IRL Pro FF2000 series

[nulrich]

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.

Hi Stan. I think we are in agreement. I thought I was clear in this context, but I didn't mean to imply that NO current SCCA car has good crash protection. I was talking only about the current FC/F2000 cars, the ones with which I am familiar and which teams might want to run on ovals in a new F2000 pro series.

Also, I stated earlier in this thread (way up top ) that I thought a steel tube frame car could be made safe on smaller ovals. It is a lot easier with a carbon monocoque, of course.

The FIA F3 standards would be a good start, but I'd like to see a bit more protection for oval tracks, especially in certain areas. Of course, nose crush structure is only one small part of the entire safety package. You can take the Elan approach of just beefing up the structure until it passes or you can actually engineer the impact structure and test it to confirm your design. I think the second approach is much more efficient, but in either case it ain't cheap.

I also agree that series that use spec cars aren't very interesting, nor do they necessarily decrease the cost. But along with sanctioning bodies, maybe less knowledgeable fans like them?

Nathan

[Camadella]

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.

Stan,

Are you trying to say that an aluminum crush box held on by four little tiny blocks, each of which is held in place with a single 5mm diameter bolt in single shear (and with a large bending moment arm at that, since the block is fairly deep) can possibly withstand a real oblique impact, and "Handily" pass the FIA crash tests? I don't think so.

Perhaps you need to read the article posted by Richard Pare a while back that discusses a team of five engineers at the Cranfield University in the UK trying to make a suitable (i.e., FIA legal) crush for a Formula Ford in 2007. If you haven't, I'd be happy to send it to you.

Based on the test data presented in that article, and the amount of real crush structure and additional tubing that needed to be added to make the car meet the MINIMUM requirements, I don't think that there's any possibly way that a current V-D car comes even close, and in my opinion, the front crush structure that we have is largely decoration.

I for one would not want to be driving my car into a solid barrier at terminal velocity, or anywhere close to it.

Cheers,

Chris C.

[Stan Clayton]

Also Nathan said that, not I

Yep...sorry about that.

You guys have touched on why a healthy club racing environment is so essential to maintaining a healthy market for us independents. "Corporate" racing has an entirely different set of priorities, which we are now generally frozen out of.

My appreciation to Mike and Bob for keeping their series open to all comers!

(Pacific series, too!)

[R. Pare]

Camadella:

The Cranefield study was done in order to provide a spec nosebox and structure for Brit FFs at a specified price, to a very specific decelleration curve, and to a design that anybody could back date on to their existing cars. The price restriction alone made it more difficult than necessary, and as a result, required a LOT for "real" engineering to be done.
You also would not want to drive that design nose box into a solid barrier at terminal velocity - remember, the test are specified at something like only 27 mph. At 100+ it won't do much!

As a result of that academic work, and a lot of work done elsewhere, the rest of us now have some real data to back up our years of real world experience with continually updating our nose box designs as we learn, so making the mods necessary to get a tube frame FC car - even a VD - to pass handily really isn't that tough a job.

While the "4 little tiny blocks and 4 5mm bolts" sounds and looks on the surface to be way inadequate, and very well may be if the construction on whatever car you are describing is as bad as you state, you'd be surprised what is used to hold F1 noses on. Yep. 4 little 5mm studs!

No, as Stan stated, making these cars safe for ovals isn't rocket science, and it needn't be prohibitivly expensive. Where the extra expense comes in is have to get everything to perform to a specific decelleration level, and that takes usually quite a few iterations of a design crashed and either verified or rejected with sled tests.

Unfortunately, an organization the stature of the IRL will insist (or rather, their insurers will insist) on some very specific safety standards, and the costs of revamping current designs to pass those tests will most likely be out of reach for the majority of small manufacturers.

[Stan Clayton]

Hi Stan. I think we are in agreement.

Yes, I think we are in general agreement.

I also agree that series that use spec cars aren't very interesting, nor do they necessarily decrease the cost. But along with sanctioning bodies, maybe less knowledgeable fans like them?

