Dave;
I was referring to the sides.
I believe that the rule refers to Front and Rear only.
The radiator reference is to front radiators being sufficient to meet the rule.
Dave;
I was referring to the sides.
I believe that the rule refers to Front and Rear only.
The radiator reference is to front radiators being sufficient to meet the rule.
Protecting the driver against cockpit intrusion is an important element of driver safety. Unless I'm misunderstanding the rules, there is nothing preventing additional layers of Kevlar in the side bodywork (even up to 1/8" thick). Attaching the bodywork at 6" centers is adequate. In my opinion, there is no reason to change this rule and closer centers will allow more of a monocoque structure.
We are doing several things in this area to dramatically improve protection against cockpit intrusion. I believe our car will be as good as the IRL Dallara chassis for intrusion protection, but won't know until we test it.
Unfortunately, without a mandated wider and taller sidepod, side crush protection is very limited in FC. There just isn't enough room in the 95 cm maximum width, we would need something more like 115 to 125 cm and a minimum height and length as well.
We've looked at various sidepod designs very carefully in CFD, and, all things being equal, aerodynamic performance is strongly dependent on cross-sectional area. Increasing the sidepod size will be detrimental to aerodynamic performance, especially at fast tracks.
I still think it's a good idea, but outdating all of the existing chassis isn't warranted for road courses in my opinion.
I should also clarify that SOME front impact structure is better than none, but the open-ended sheet aluminum boxes used in FC provide very minimal benefit. They absorb at least an order of magnitude less energy than an FIA-compliant crush structure, and they have almost no side knockoff resistance (as would be encounted during an oblique impact).
Nathan
Last edited by nulrich; 08.29.09 at 1:24 PM. Reason: typo
Irrespective of what someone may have told you, Dennis, any panel inside the frame tubes is, by definition, NOT an anti-intrusion panel. Take a look at D.6. and D.7. in the FF rules and you will see what I mean. Such panels are by consensus considered 'interior panels' and may be made of any material.Originally Posted by Dennis McCarthy
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Sorry, Steve. I misinterpreted what you wrote.
Dave
I would love racing on an oval any size less than 1.5 miles. I think it would be great for the series, a great chance for more drivers to be up front, and would attract tons of fans/exposure. I cant stand watching an IRL race on an oval for more than 10 laps. There is no racing; but Im sure we would be different. If the series could run on 2-3 ovals, and say 4-5 road courses with IRL, we could be more selective in our events. I don't think the majority of racers enjoys racing the same weekends as a Drivers school and NASA. Just my opinion but I believe Mike will make the right choice for all sides involved.
Matt,
I don't prefer to run with NASA either, but probably for considerably different reasons that you. What scares me is the quality of the flagging (at least on the practice days) - not the lack of exposure.
I think that the big factor here is one of money. Mike will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the high profile events cost a whole lot more money for the series to enter than the low profile ones. So the series may lose money at a high profile event, like Mosport last year, and make it back at venues like Mid-Ohio. They could just raise the entry fees by $500 or $1000, but they don't want to do that - what makes the series work is the diversity of the drivers, and the fact that there are some old guys running out there with you kids. And to some people, an extra $500 or $1000 each weekend in entry fees might be enough to make them stay home.
I also think that some lower profile events are good for the hardware - we just don't seem to have as good of "luck" in high profile events in terms of running the races without any incidents, yet we seem to be able to run many lower profile events with nary a yellow. I think that there must be a correlation between the number of people in the stands and the redness of the mist....
If we want some higher profile events, I personally would much rather go to Trois Rivieres or the Montreal circuit.
Just my $0.02!
Cheers,
Chris C.
I think Matt and Chris have viewpoints that accurately reflect the diversity of competitors in the F2000 series.
Matt, would you feel safe racing on an oval in your current Van Diemen? Even NHMS (a track I know) would see very high sustained speeds.
