New Stohr F1000

[carnut169]

[Rick Iverson]

Superb!

[Lee Stohr]

This is our PRI Show car coming together in Portland. We will post more photos soon. After the Show the car will be shaken down and delivery of the first 12 cars will begin soon after.
Also at PRI, Steve Shelton Sr's Stohr WF1 will be on display at the SCCA booth, next to a World Challenge Viper.

[oh2winindy]

Beautiful craftsmanship!!!!!!!!!!

[Wright D]

What is your overall torsional rigidity, what was your target goal for torsional rigidity, and how do these numbers compare to your suspension springs and anti-roll bar rates?

How did you ultimately test your chassis; analytically, experimentally, or both? What loading criteria did you use?

Inquiring minds......

[Lee Stohr]

Engineers are taught how to analyze chassis for torsional rigidity, and they spend hours on the computer changing tubes in a frame, trying to find the lightest and stiffest structure. I did the same when I was younger. Obviously I don't want to give away numbers here. I will say that I've learned there is more to chassis design than torsional stiffness. Our DSR for instance, is not especially stiff torsionally. But John Hill says it is one of the sweetest handling cars he has ever owned. He compares it to a Crossle Formula Ford, one of the best handling FF's of all time. John says his Stohr WF1 feels like it has no vices, he can get into all kinds of impossible situations and it recovers. Finding that handling sweet spot has little to do with torsional rigidity. I'll just leave it there

[Wright D]

Fair enough, just curios.

Since I am still a young engineer the chassis that I have worked on have a hub to hub torsinal stiffness goal of least 10 times the wheel rate. For highly sensitive aero cars, I have shot for 15 times the wheel rate.

You are very right, torsinal stiffness dose play only a partial roll in the overall handling of a car. Many other aspects of the car, from suspension and aero, to driver and maintenance all play some roll as well.

[carnut169]

Lee sent in a fresh batch this am...

[Dave Belz]

How and where do you mount the PIR, Waterford, "elsewhere" (?) muffler?

Dave

[willpelton]

I had the opportunity to sit in this car at PRI in orlando. I have to admit to knowing little about the formula classes that exist and the sanctioning that goes with them. I have spent many hours online referencing everything that is F1000. I have spoken to the guys in Marrieta since we all made it home from orlando about purchasing a car. We have discussed prices and delivery times. I'm told it's going to take $35,500 to get a roller and it may be March before it is available. I would like to see the car run before I order one and put the 50% downpayment on the line. Does Stohr cars have a car that you are running on the track close to your shop in Oregon? If yes can you schedule a track day that interested parties may attend? I thought it interesting that the issue of torsional rigidity in the chassis came up on this forum. I heard that at the PRI show also. I am gathering that there are two schools of though on this type of car. The Stohr school allows chassis flex and the West for example believes in a rigid chassis. Have I grasp the concept loosley at all? Another question, does the Stohr F1000 use the engine as a stress member? Thanks for your reply Mr. Stohr I'm thinking this may be the first of many communications between us.

[HazelNut]

I had the opportunity to sit in this car at PRI in orlando. I have to admit to knowing little about the formula classes that exist and the sanctioning that goes with them. I have spent many hours online referencing everything that is F1000. I have spoken to the guys in Marrieta since we all made it home from orlando about purchasing a car. We have discussed prices and delivery times. I'm told it's going to take $35,500 to get a roller and it may be March before it is available. I would like to see the car run before I order one and put the 50% downpayment on the line. Does Stohr cars have a car that you are running on the track close to your shop in Oregon? If yes can you schedule a track day that interested parties may attend? I thought it interesting that the issue of torsional rigidity in the chassis came up on this forum. I heard that at the PRI show also. I am gathering that there are two schools of though on this type of car. The Stohr school allows chassis flex and the West for example believes in a rigid chassis. Have I grasp the concept loosley at all? Another question, does the Stohr F1000 use the engine as a stress member? Thanks for your reply Mr. Stohr I'm thinking this may be the first of many communications between us.

correct me if i'm wrong but I believe the west WSR is the origonal stohr DSR that lee designed. West was his company (with an investor group), bit he left after difference with eth finance team. He is still producing the DSR car under his own name and has updated it, whereas the west is the origonal design from a few years back. As such I'd say teh design philosophy argument is more sales pitch than anything else.

[billwald]

10tenth's Paddock at the Sebring Winter National will have one on hand for those interested. Hopefully, you'll see one lighting up Sebring and the southeast shortly thereafter.

Come by and see it. Bill & Craig will be on hand to answer any questions.