Having been through the whole "spec pro series" thing with Atlantics, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that at the semi-pro level (Atlantics, Pro Mazda, etc.) spec cars are invariably MORE expensive than non-spec cars, for the simple expedient that the series owners view the cars and their replacement parts as a profit center. That raises prices by about 50% in my experience.

Don't take me wrong, though. Businesses have to make a profit to stay in business. That said, when you also have to compete on price as well as performance that keeps prices at or near their natural minimum. Case in point: in '97 a new non-spec Ralt cost $90k. In '98 a new Swift 008a (advertised by Vicki as a "Ralt RT-42"...cheaper and better than a Ralt RT-41) cost $130k, and parts were 50% to several hundred percent more expensive than Ralt parts.

Oh, and the 008 was a pathetic dog compared to an RT-41.

Stan,

Are you trying to say that an aluminum crush box held on by four little tiny blocks, each of which is held in place with a single 5mm diameter bolt in single shear (and with a large bending moment arm at that, since the block is fairly deep) can possibly withstand a real oblique impact, and "Handily" pass the FIA crash tests? I don't think so.

No, I'm not trying to tell you anything of the sort. I said that the chassis passed handily (IIRC it passed on its first try). The nose took considerable effort from its FC incarnation to pass.

[R. Pare]

Oh, and the 008 was a pathetic dog compared to an RT-41.

And Swift is the ONLY race car manufacturer that seemed to think that mounting the whole ass end of the car in rubber bushings was a good idea!

[Stan Clayton]

After re-reading the previous page, and in particular C.Shaw's comments in post #69, I'd like to add a couple of comments.

First: your car is NOT safe to race...even if it has passed current FIA F3 quasi-static and crash testing.

I say that because it is important to bear in mind that the safety standards which have been adopted by the Club (largely from FIA) only cover specific minimum standards. Standards which any race car with a running engine can easily exceed.

For instance, the FIA F3 front crash test is (IIRC) designed to decelerate a car hitting a solid, unmovable barrier at no more than 30 G's at 12 meters per second. That's about 26 mph. Go faster than that and the standard unravels. At more than 26 mph the nose collapses flat and damage to the tub/frame and your feet and lower legs starts, and it gets nothing but worse from there.

Building a "safe" car for ovals is not possible. You can increase the standard, but you cannot build a safe car for the speeds that even a 140 hp FC can routine achieve on an oval.

That is not to say that you cannot mitigate the danger, but let's not fool ourselves. You cannot build a "safe" racing car.

Second: the "no stressed panels" standard for FF, FB and FC were chosen for performance reasons, NOT safety reasons.

The most prominent safety shortcoming of a tube frame is anti-intrusion, since any frame's anti-intrusion properties are by definition non-isotropic. If folks seriously want a safety upgrade to those classes, then you need to support higher standards, but there is no need to go to stressed panels with their performance advantage. Steve Lathrop, Richard Pare and others have advocated increasing the kevlar requirement to 8 or 10 layers to duplicate the thickness of aluminum anti-intrusion panels. Do that while retaining the 6" spacing and you will have anti-intrusion protection comparable to the best F3 tub cars without the performance advantage that comes from stressed panels.

[R. Pare]

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.

Please discontinue the practice of mandating that new race cars be built cheesy and unsafe for the sake of cheap.

Mr. Shaw:

No one is forcing you do do or not do anything, EXCEPT to adhere to the contstruction rules for the class you are building to.

ALL cars are built to a minimum safety specification. even FV. If you do not want to exceed those minimums because you think you cannot build a competitive car, that's your choice. If you DO want to build a competitive car, yet exceed the minimum safety standards by a humongous margin, that also is your choice.

Whether or not you can exceed those standards to a degree that satisfies you, and still make a buck, is limited only by your talent.

AND, whether or not your customers can still afford it.

[Camadella]

After re-reading the previous page, and in particular C.Shaw's comments in post #69, I'd like to add a couple of comments.

First: your car is NOT safe to race...even if it has passed current FIA F3 quasi-static and crash testing.