Though racing on ovals would be exciting for fans and drivers, it would inevitably increase the cost of the racing. Even if I was comfortable with the safety aspects, as a constructor, we would be likely to design a set of parts specifically for oval tracks (aero, driver protection, etc) so that would require an additional investment by competitors. And car damage from the inevitable "incidents" would tend to be more substantial and more expensive than that sustained on road racing circuits. It would not be unusual to damage a tube frame chassis beyond what could be repaired at the track.
Banking also introduces additional stresses on all of the parts of the car.
Hoosier might need a different tire, as well.
I'm not a fan of oval racing in general, and I'd prefer to see the F2000 series on road racing tracks, but we'll support whatever decision the series makes.
Nathan
Radon Sport LLC
I think you drivers are missing the point here and that is it is a PRO series. If you need added racecar strength so be it. Hopefully, the sanction body will address that issue but if you want to be a PRO here in America, you will need Oval experience, if you want to be just a little pregnant, then stay on the road courses. It is your choice, but to those that want a professional series, be thankful that you can get to be seen in a professional way. Good luck to Dan Andersen and Mike Foschi, they know what to do and how to do it. While it is a hard and costly stepping stone, I wish the best to all that want to become PRO drivers.
yours for the Sport, AJ
Clyde:
Mr. Rand stated our (F2000 Championship Series) position quite well at the beginging of the thread. He was very specific in stating that we feel the cars in their current spec are unsafe on ovals. If we were to change the specs to, say, add larger composite (CF!)sidepods then, 1) the car isn't FC legal anymore and 2) still may not be impact resistant enough for the larger ovals. I disagree that to be a PRO driver in America you have to run ovals- Grand AM and ALMS are clearly PRO series and they don't run ovals. Tub cars fit the bill much better, and unless we spec a completely redesigned chassis, we'll stand by our position.
I raced ovals 10-15 years ago in these cars and there were numerous serious injuries (including me). Its not the same world today and I'm not sure we as a society or our insurance companies are quite as accepting of those injuries.
I might also add that a great driver can learn ovals very quickly and can most likely wait for the next rung up the ladder. JP Montoya, Will Power, Dario Franchitti all come to mind, and then there's Anders Krone- our champion from last year who won his first race in Pro Mazda on an oval.
----------
In memory of Joe Stimola and Glenn Phillips
Bob Wright, Rand; No arguement here BUT if a driver wants to go PRO, in my opinion the sooner they learn Oval racing the better and if the chassis needs adjustments, then it must be done. Racing along with the IRL has to be something to remember. That is my view and the end of my comments. Thanks
yours for the Sport, AJ
We were with them July 4th at WGI. It was fun, but then it was also when we were at the same weekend as Grand AM and ALMS. Its sometimes also fun to be the headliner and get the best schedule and the most track time of the weekend....
----------
In memory of Joe Stimola and Glenn Phillips
Chris, Ask some of the guys who went to Trois Rivieres back in the 90's how much fun it was; this series needs to go back, especially since only a dozen Atlantic cars could be bothered this year. The show would be tremendous... !!
Montreal is great, but track time and schedule will always suck, and the cost of entry would make your eyes water....
I believe FBMW gets in only because of the obvious F1 connection, and F1600 got a highly subsidized one-off two years ago that's not likely to happen again soon.
Ian Macpherson
Savannah, GA
Race prep, support, and engineering.
I am not saying that these tube frame cars are as safe as they can be and are exactally oval ready but I do believe that as long as the U.S has 1 major open wheel series (IRL) and if they do ovals and road courses then so should every junior open wheel series. Otherwise the first time a driver gets on an oval will be in an Indy Lights car going 180-200MPH compared to a F2000 which will do 120-135MPH. Just my two cents from a driver that dreams of racing open wheel cars on ovals and road courses one day.
Last edited by JScarallo; 09.11.09 at 11:13 AM.
I don't know Jack Sh%t, but i did meet him once...