[willpelton]

Hazelnut, I beleive you are quite correct in your thought on West and Mr. Stohr. I'm looking forward to Mr. Stohrs response to this. The Stohr F1000 is an outstanding example of a race car in my humble opinion. Mr. Billwald, I am happy to hear that 10tenths (aka stohrcarsnorthamerica) will be at sebring, when last I spoke to Bill he had not confirmed their attendence as yet. I look forward to owning an F1000 and hope everything works out. Many of the hours I refer to in my original post have been spent right here on ApexSpeed. I have read everyone of some of you guys post! LOL I look forward to interacting with everyone on here. Again I am awaiting Lee Stohrs replies to our post here. Happy New year

[Lee Stohr]

Will (?) - thank you for the thoughtful questions. Stohr Cars North America will be testing the new car in January in the SE. Our beautiful Oregon winters don't allow much testing at this end

Regarding torsional rigidity - if someone wants to claim their chassis is stiffer than ours, I would not argue much about that. Whatever the chassis stiffness of the Stohr WF1, it is the National Champion DSR in 2005 and 2006. It holds the track record at Gateway, Grattan, Road America, Topeka, MidOhio, Pocono, Virginia, Phoenix, Thunderhill, Savanah, Pueblo, Infiniti. My point is that torsional rigidity of the chassis is just one of many issues a designer has to get right. Race car design is a compromise. You trade off one thing to get something else. We could build a chassis twice as stiff, but the weight and aerodynamics would suffer greatly. So we make our own decisions, and our competitors make thiers. We feel the team that made the WF1 so successful can do it again in F1000, especially with the terrific support added by Craig and Bill Vogeley at Stohr Cars North America.

[willpelton]

only 12 tracks Mr. Stohr? hmmm, just kidding, that is an outstanding lineage for your cars my compliments. I have tried not to make my purchase desision of your F1000 an unemotional one but I have to say that I kept wandering back to the booth at PRI to look at your car. Next show try to have a showgirl there so I can blame it on her good looks. Will you be at Sebring in January? I would like to suggest you move your shop and employees to Panama City Florida in 2007. It was about 73 degrees here today. Just a thought? I think this forum is great, the fact that so many car builders and company owners are on here everyday is an invaluable resource. I'll try and scoot down to Sebring in a few weeks and see Craig and Bill. I look forward to meeting you Mr. Stohr, one of these days.

[Jeff Read]

I sat in the Stohr F1000 at the RunOffs, And I will tell you that the Cockpit is very "roomy"(great word). I am 6'3" 220lbs and I fit really well. Here are a couple of pics for you Big guys.

JR

[Purple Frog]

Just got home from the SEDIV Annual Convention. I attended every tech session i could. There was one interesting discussion about the new Stohr. So I went back to these pictures to verify what they were talking about. See pictures in first post.

The discussion was that the front roll hoop may not be tall enough to be safe. Notice the steering wheel that is 'sawed off' on top like many formula cars. The discussion was that if the wheel were turned 90 degrees then the drivers hands would be higher than the front hoop.

Obviously no decisions were made as it was only a discussion. Terry Ozmet was going to mention it to Jeremy when she got back to Topeka.

[VehDyn]

Not being totally familiar with all the different cars out there, but is that so different from others? I downloaded some pictures from a FC that was for sale a while back and it has a full steering wheel that appears to be above the hoop or at least even. You can actaully see the wheel from a front quarter picture. I also have a shot or two from the new Swift 016 which has the top of the wheel just below the top of the body. I dont know how different that is from the 014s though.

Is there a specific rule that specifies this aspect of the design?

Thanks.

[RussMcB]

My guess: The gist of that discusission wasn't about if it was legal or not, but rather if it was safe in some people's opinion.

That's a pure guess on my part.

I don't remember ever hearing about a rule that requires a steering wheel to be below that plane. Just the helmet.

But maybe there's more to it than that. Otherwise, why would there be discussions amoungst SCCA Tech HQ? Hmm...

My hunch is that we should be careful not to say damaging things about the car without knowing more. For instance, I shouldn't have posted this message. Please ignore my remarks. Oh, wait. Everybody does that already. :-).

[Matt Conrad]

There is something in the GCR relating to the front roll hoop. I don't have my new 2007 copy right here in front of me but I'm sure somebody else can find the passage. From memory it gives two design options and does say something about the position of the steering wheel in relation to the hoop.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[Dave Gomberg]

9.4.5.B. Front Hoop
Low front hoops must be no lower than the top of the steering wheel.

(This is in the section for Formula and Sports Racer cages.)

This rule has been in place a long time. Note there is no requirement that the driver's hands must be below the front hoop (with the steering wheel in any particular position). Not having immediate access to a Stohr F1000, I have no idea if its steering wheel meets the rule above.

Dave

[Matt Conrad]

I knew somebody would find it....thanks Dave.

Another consideration when the roll hoops are that low is the "broomstick test". The rules state that....

"A straight line drawn from the top of the main hoop to the top of the front hoop shall pass over the driver's helmet."

Obviously the lower either hoop is, the lower the broomstick is.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[10/TENTHS]

A very valid safety concern for any open cockpit car for sure! I have access to a Stohr F1000 and the front roll hoop is taller than the top of the MOMO steering wheel which comes with the car.

Craig Vogeley
Stohr Cars North America

[zhemel]

So its going to take around 40k to get started?

[formulasuper]

I knew somebody would find it....thanks Dave.

Another consideration when the roll hoops are that low is the "broomstick test". The rules state that....