I say that because it is important to bear in mind that the safety standards which have been adopted by the Club (largely from FIA) only cover specific minimum standards. Standards which any race car with a running engine can easily exceed.

For instance, the FIA F3 front crash test is (IIRC) designed to decelerate a car hitting a solid, unmovable barrier at no more than 30 G's at 12 meters per second. That's about 26 mph. Go faster than that and the standard unravels. At more than 26 mph the nose collapses flat and damage to the tub/frame and your feet and lower legs starts, and it gets nothing but worse from there.

Building a "safe" car for ovals is not possible. You can increase the standard, but you cannot build a safe car for the speeds that even a 140 hp FC can routine achieve on an oval.

That is not to say that you cannot mitigate the danger, but let's not fool ourselves. You cannot build a "safe" racing car.

Second: the "no stressed panels" standard for FF, FB and FC were chosen for performance reasons, NOT safety reasons.

The most prominent safety shortcoming of a tube frame is anti-intrusion, since any frame's anti-intrusion properties are by definition non-isotropic. If folks seriously want a safety upgrade to those classes, then you need to support higher standards, but there is no need to go to stressed panels with their performance advantage. Steve Lathrop, Richard Pare and others have advocated increasing the kevlar requirement to 8 or 10 layers to duplicate the thickness of aluminum anti-intrusion panels. Do that while retaining the 6" spacing and you will have anti-intrusion protection comparable to the best F3 tub cars without the performance advantage that comes from stressed panels.

We are definitely in more agreement that I though - very well said, Stan.

Cheers,

Chris C.

[S Lathrop]

In the mid '70s we started racing FFs and air cooled FSVs on ovals. I participated in those early races as a driver, chassis builder and race engineer. The first oval championship was won with a tube frame Zink Z11 built in my shop.

We have decades of active oval racing experience with FF, FSV and FC to review and see what the facts about safety really are. Add to that the years of Atlantics and you have a good picture of what to expect.

Since the '70s we have advanced the safety of the basic tube frame chassis in FC to where it is way better than some of the early monocoque FSVs. As Richard has pointed out, the cost to raise the level of protection to a higher standard is not great. I think that if we review the experience of FCs on ovals, we will find that they are safe and that we can enhance that safety with very cost effective steps.

The walls out side the kink at Elkhart or the guard rail at trun one at Mid Ohio are way more formibable that all the ovals we are likely to see with FCs. In a typical oval impact (if there is a typical impact), the wall is struck at an oblique angle so the actual impact force with the wall is quite low. Typically a car is traveling parallel to the wall prior to any event that will lead to a wall impact. Also the cars are closer to the wall so that impacts at high angles are less likely. This is not true for road courses.

My experience with crash damage on ovals verses road courses is that there is not much if any difference. Road courses you abuse the car on almost every lap by hitting curbs and the likes. Ovals you go for many races with nothing then you might have the big one. Often though the damage is little more that a typical road course wreck.

[CSHAW]

Second: the "no stressed panels" standard for FF, FB and FC were chosen for performance reasons, NOT safety reasons.

This is my point. Regulating a car to have a reduced level of performance in a crash is the same thing as regulating a car to be less safe.


Or if by performance you mean competitive advantage, this mentality also holds no water because by his own admission, Lee Stohr has stated over and over the fact that his cars have won championship after championship regardless of the fact that he employs a bit more flex strategy than his competing builders choose to and forum goers are regularly dissing him over his design choice. So using Lee's undisputed success as an example, his cars could be said to have a competitive advantage maybe due to some flex. ?????? Kudos, Lee and Wayne !!!! By the way, I don't see a compromise on rivet spacing on their "Stressed" tub side panels of their sports cars, Oh yes and they are also firmly glued in place as well, Right Lee?


So what is SCCA trying to limit, Crash performance or competitive performance? Looks like crash performance to me.


By the way I am very familiar with FIA requirements and testing procedures as well as putting the squeeze on a tub till it goes "Crunch", pushing the nose off sideways, using a cone shaped penetrator to determine sharp object intrusion as well as myriad of other testing procedures, both destructive and non destructive.