Two liter cars could be built that would be safer for ovals. The problem is that those cars would be at a disadvantage to current FC/SCCA/F2000 cars. Thus, the oval car would be a "spec" car for oval purposes only, or a series that specs that particular spec.
The beauty of the current two F200 pro series is that the cars easily cross-over to club rules and thus can be multi-purpose machines. (e.g. many F2000 pro cars will be running in this month's Runoffs.) The $64,000 question would be whether the current economy can support special purpose oval 2 liter cars.
I think it's more like the $128,000 question.
Actually, it could easily be an $8-10000 question.
All that needs to be done is to specify reinforcement panels and crush structures of certain parameters to be fastened to the frame for ovals only. Depending on the car design and the special parts specifications, it need not be all that costly.
It is too bad that the series is not going to exist - it would have been the biggest boost for amateur formula car racing that we've seen in 30 years.
Has Anderson given up trying to make this happen?
------------------
'Stay Hungry'
JK 1964-1996 #25
As far as I know, it is still happening. Look for an announcement officially toward the end of the month.
wonderful.
Awww, come on guys, it's so simple. Maybe you need a refresher course. Hey! It's all ball bearings nowadays.
Do they plan to run this with existing FC-spec cars? Are they going to try the new car route (it did work so well for Baytos).
Is the pool of drivers with the money really big enough to support all of these series?
I wouldn't want to do it in a car where I couldn't bring my knees to my chest.
Lots of personal opinions flying around here.It's unfortunate that people can't choose to put those emotions aside and not air dirty laundry on the forums.
There are currently TWO pro F2000 series in the U.S. at the moment. They co-exist. A third that doesn't do what the other two do should have no problem running as a support series for American oval racing. Let the racers choose where to go and what tracks to race on. If you don't like the people running any of the Pro series, take your entries elsewhere.
Enough of the badgering and rock-throwing because of past personal conflicts.
Is this so you can kiss something goodbye as the wall comes hurtling at you?
John
Exellent! I forgot that he was behind the push.
If people have the choice of running with the IRL, I thinks that you'll see guys coming out of the woodwork. The problem may lay in getting entries for the competing Pro series on dates where there is a conflict.
In that case, it will be the usual "survival of the fittest".
well said. Obviously there is still a large amount of support for the current F2000 Series, as is apparent on this forum, and the car counts will likely be strong again next year. Its a solid series that provides club racers and people looking for an entry level pro series a place to race with good track time at excellent tracks. That being said, most of the opinions expressed on this forum come from a certain demographic of the series that maybe doesn't represent everyone involved. I agree with Matt and JS in that i would welcome more events with IndyCar and if that meant a few ovals, it would probably be good experience looking towards the future. No doubt the F2000 Championship Series has a balancing act to do when it comes to appealing to both the club and master guys and the younger kids who are looking to move up. They do a good job with it but from my perspective there are things that would make the series more appealing to the younger talent.Lots of personal opinions flying around here.
There are currently TWO pro F2000 series in the U.S. at the moment. They co-exist. A third that doesn't do what the other two do should have no problem running as a support series for American oval racing. Let the racers choose where to go and what tracks to race on. If you don't like the people running any of the Pro series, take your entries elsewhere.
Enough of the badgering and rock-throwing because of past personal conflicts.
What would these things be... more high profile events, a slightly more professional atmosphere, more recognition and rewards. Things that would be accomplished with an association with Indy Car. Obviously all of these things would make entry fees more expensive and from the masters and club guys perspective, probably wouldn't be worth it and they will continue to support the current series.
The years when Dan ran the series were the years where the series had the highest car counts ever. Obviously he did something right. Hopefully this series happens and the drivers that would have looked at something like BMW in the past will find this to be the new stepping stone and realize how great the F2000 formula is. This would probably not even hurt the current series that bad and instead they could shift their focus even more so to the club and masters guys, who they seem to favor, and for good reason as they make up a large bulk of the series.
