F1000 Rules and legal materials

[Brandon Dixon]

Since legal materials for F1000 cars is a hot topic right now , I have a couple of issues that I'd like to bring up.



#1: In the chassis construction section, H.1.B.5 reads:

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

My interpretation of this rule is that any non frame or non stress bearing to the frame "bracket" can be made out of titanium or any other exotic (non ferrous) material. This means that a "spar" type of structure (like Stohr, Piper, Citation, etc) aft of the engine containing the diff and suspension pickups etc could be made from titanium.

In the FF/FC rules there is usually a blanket statement like "Titanium is prohibited". I understand that we can't use that statement, since the stock engines contain some titanium and many of the covers are magnesium, and if the 2010 Suzuki has got a titanium valve cover or shift lever or whatever then I want to be able to use it! But do we want to allow such exotic construction possibilities? Should we ask for an exclusion of titanium (and maybe other exotics) except for stock MC parts?




#2 In the suspension section, H.1.I.1 reads:

1. All suspension components shall be of steel or ferrous material, except that hubs, hub adapters, hub carriers, bell cranks, pivot blocks, bearings and bushings, spring caps, abutment nuts, anti-roll bar links, shock absorber caps, and nuts may be aluminum alloy.

Here the restriction is to strictly ferrous or aluminum alloy. How many FC cars were made with magnesium "uprights" (hub carriers above). As far as i know the rules have always allowed magnesium in those components in FC. Are we ruling some of the conversion cars illegal? Do we want to differ from the FC rules here?


I've been thinking about writing the comp board about these two issues, but I'm interested in what other people think. (especially the rules committee...)
What does the community think?


Brandon Dixon
Citation F1000 (coming soon)

[John Mosteller]

Brandon,
In Formula 2000 magnesium uprights have not been legal after 1983.At the beginning of the Formula 2000 rules it says"All newly constructed cars shall meet the 1986 construction rules for Formula Ford cars".In the Formula Ford section the 1986 construction rules state in section D.8

" D.8 All suspension components shall be of steel or ferrous material,with the exception of hubs,hub adapters,hub carriers,bell cranks,pivot blocks,bearings and bushings. Front and rear hub carriers shall be only steel or aluminum alloy for cars manufactured after January 1,1983."

John

[Billy Wight]

#1: In the chassis construction section, H.1.B.5 reads:

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

Am I missing something? The way I read it, they are saying that those brackets can be non-ferrous or ferrous material. This means they can be anything - titanium, carbon fiber, cheese, whatever you want. A carbon fiber Stohr style spar sounds mighty expensive and could offer a substantial performance advantage as far as torsional stiffness and weight savings.

[John Mosteller]

It is hard to predict how a carbon spar would be interpeted by the stewards because composite construction in a structural application is prohibited in C.1.So with there being no frame from the engine back with a spar would they rule it is a bracket or would they rule it is a structural piece especially with the class design goal being low cost.

John

[R. Pare]

Ar some point during the rules discussion, I had proposed that a rule be added to prevent carbon or Ti being used for bracketry or suspension components (and the spar is pretty much agreed to be a bracket), but it got overshadowed by other issues at the time. I'd suggest that it get added in now before someone decides to utilize that as a loophole.


Placing the rule correctly will have a definite bearing on what it pertains to - ie - if the wording is just simply "Titanium, Carbon Fiber and composites are prohibited", and it is placed in the suspension section, then it has no bearing on the chassis componentry.

The question arrises as to whether or not the rules already prohibit carbon and composits.

H.1. Chassis. B.1 already states that carbon is not permitted unless specificly allowed.

H.1. Chassis.B.5 Only states that the components indicated may be non-ferrous, but does not specificly allow carbon.

The question then is whether or not "non-ferrous" automatically satisfies the "specificly stated" caveat of the parent rule.

My thoughts are that unless you actually spell out 'carbon', Titanium', etc, as allowed, then stating "non-ferrous is allowed" is too vague to satisfy the "specificly allowed" mandate.

[R. Pare]

John:

D.7 in the FF rules does not pertain to FC, but only to FF. The only FF rules that are required for FC to follow are D.6. through D.7.h, except where the FC rules may state otherwise.

FC rule B.1.e Suspension is the rules that covers FC suspension material. Magnesium is legal for FC uprights.