The safety of my clients come first and it would be malpractice on my part to knowingly accept and blindly agree, without a fight, to produce a product that in my heart and soul, I know it is not up to the task at hand due the the fact that SCCA regulations prohibit me from doing so. I am therefore obligated to put up the best fight I can, regardless of outcome, for the safety of my clients, and to the limit the TORT exposure as well. Get the hint? How much liability is SCCA and its insurance company willing to accept on this matter. Safe cars are a great benefit even in cases when wild animals and big birds walk out onto the race track and the armco fence is calling out in a haunting voice, "HERE I AM, COME TO ME RACE CAR FLIPPING THROUGH THE AIR, .....COME AND ROLL ON TOP OF ME"


Potential TORT exposure issues? > Yes, you bet, and SCCA is making it easy to redirect that exposure to them


Bob, I am completely interested in this expansion of your series if you can somehow make it happen and even on the oval would be a hoot too. But I hope you make allowances to competitors to upgrade there chassis safety if they do not see the need to use their car in SCCA Club FC. I just hope they "IRL" does not just use you to get the interest up only to throw you out on you ear with a spec car later on.



C Shaw

[Rennie Clayton]

So what is SCCA trying to limit, Crash performance or competitive performance? Looks like crash performance to me.

What, precisely, about the SCCA rules and regulations do you feel prevents you from building what you consider to be a car with adequate safety performance?


Cheers,
Rennie

[R. Pare]

One small step in allowing a measure of greater protection via stressed panels is now (I think) in front of the BoD. It will allow the footbox area from the front bulkhead back X inches to have stressed panels attached to the sides. This is in response to a couple of recent Swift crashes where the footbox area collapsed in a crash, much more than it should have relative to more modern and stout footbox constructions.

Another peeve of mine is allowing the floorpan to only be bolted in place. Even though bolting on 6" or less than centers satisfies the requirements (except in FB, where there is no requirement), it really needs to be upgraded to a better standard. The requirements for all floor pans should state that they be bonded and rivited as the minimum fastening method - the integrity of the floorpan attachment is critical in helping spread and absorb crash loads correctly.

[CSHAW]

What, precisely, about the SCCA rules and regulations do you feel prevents you from building what you consider to be a car with adequate safety performance?


Cheers,
Rennie

The option to provide better encapsulation of the frame, unlimited number and spacing of fasteners and bonding of panels to frame, option to employ energy absorbing cored composites, the use of other globally accepted FRP matrix over the tube frame including and not limited to carbon fiber, ballistics syntactic foam and so forth.

[Matt King]

CSHAW, would you by any chance be Corey Shaw of IPS fame? If so, I know a lot of people who are still looking for their Mustang parts!

[Rennie Clayton]

The option to provide better encapsulation of the frame, unlimited number and spacing of fasteners and bonding of panels to frame, option to employ energy absorbing cored composites, the use of other globally accepted FRP matrix over the tube frame including and not limited to carbon fiber, ballistics syntactic foam and so forth.

You are not restricted in the thickness of the body envelope encapsulating the frame, including adding as many layers of non-Carbon Fiber and unobtainium core material to your hearts content.

The 6" fastener spacing restriction and prohibition on panel bonding in no way inhibits your ability to produce a safer car. It does place the onus on you to be a bit more creative as an engineer, however.

You may employ energy absorbing cored composites already, today. The fact that people do not, well... I guess we're back to needing to employ a bit more creativity in the design department, but that's not a sin.

The only restricted FRP material in today's rules is Carbon Fiber, which simply forces you to use other engineering materials as a substitute. Other materials will suffice, they will just be heavier. And no, heavier does not automatically equate to unsafe.

I'm sorry, but you simply haven't demonstrated anything in the SCCA rules which prevents you from building a car which performs to your desired safety performance.


Cheers,
Rennie

[CSHAW]

CSHAW, would you by any chance be Corey Shaw of IPS fame? If so, I know a lot of people who are still looking for their Mustang parts!

Matt, I am not in that business any more but in special cases parts can be produced as required without major problem.