There is likely room for both of these series and if there isn't...too bad. It's a business like anything else and competition is what drives products to improve. The F2000 Championship Series has a strong product in place and with the association with USF1 they are even more solidly positioning themselves to be part of the open wheel ladder system. It's amazing to me how much complaining there is about something that doesn't even exist yet and that people have no idea what the details are. Maybe the series isn't for you but that doesn't mean it is a TRAVESTY! and the worst thing to ever happen!
Relatively affordable high profile series, proven management, filing a void, associated with IndyCar, taking a formula that everyone loves, increasing professionalism...doesn't sound like the worst thing ever.
Thanks to Mike, Bob, Al and Dan for putting their time, money and effort into racing series that probably wont make them rich and that they are likely doing for the love of the sport.
Chris
Chris,
Well said,accurate analysis. the issue is the difference between a race series that is "affordable" to different driver motivations and a full on "feeder series" that is a pass through to young guns to move up.
The problem right now is there is nowhere to move up to. The "investment" in a career above this level in open wheel in the USA is pointless.
The cost structure in all of racing has grown over the last 25 years at an equal or higher rate than government waste. All of racing is in for a rude awakening.
So after my mini Robin Miller rant if Dan gets it off the groundhopefuls with $ will try,
the NE and MW guys will stay for the bang for buck in F2000 and here we go again.
Last edited by jim morgan; 09.12.09 at 7:47 AM. Reason: sp
I do like Pare's idea of attenuation stuctures that can be attached for ovals and removed for road racing. That could be a solution for "cross-overs", and integration of an existing base of cars. (some folks may just decide to keep them on when road racing.)
Still not cheap, nor easy to police. Making a "spec" would solve the policing part if one chose to only implement one chassis make. Otherwise brand X may decide to implement crush zones 1/4" thick, giving them an aero advantage over brand Y that has built zones 3" thick.
I would think that scientific seat design and head bolsters would be a key ingredient. All good things that would filter down to all classes.
Easily upping the hp of 2 liter powerplants will compensate for the extra drag of attenuation devices. There is some thought that if the devices were designed correctly, there may not be that much more drag.
Obviously some think that running ovals would be a good thing, especially in the US where ovals are popular. I can see it being successful in terms of entries when one markets to the correct demographic. Ralf Firman sold a lot of Van Diemans in his day by focusing on the continent of South America.
A rising tide lifts all boats.
There is one thing that hasnt been mentioned thus far. At the moment any driver under 18 is barred from IRL race weekends. As long as Roger has Phillip Morris money, and since he is on the corporate BoD I dont see that changing anytime soon, younger drivers need not apply. It is the reason Victor couldnt run the Glen IRL weekend at 16 but was able to run the natty the next weekend. That rule also took Colin Braun out of the DP car when they raced with IRL at the Glen
I am not sure that rule is open for debate.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Runoffs 1 Gold 3 Silver 3 bronze, 8 Divisional , 6 Regional Champs , 3x Drivers of the year awards
All that needs to be done, for, say, side panels, is specify a certain minimum thickness, length, width, and height, as well as the material. Not cheap by any means, but really not something that would break the banks of the serious runners. Proper sidepods, constructed as attenuators, should cost less that $5k if someone sets up to make multiple sets.
For head surrounds, really not a big deal at all to make them for just about all cars out there, and the same goes for the seats.
I was hesitant in responding to this but I can’t help myself. I am sure I will get lampooned by SCCA purists, but oh well, I have to rant just like all of you. There is some real good posts in this thread and in most I sense a similar level of frustration as I have, pertaining to lost opportunities due to “faulty regulation” or the “regulation for the sake of protecting the illusion of competitiveness for long ago obsolete equipment”.
