone equally knowledgeable should be modifying a frame in such a critical area.

[carnut169]

How about the rule reflecting the size of the driver? IE- Driver must be able to exit vehicle within 5seconds (or whatever).

A 250lb guy is going to need a larger opening than a 150lb guy (or gal).


Before you dismiss it, the weight rules consider driver sizes...

[Ted and Nancy]

Size and age. Paul Newman just won a regional race at AGE 81, my driver is 60+ should they be excluded?

[R. Pare]

I think they should exclude the 60+ year old women just because they keep embarassing the 20 year old guys!

[jtspitler]

How final are the rules?
How are cars being built and designed if the rules are not finalized, unless I missing something!

Thankyou
J. Spitler

[Dave Gomberg]

How final are the rules?
How are cars being built and designed if the rules are not finalized, unless I missing something!

Thankyou
J. Spitler

The rules as posted at the top of this thread, plus the modifications discussed in post #3 above, plus a clarification that the cockpit opening refers to the bodywork constitute the "Final" spec for F1000. That is, those are the rules that will be published in the 2007 GCR. (The deadline for changes to the GCR has passed.)

The reason I put Final in quotes in the previous paragraph is that the CRB may issue amendments at any time through Tech Bulletins. If, for example, a change is made to the cockpit opening rules, those would be published in a TB.

Dave

[Lee Stohr]

Anyone notice that German FF1600 is going to a carbon tub Dallara next year ?

[Mark Beckman]

Anyone notice that German FF1600 is going to a carbon tub Dallara next year ?

Good move I believe starter classes should be as expensive as possible to lessen the shock when they move into the upper classes. It also encourages a better class of people to only be involved in motor racing. Hmm I'm ravished, maybe I'll fly to Monaco for lunch.

[ianashdown]

Lee, Is that a fact or are you just twisting the knife?

Ian

[LJennings]

If you can read German you can find the press release here: http://www.dmsb.de/ or find an Autosport from two or three weeks ago.

The suprising detail is that it is Ford supported and will be running a Duratec engine.

[Matt Conrad]

Understand that many of these Pro series' are subsidized and for some reason many Dallara carbon tubs are finding their way into these series (i.e. new FF2000 pro series, German FF1600, etc). My understanding (RUMOR ALERT) is that Dallara had an "overrun" of tubs (maybe a large cancelled order?...I don't know) and many of these tubs were purchased in bulk at a discount. Note that the new FF2000 car is currently $67,000, but will go to $100,000 after the first 26 cars....kind of an odd number....I hear it is because they got 26 tubs at a much lower price....just what I've heard.

I get kind off sick of hearing this carbon tub deal....it is obvious to everyone that carbon tubs are very appealing for any formula car class, for many reasons. The problem is that F1000 was started as a way for older FC cars (not competitive with the new stuff) to remain in service without having to run 30 year old Pinto engines. The founders of the class imagined $20K budgets to convert a current car....and allowed purpose-built cars in the rules as well. To allow $100K carbon-tubbed F3 cars with motorcycle engines was not in the spirit of why the class was started.

Lee....If you want to build a $100K carbon-tubbed car for club racing, just do it.....it's called FA. I know you could find an engine builder that can build a motor for it....

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.

[Stan Clayton]

Okay...a reality reminder before the FUD gets too deep. As reported by me on these pages about 6 months ago, I spoke to Panoz about replacement bare carbon tub and tube frame chassis prices, and here are their RETAIL prices from that date:

FIA-homologated carbon tub (as used in Pro Mazda & the Elan CSR): $11,000
VD tube frame FF/FC chassis: $9500

One is labor-intensive while the other is material-intensive. Ya pays me now or ya pays me later.

Race cars get ridiculously expensive for lots of reasons, but the construction of their tub is not one of them, even at the club level.

Personally Matt, if I were in the market for one of your $42k-ish F-1000 cars, I wouldn't argue over the $1500 upgrade for a carbon tub. Just my 'druthers, but I value my tender pink hide that much.