[R. Pare]

This is my point. Regulating a car to have a reduced level of performance in a crash is the same thing as regulating a car to be less safe.

There is NOTHING in the rules that state that you can ONLY build to the minimum standard.

There is NOTHING other than your own limitations preventing you from using a bit of inginuity and decent engineering to meet the letter of the rules AND build in the level of crash protection that you desire.

There is NOTHING, other than the unlimited use and spacing of fasteners and bonding, that will prevent you from using every one of those technologies you listed, and using them very effectively.

Or if by performance you mean competitive advantage, this mentality also holds no water because by his own admission, Lee Stohr has stated over and over the fact that his cars have won championship after championship regardless of the fact that he employs a bit more flex strategy than his competing builders choose to and forum goers are regularly dissing him over his design choice. So using Lee's undisputed success as an example, his cars could be said to have a competitive advantage maybe due to some flex. ?????? Kudos, Lee and Wayne !!!! By the way, I don't see a compromise on rivet spacing on their "Stressed" tub side panels of their sports cars, Oh yes and they are also firmly glued in place as well, Right Lee?

If you really want to believe, in a highly developed class, that a flexible car is going to be able to compete with an otherwise identical car that is 2-3X stiffer, well, not much can be said.

[CSHAW]

You are not restricted in the thickness of the body envelope encapsulating the frame, including adding as many layers of non-Carbon Fiber and unobtainium core material to your hearts content.

The 6" fastener spacing restriction and prohibition on panel bonding in no way inhibits your ability to produce a safer car. It does place the onus on you to be a bit more creative as an engineer, however.

You may employ energy absorbing cored composites already, today. The fact that people do not, well... I guess we're back to needing to employ a bit more creativity in the design department, but that's not a sin.

The only restricted FRP material in today's rules is Carbon Fiber, which simply forces you to use other engineering materials as a substitute. Other materials will suffice, they will just be heavier. And no, heavier does not automatically equate to unsafe.

I'm sorry, but you simply haven't demonstrated anything in the SCCA rules which prevents you from building a car which performs to your desired safety performance.


Cheers,
Rennie

Rennie, I am living within those restrictions as are you, but I wish we were not so restricted.

[R. Pare]

You are not restricted in the thickness of the body envelope encapsulating the frame, including adding as many layers of non-Carbon Fiber and unobtainium core material to your hearts content.

You may employ energy absorbing cored composites already, today. The fact that people do not, well... I guess we're back to needing to employ a bit more creativity in the design department, but that's not a sin.

The only restricted FRP material in today's rules is Carbon Fiber, which simply forces you to use other engineering materials as a substitute. Other materials will suffice, they will just be heavier. And no, heavier does not automatically equate to unsafe.

In point of fact, as long a CF is not part of the actual bodywork - the outer skins licked by the air stream - its use as a second layer between the bodywork and the frame rails, as well as for panels inside the framerails, is perfectly legal.

You could also build inner and outer honeycome cored carbon/kevlar/unobtanium skins and bond them to each other in the spaces between the frame rails, and as long as you do not fasten them to the frame on 6" or closer centers, still be perfectly legal.

All it takes is a bit of imagination, and a real need to do.

And the customers that are willing to pay the $$ for it.

[Rennie Clayton]

In point of fact, as long a CF is not part of the actual bodywork - the outer skins licked by the air stream - its use as a second layer between the bodywork and the frame rails, as well as for panels inside the framerails, is perfectly legal.

Precisely my point - use a bit of ingenuity and imagination, and the rules are not even terribly restrictive. PPI had the right idea with their first carbon seat for NASCAR - put the carbon tub inside the frame rails!


Cheers,
Rennie

[nulrich]

A car built to current SCCA minimum safety standards is pretty dangerous in comparison to formula cars in the rest of the world. Our society is much less tolerant of risk in racing than was the case decades ago, and safety at most levels of motorsport has drastically improved. I'm guessing SCCA hasn't followed this trend in order to keep older cars legal to race. Hard to argue with that...it is a club, after all.