All the concern that shear structural paneling, modern materials, bonding and close rivets might give someone a competitive advantage because the constructer is producing a stronger, safer, stiffer chassis, has got to be the SCCAs historical trademark in hypocrisy. We are forced to design and construct cars that in “our opinion” are not the most safe and best cars we are capable of producing due to SCCA’s ludicrous attitude against safety in general. This same mentality is prevalent in the new FB construction regulations. They carry forward the same ludicrous mentality in limiting how safe we make the cars. It would be more logical to provide minimum standards as a baseline but letting us build the safest cars we are compelled to produce and allowing us to go above and beyond. It is this same mentality that provides issues with product liability costs because we are forced by SCCA to knowingly produce cars that are safety limited.
Now here I am reading how a great opportunity is dust in the wind because “the SCCA GCR constructed cars are not safe enough ?????? What a crock, all this while racers are complaining about not having new venues to race their cars in. In my opinion SCCA and its membership seems to spend more effort chasing away hundreds and hundreds of new enthusiasts and even many potential constructors, in order to pacify a few of existing enthusiasts refusing to move past 1970 and stuff like cast iron brake calipers, LOL.
This series could have been a kick in the pants if it could have happened, and would have been great to promote the small formula car venue. I am really disappointed and let down, this could have been fun.
Tube chassis are safe if built to a reasonable set of non safety limiting regulations and with proper fixed intrusion protection in cored composite or metallic chassis paneling, skinning, encapsulating, can yield a very safe, strong and robust survival cell if we were not limited by the exercise in stupidity that I feel the SCCA restrictions are. Use the tube frame current specs as a minimum, but loose all the “stuck on stupid BS” let us shear panel the cars and put as many rivets and as much glue on as we are compelled by our own intuitive insight and common sense.
Remove the 6” limitation on rivet spacing and bonding of paneling to the frame. Instead encourage structural enhancement.
Remove the ban on carbon fiber and Kevlar across the board. Carbon is a good thing to make race cars with, otherwise it would not be such a mainstay in material choice for the global race car industry. Otherwise I might be tempted to use the much more expensive alternatives like Vectran, Spectra, Dyneema etc….. just for the spectacle of reading the resulting commentary here in using these “legal materials”.
Instead of limiting chassis strength and stiffness, encourage it.
Instead of whining and bellyaching trying to get race car constructors to build cheaper, cheesier cars, put that same effort into earning more money yourself to pay for better cars for your known to be expensive sport. You should nickel and dime the fancy transporters, before or instead of the race cars. I am sure that none of you racers are willing to work for free or near nothing for your job, so why should constructors, parts producers and support companies be expected to work for near nothing or worse a negative cash flow? Let’s be fair and meet in the middle, based free market principals. Please discontinue the practice of mandating that new race cars be built cheesy and unsafe for the sake of cheap.
Enough of the rant, sorry but this could have been a lot of fun and an example of another missed opportunity. It is these types of opportunities that motivate new cars to be designed and offered for the market.
C Shaw
No one has said that the series is not happening. In fact it has been posted that it is happening and you should look for an announcement at the end of the month. One pro F2000 series chose not to be involved based on their previous experience.
Please, use it. Anyone complaining about that would be like the people who complained about wheels that were perfectly legal.Otherwise I might be tempted to use the much more expensive alternatives like Vectran, Spectra, Dyneema etc….. just for the spectacle of reading the resulting commentary here in using these “legal materials”.
That's exactly where we are. You can feel free to price your product wherever you want. No one expects car manufacturers to work for free and I doubt you will find a post on here that says that. The reality of the situation is that the SCCA is a very small market and the odds of paying your bills and being able to eat just by selling to club members are bad. Maybe you could try to build cars for ALMS or something if you want to make good money.I am sure that none of you racers are willing to work for free or near nothing for your job, so why should constructors, parts producers and support companies be expected to work for near nothing or worse a negative cash flow? Let’s be fair and meet in the middle, based free market principals.
This has never been the practice. SCCA rules are fine for safety on SCCA approved tracks. SCCA could probably stand to take a second look at some of the things that have been allowed under alternate construction, but the general SCCA safety guidelines are fine.Please discontinue the practice of mandating that new race cars be built cheesy and unsafe for the sake of cheap.