Let it go...

Stan

[ianashdown]

Stan,

I think the prices you were quoted illustrate what I have been saying for years. Also keep in mind that these prices are retail; Elan doesn't do anything without expecting to make at least 30%-40% profit. If you build enough carbon chassis the price can be very competitive with a tube frame. If you then consider that you have a few less molds and body panels to make it looks even better! The safety margin is so much higher I can't understand how more drivers aren't pushing for greater acceptance of composite chassis. From a manufacturers point of view carbon manufacturing does require a fairly healthy investment in equipment, but so does setting up a machine and fabrication shop. Of course if you want to build race cars you'll need both! I understand it's difficult, not impossible, for a home builder to design and build a composite chassis, which is why for years I've had this concept for a generic composite chassis that could be made with the possibility to have a variety of pick-up points etc. So the home builder could have a well designed and constructed chassis, and build the rest of the car himself. You'd still have the varity and creativity, but with safety and higher perormance.

Just some thoughts. Unfortunately F1000 won't be going that way anytime soon.

Ian

[Matt Conrad]

Stan,

You know it's not me that keeps dredging it up.....

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc

[Stan Clayton]

Sorry for appearing to single you out, Matt...I should have written "Let it go, guys."

Ian, I agree completely with your post and am a big fan of carbon tubs (in 2003 my son walked away unharmed from a massive Kathryn Legge-style fence pounding at Mid Ohio in our carbon tubbed Atlantic). My overarching point is that carbon tubs are only marginally more expensive than tube frame chassis even on a single-purchase basis, but that their demonstrated superior safety makes them worth every penny of the extra cost.

I suspect Dallara made a big run of tubs and are taking advantage of the lower per-unit cost to sell them to anyone who wants one. Heck, Phil Creighton will sell you an no-name brand Italian built F3 tub, homologated to 2006 F3 specs, complete with FIA nose, steering, 40-liter fuel cell and extraction seat for (IIRC) about $15k, with your choice of hard point locations! The tub is suitable for FF/FC/F1k/FA/CSR/DSR. Sounds like exactly what you describe.

Stan

[ianashdown]

Damm! I knew it was a good idea!!!

That no-name is probably ATR. If so they are very good indeed. They built the original IRL Chassis for Dallara (they may still) and many others including a couple of F1 teams. With the exchange rates working against buying in Europe right now I'd say it can be done for less in the US, if there were the quantity demand. There appears to be such an anti carbon sentiment that I doubt it could ever happen.

I've seen huge shunts in everything from tube frame to sheet aluminium to alumininium honeycombe to composite chassis, and the eveidence is clear - no question at all. The hurdle has always been cost, and that has been high because the only people using carbon were F1, CART etc, high spec stuff, but bring the engineering level down a bit, not so many Hi Modulas materials and it all slots into place. It can be done, in fact it will be done very soon I suspect.

Who knows maybe someone will build it - and they will come!!!

Ian

[A36Pilot]

I am purchasing an F1000 from Lee Stohr and I want a carbon tub! I will pay extra, if necessary, if it means saving all or part of my body. I agree with Stan Clayton - after watching Legge crash and then walk away just reinforces my belief.

Does anyone know to whom I can submit my opinion (i.e. CRB)? Would there be any chance of having this particular rule changed at this late stage?

I can sympathize with those people concerned about cost. But if the carbon tub is at the same or slightly higher price, I do not see how anyone can accept a tube frame.

Or am I totally out to lunch? Will F1000 speeds be so low that bodily injuries or death could not happen?



William Gow

[A36Pilot]

Forgot to add this:

Can the carbon tub not be an optional item? That is, those who don't want it, need not purchase/build one. Or does the carbon tub result in a competitve advantage and that is one of the reasons that some drivers are against it?



William Gow

[Stan Clayton]

William, so many folks objected to carbon tubs in F1000 that they were not included in the class rules, but this is a primary reason that we required stock engines. Stan

[ianashdown]

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