However, I agree with others here that nothing prevents a constructor from making the car SAFER than required. There are many legal methods to improve car safety (and we are exploiting ALL of them ). As has been stated, this just requires a little design creativity. My customers care a lot about driver safety, and I believe making a safer car is smart for both business and ethical reasons.

The prohibition against stressed skin panels (six inch minimum fastener spacing) does not prevent safe cars. Removing that limitation opens the door to monocoque structures. Aside from the performance advantage, I don't believe SCCA has the resources to evaluate the safety of such chassis.

I am favor of any proposal to increase the structural integrity of the footbox, but I would like to see the language of the rule before we finish designing our new car!

My biggest safety concern is the current narrow minimum width in FC/F2000 (950 mm). It does not allow sufficient crush distance to provide much side impact protection. I'd like to see that increased to at least 1250 mm, but you'd also have to mandate a minimum height and length of the sidepods in order to keep the larger sidepods from being a aerodynamic disadvantage. I do understand updating that rule would be difficult given the current mixture of older cars.

I also would like to see carbon fiber allowed for side impact protection, both in the construction of the sidepods themselves, any internal ducts, and supplemental crush tubes or boxes. It is possible to build equivalent crush protection from aluminum or other materials, but the structure ends up much heavier and more expensive to make, so it is harder to justify.

That said, there are good arguments against changing the rules, and there is probably enough going on with the current FF/FC chassis construction rules update. One step at a time.

Nathan Ulrich
Radon Sport LLC

[R. Pare]

PPI had the right idea with their first carbon seat for NASCAR - put the carbon tub inside the frame rails!

Too bad they (NastyCar) didn't think that way when they forced Pruett remove his carbon/kevlar survival cell seat a few years earlier!

What too many seem to forget is that FF, FC, and FB are all tube frame cars for a reason - cost, performance limitations, ease of new manufacturers getting to play, longevity, and ease of repair.

Once the car performance levels get too high for ANY basic tube frame in a particular class, or the cost of the extra safety panels necessary to keep crash damage reasonable, then that will be the time to revisit the construction rules. In the mean time, these classes all have a long way to go to before we get to that point.

[Wren]

Matt, I am not in that business any more but in special cases parts can be produced as required without major problem.

I believe he was referencing the people who might still be waiting for the parts they paid for.

[Wren]

Precisely my point - use a bit of ingenuity and imagination, and the rules are not even terribly restrictive.

Seriously. I don't even think it takes very much imagination. This thread has taken a turn for the painful.

[Steve Demeter]

All the discussion about side intrusion is good stuff.

But IMHO, the suspension pieces and rod ends and their attachment points to the reast of the car in our road racing cars are rather flimsy compared to cars that I have seen designed for ovals.

A little wheel bump and a wheel comes flying off with our current cars.

For the sake of reducing repairs from the inevitable occasional contact in the close quarters of ovals as well as keeping the flying suspension pieces to a minimum, I am surprised that no one has brought this up before.

[R. Pare]

Very possibly the IRL would require that wheel tethers be used.

On all cars, the rod ends and mounts are sized according to expected normal loads, which will indeed make FC setups look small relative to even an Indy Lights car - after all, an FC is a lot lighter than them. Whether or not certain designs may need to be beefed up a bit is open to debate, but I'd venture a guess that yes, some will need to be stronger.

[JScarallo]

Something that I don't think nobody has mentioned that has changed with safety on ovals is the safer barrier! This was not around when the pro series ran on the ovals back in the day and now we have them. Something to think about, any oval that they would race on with the IRL will have the soft wall/safer barrier

[Steve Demeter]

Do not kid yourself. The SAFER barrier is still darn hard.

Steel guardrail with foam blocks behind it.

I bet that the foam blocks are sized / characterized for much higher energy and peak forces than a FC car would wreak on it.

[CSHAW]

A bit of reflection on my part. If FC cars were ran on an oval keep in mind that the cars are very limited on power and tires so maybe the issue is not as big as I built in my mind originally. Realistic, these cars would be speed challenged on an oval. Really there is not a lot of mass in these cars also. Get something going then evolve it from there. I think it is a venue that should be pressed for the good of small formula racing before Elan steps up with the Star Mazda cars to fill the void.