Am I to understand that there is still really an active effort by IRL to bring in a F2000 series venue?
If so, I am very interested in knowing a lot more about who, what and where, because I am very much interested in this venue. Maybe I read too fast, I was under the impression that it was a dead deal. Pro racing venues provide more justification for investment than do club racing hobby venues, from a business perspective.
A lot of what I posted is just a rant, as I stated but non the less it is my opinion and I felt like
sharing it. Alternate construction is allowed only to a very limited degree, but watching the measuring of rivet spacing making sure they are not too close, in tech seems real dumb, to me that is. Like cast iron calipers are also dumb but they are not a safety issue unless they hit you in the head, LOL
C Shaw
ask !
why not just call the IRL @ 317.492.6526 to see if there is an interest in F2000 ?
It's a lot harder than that. None of the current cars have reasonable front or rear impact structures. Further, I don't believe any of them have nose mounting structures sufficient to pass even a cursory knock-off test (oblique impact from the side of the nose).
Unless the "safety" improvements are just lipstick, at the minimum, someone would have to design, engineer, and test: (1) new nose mounts and associated structure; (2) new nose and/or internal nose crush structure; (3) new rear crush structure; (4) new side panels; (5) new sidepods and crush structure; (6) new driver's head surround and structure/bodywork to support it (current designs don't go high enough to provide any support).
I'm not sure anyone would make the kind of engineering and tooling investment required for the few sales the new series will generate, especially when much of it would need to be duplicated for each chassis manufacturer.
I think it's all academic, though. Roger Bailey told me the IRL wants a spec chassis. Not hard to figure out which one, either. Just think about past associations of the principals, which monocoques have run safely on ovals in this country, and what chassis could easily take a 2.0 liter engine. Just to be clear, I don't have any inside information, I'm just speculating!
I think there is a place for a development series that runs on ovals. Not every young driver has the talent to aspire to racing outside of the US, so it might be a good place to develop the skills necessary to race at the highest level in this country.
Hard to imagine a budget of less than $250k/year to run a series like this competitively, so an additional $100k+ for a car isn't a huge problem for those with funding.
Nathan
Your speculation is simply not true, Nathan. Two years ago the current FE chassis and nose handily passed the FIA Formula 3 quasi-static chassis tests and frontal and oblique nose impact tests. It's not rocket science.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
I agree, Stan, it's not rocket science, just engineering. And tooling. Which costs time and money.
I'm not sure which "speculation" you are referencing, but: (1) F3 cars don't run on ovals; (2) FE is not a current FC/F2000 chassis as far as I know.
Nathan
I think it's all academic, though. Roger Bailey told me the IRL wants a spec chassis. Not hard to figure out which one, either. Just think about past associations of the principals, which monocoques have run safely on ovals in this country, and what chassis could easily take a 2.0 liter engine. Just to be clear, I don't have any inside information, I'm just speculating!
Nathan
I would imagine that from their perspective they would base it on a modern design, which means new cars, not existing cars. I am wondering though if the "SPEC car theme is loosing its appeal, I hope so). I hope there is a desire for variety by the fans because at least from my perspective it is boring watching all the same cars and I really hate what Spec racing has done to the industry. It is near impossible for fresh constructors to get into it because the monopolistic business model that seems to be so prevalent these days. Any rate, I don't think that FC cars have the look and sex appeal to tantalize race spectators and fans, so my gut would tell me it would gravitate more to a F2K Indy lights type venue or more of an Atlantic type car.
There has been rumors of talks between ALMS and IRL for a long time and keep in mind, that Elan developed a replacement car for Champ Car and I am sure that the Panoz organization would like to see some return on that investment. So along with Dallara I think it possible that Elan could be a player if this is all for real.