"A straight line drawn from the top of the main hoop to the top of the front hoop shall pass over the driver's helmet."

Obviously the lower either hoop is, the lower the broomstick is.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

misread

[Matt Conrad]

I could be wrong.....but I don't think the 2" rule applies to Formula Cars and Sports Racers as the rule I quoted above is from that section of the GCR.

I believe the diagram you refer to is for GT cars and 2-Seater SR's....again I could be mistaken.

I've seen tech use a 1" rule and they did it while the cars were in grid so no BS of removing seats and the like was allowed. I was seated in my car and buckled in so I never saw if they kept anyone from racing or not....but they checked me.....and thankfully I'm so vertically challenged that the rule will never apply.

....which brings up an interesting thought....particularly on cars where there's a large air intake on top which is 6"-8" above the roll hoop...how will they ever tell?

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.

[formulasuper]

Matt, you are correct. For Formula cars it says your helmet must be a min. of 2" below the top of the roll bar & clear the broomstick test. When I saw them being checked at Rd Atl they made us remove the roll bar cover.

[malibu80]

i know that the original post was some time ago, but it took me this long to find my photos. just some shots of the car that went to pri as it was being prepared, the muffler is clearly visible in these ones.




d.felch

[peat]

i know that the original post was some time ago, but it took me this long to find my photos. just some shots of the car that went to pri as it was being prepared, the muffler is clearly visible in these ones.




d.felch

I like the muffler very much, I would like to know if it is possible to buy one of those and to use it with a hayabusa exhaust manifold. Anybody knows something about that?

[VehDyn]

I believe these are just mufflers produced by Coast Fabrication. They have a selection of their website that may fit your needs.

http://www.coastfab.com/mufflers.html

[formulasuper]

I like the muffler very much, I would like to know if it is possible to buy one of those and to use it with a hayabusa exhaust manifold. Anybody knows something about that?

Peat, I run the same Coast Muffler on my Busa powered Ralt with my custom fabbed 4 into 1 header & it works great.

[peat]

I believe these are just mufflers produced by Coast Fabrication. They have a selection of their website that may fit your needs.

http://www.coastfab.com/mufflers.html

Peat, I run the same Coast Muffler on my Busa powered Ralt with my custom fabbed 4 into 1 header & it works great.

Thank you guys, I like to much that one, it looks like the one of a F1 car.

[stephen wilson]

From the pics in post #1, what are the panels low on the nose ( held on w/ button head screws ) made of? Fairly thick AL to protect from suspension intrusion?

[nulrich]

Aren't those panels illegal? The fasteners look like they are closer than 6" center to center.

Not that I have a problem with them, especially if they are a safety measure, but I thought the rules considered those "stressed skin."

Nathan

[Northwind]

Maybe those pannels are considered part of the floor pan. That make the rules a bit more gray. Floor panels may have fasteners closer then 6" spacing and can be bonded.

[nulrich]

Yeah, I forgot that there's no requirement in FB that the floor pan have less than a 1" deviation (unlike FF/FC, where those panels would be illegal even if they were part of the "floor pan").

I'm surprised no one has really taken advantage of that yet!

Nathan

[Rick Kean]

This is my first post, after lurking about for a while. I hope I'm not reacting to a facetious post, but Nathan's comment made me doubt my memory. I checked an April 2010 GCR:

FB Spec Prep Rules for Bodywork and Airfoils, 9.1.1.H.3.

D. The entrant shall designate a flat rectangular reference area with
minimum dimensions of 30cm by 30cm. This reference area is
located on the lower surface of the car (the surface licked by the
air stream) between the rear of the front tire and the front of the
rear tire. The center of the reference area must be no more than
75mm from the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.
Between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire, no
point on the lower surface of the car (the surface licked by the air
stream) shall be more than 25mm above the plane determined by
the reference area designated by the entrant and on a line perpendicular
to that reference plane. No point on the lower surface of the
car may be below the plane determined by the reference surface on
a line perpendicular to that reference plane, except as specifically
permitted herein.

This looks to me like FB lower surface bodywork is restricted to < 1" deviation above a reference plane.

The GCR makes no mention of stress-bearing floorpans in regard to this lower bodywork deviation spec. The assumption can be made that the stress bearing panel floorpan and the lower surface bodywork are one and the same item, but that is not a design requirement.

I am curious to know whether the Stohr F1000's panel that Nathan comments about is exposed to the airstream, or covered by bodywork.

On the other hand, maybe the panel in question is considered to fall under 9.1.1.H.2.E:

Brackets for mounting components, such as the engine, transmission,suspension pickups, instruments, clutch and brake components,and body panels may be ferrous, aluminum alloy, or magnesium alloy, of any shape, and fastened to the frame in any manner.

Now that's one pretty wide open spec...

Rick Kean

[R. Pare]

The reference area vertical alloweance only pertains to that specific area (undersides licked by the airstream), and the Stohr addresses (I presume) that requirement with the splitter. The floorpan itself has no such restriction in FB.