C Shaw

[R. Pare]

Trimmed out, they'll go a lot faster than you might think. If I remember correctly, the old Pro series cars used to hit around 150 or so at Charlotte.

Yes, these cars will hardly dent a Safer Barrier, unfortunately.

[Purple Frog]

I vaguely remember reading somewhere about 10 years ago that somebody was clocked at 162 at Daytona around 1997, 1998. A mighty draft i suspect. Could be one of those "paddock legends"...

[andyllc]

In '03 original Zetec days we hit 150 at Road America. Dont remember our speeds on the ovals of IRP and Milwaukee from that year and don't have that data anymore.

[Bob Wright]

IIRC -the fastest F2000 on record was Larry Vatri in a DB6 at Atlanta Motor Speedway (using a Haniford rear wing) with a 156 mph LAP in a draft. Obviously, top speeds were higher. I also remember Mark Abel hitting somewhere around 165 mph (also with a DB6) at Pocono Raceway with no wings on the car. We routinely clocked over 152 mph at Pocono on the road course with the cars trimmed out. NHIS oval laps were in the 29-30 second range (flat throttle all the way around) -NASCAR Nationwide Series lap time range.

And I agree- they won't even dent a safer barrier or a current design tire wall (I can attest to turn 11 at WGI from this summer)

[nulrich]

That's completely believable, Bob.

We didn't run an "oval" setup in the wind tunnel, just a low downforce "Watkins Glen" configuration (Radon aero package on the Van Diemen chassis, our small single element rear wing, trimmed out front wing). That gave results corresponding to a 156 mph top speed, where it would make about 375 lbs of downforce (low drag but also low downforce).

Wings and diffuser designed for a track like Pocono would give terminal speeds in the 160 to 170 mph range, still with reasonable levels of downforce.

That's assuming the pro Zetec map. My knowledge of oval setup (optimum drag/downforce) is limited, and obviously it depends on the track, but an F2000 car with a decent aero design could easily see 160 mph on a big oval. Faster in a drafting train.

Nathan Ulrich
Radon Sport LLC

[Purple Frog]

As Andy mentioned, if you're running with IRL, and SCCA be damned, you could run the Cooper spec motor... or more. Boogety, boogety.

[Paul LeCain]

Some of these speed claims seem way high.

The last (only?) time that the Pro Atlantics ran at NHIS (1 mile oval), they were averaging about 147 mph for the lap. The only lift for the fastest cars was entering turn 3.

At Pocono, we, in a trimmed-out Atlantic, see 159 on a lap with a tow. Most laps have a top speed of 154-155. At those speeds, no FC/FE car has ever been fast enough that we couldn't pass on the straights.

Everyone's right about the 'safer' barriers. Our car hit flush sideways in turn 1 at NHMS. The crash crushed the wheels flush with the uprights F and R. The barrier was unscathed.

[Bob Wright]

I have multiple 153 mph readings on my computer from the end of the front straight at Pocono (RF98 VD) and I wasn't the fastest. I have a 29.7 lap at NHIS (DB6) on the timing sheets and I wasn't the fastest. BTW, these were both with a Pinto before the recent upgrades.

[Wren]

I have multiple 153 mph readings on my computer from the end of the front straight at Pocono (RF98 VD) and I wasn't the fastest.

Was the car trimmed out or was it a standard wing package?

[Paul LeCain]

I have multiple 153 mph readings on my computer from the end of the front straight at Pocono (RF98 VD) and I wasn't the fastest. I have a 29.7 lap at NHIS (DB6) on the timing sheets and I wasn't the fastest. BTW, these were both with a Pinto before the recent upgrades.

29.7 at NHIS is 121+ mph. Quite reasonable, I think.

On your Pocono data, if you place the cursor at the last data point, what does it say is the distance you've traveled in the lap. I wonder sometimes about these speed readings on systems where you must enter the wheel diameter. Getting that wrong affects the reading. Mine says 13,336 feet = 2.525 miles.