If there is a viable interest in a formula 2000 series then I hope it will be open to all constructors interested so the series could be interesting from a car perspective also. What they need is a very streamlined economical homologation and certification process. One that the FRENCH have nothing to do with. Simply haul the test samples to Indy and do it all under one roof without all the FIA BS RED TAPE. If they did that, cars would come. Testing these cars structures is not complex at all, and the process could be standardized and be made available to many constructors.
As a constructor it seems nice to dream about getting a monopoly contract but I believe that it (spec car racing) has destroyed the appeal of racing in America for those that actually design, build and work on race cars. It has also lead to less than lackluster enthusiasm by race fans that are fans of the machinery as much or more than some "manufactured for the media" drivers.
F1 is cool because of all the variations in equipment and that is why I watch. Indy car racing was really cool when there was many different race car makes on the track at the same time. That appeal all died with the introduction of Spec Racing.
As a constructor and in my opinion, the secret to making these high technology construction techniques viable and affordable for many smaller constructors and home builders, is in simplifying the structural validation certification process. It is all in the apparatus for testing and making it available in a streamlined methodology. The labs that FIA uses are all suffering from acute academia and think they have to charge rates as if everyone is a government contract with endlessly deep pockets. It is all made out to be more complicated than it should be. Also it needs to be void of the mandated wining and dining, air fares and so forth for every tom dick and harry involved with a series, FIA, marketing firm and so forth to attend a validation test. It cost more flying everyone from around the world to around the world than it does for to actually set up and test a car. That needs to be fixed in America for the good of formula car racing and sports car racing.
Sorry ranting again. I will pursue this to determine viability for myself.
C Shaw
Last edited by CSHAW; 09.12.09 at 6:16 PM.
Nathan, in the portion of your previous post which I quoted you speculated about the quality, or lack thereof, of suitable impact structures on current club cars. The FE chassis is virtually identical to a late model VD FC chassis in most respects. In fact, it IS a late model VD FC chassis with very minor tweaking. Therefore, it is germane to offer it up as a counter example to the claim one often hears that tube frame chassis are not up to modern safety standards.
Moreover, the car was not "engineered" to pass the tests. It evolved to its current status due to competitive pressures, and it turns out, happened to handily pass the tests. The FC version of the front attenuator, on the other hand, could not pass its initial tests, so VD (post-RF by this time) simply kept building a more robust front crush box until it did pass the tests. Little or no proper engineering was involved.
Also, bear in mind that the carbon Ralts, Reynards and Swifts (008 thru 016) all ran ovals, and all except the 016 were designed to F3 crash specs, so I would have to differ with you on that point, as well. Champcar had the 016 designed to somewhat higher than F3 specs since its minimum weight fell outside the F3 window, but the same concept applies.
Gee, really?
I don't mean to come across as sarcastic, but ever since Indy Lights broke the mold with a spec chassis, practically every organization since has wanted to emulate that cash cow (present F2000 series excepted, of course). You independent builders; Shaw, Ulrich, Piper, etc., need not apply.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
How many crashes has SCCA formula cars had at tracks like Gateway? Tracks that have the big speedway sections of tracks? Hitting the wall is a concern but what is worse is the tendency for a bunch of cars to get stacked up in a mob and those high speeds. Intrusion protection is vital and also floors that stay attached to the bottom of the tub.
Stan, I agree than most likely we may not need to apply
Also Nathan said that, not I
The importance of intrusion protection and floors that stay attached has been recognized by the SCCA. That is why you are free to use as much kevlar as you would like to in the sides of the car, the SCCA specs a minimum amount, I know that several manufacturers go well beyond that. Attachment every six inches is entire adequate for intrusion protection.
There are no rules about how often a floor may be attached. This car is entirely legal:
I'm also interested in what you have seen on current SCCA cars that is "cheesy."
Not a thing wrong with that specific floor Wren. But I have cringed at some of the stuff I have been asked to work on that was scary to say the least.
Why limit the number of rivets and spacing at all in the upper sections, what is wrong with shear panels and encapsulation of the sides of the tub?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
