Formula 1000 Rule "Loopholes"

[Stan Clayton]

In recent weeks several persons have stated on various threads that in their opinion there exist in the FB rules several glaring loopholes, or at least gray areas, that need addressing. To get the ball rolling, I present the shifter rule as it exists and the revision the F/SRAC recommended to the CRB.

As the rule appears in the 2011 GCR...

H.8. Transmission/Final Drive

D. All gear changes must be initiated by the driver. Mechanical gear
shifters, direct-acting electric solenoid shifters, air-shifters and
similar devices are permitted. Devices that allow pre-selected gear
changes are prohibited.

And as recommended...

H.8. Transmission/Final Drive

D. Gear shifting is unrestricted.

One area that I recall Richard Pare raising is the bodywork rules. Please take a stab at it, Richard. Do you think we should change the rule to some narrower maximum width, write F5-like sidepod rules (that define minimum height, for instance), or something else?

Wren has made similar comments, though I cannot recall any specifics. How about it, Wren, here is your chance to shed light on areas in the rules that you think need work, so please step up with some examples.

[ASRF1000]

I like the unrestricted shifter rule. I'm looking forward to hearing the comments on other rules. But here is what I would like the bodywork rule to read. However we are staying with it as current.

Sidepods are defined as bodywork which is continuous from and attached to the main body with its upper surface being a minimum of 6" above the reference plane (shadow box rule as looking from the top down). The main body is defined as those panels surrounding the driver cockpit and attached to the chassis. The lower surface of the car may not exceed 50mm beyond the outermost dimensions of the sidepods. Maximum width of the lower surface between the rear of the front tires and the front of the rear tires is 150mm.

Just what I would like to see, but as I said again, we are staying with the current rule.

My own personal reasoning; I'd personally like to see the cars resemble upper level formula rather than FF with wings and wide undertrays. But, its just my personal opinion and I'll say it again...we're staying with the club rules on this.

[R. Pare]

Stan:

Here's what I can think of of the top of my head without going back to re-read the rules, bearing in mind that the current thought process in interpreting the rules is that wording needs to be very specific:

1 - The frame rules define sheet metal as a prerequisite in what is defined as a "stressed panel". It also states that you cannot use kevlar, CF or fiberglass in a structural manner.

With the recent rulings in another class in mind, that leaves it wide open for other, unnamed, materials to be used as structure, or fastened on less than 6" centers, even with the "chassis shall be tubular steel only construction" sentence.

I like the way it was worded in the FF/FC proposal, in that any reference to "stressed panels" or "load bearing panels" was (originally) omitted, with the allowances re-worded to specify strictly what panels were allowed and how they were to be fastened. That wording gets rid of the interpretation that if you substitute an unnamed material in place of those named, it is therefore legal.

It that regard, you probably should look at stealing what was written the FF/FC proposal - it does a pretty good job of defining the limits as to how the frames can be constructed and reinforced.

Need to add in steel sheet and bar as part of the frame construction allowance - as it sits, the rule states "tubular steel only", which would make any bungs made from round solid bar illegal, as well as any sheet metal gussets. This was added in to the FF/FC proposal for that same reason, I presume.

Safety-wise, I think it should be mandatory that the floorpan be fastened as a "stressed panel". Just why there was a conscious regression on safety requirements there, I'll never understand.

2 - I think that the bodywork rules are pretty well defined, actually, and really don't understand why all the controversy at last years Runoffs - the Glossary defines what is considered to be Bodywork (with nothing different stated in the FB rules that would supersede the Glossary definition), and the permutations that could get around the intent of the 50mm width rule were pointed out on this forum by both Rennie and myself, so the writers, as well as the other constructors that frequented this forum, were fully aware of what the rule allowed.

However, to end any future controversy, it might be advisable to just get rid of the 50mm rule, since in reality (and without any clear wording as to its intent), it accomplishes nothing.

The cat is out of the bag on overall width, so nothing can or should be done there.

Bodywork materials: Might look at defining what materials are allowed, like it was done in the FF/FC proposal. Right now, the only prohibition is against the use of CF, and there most likely are other, even more expensive materials, out there (or coming along soon) that should be banned for the near future.

However, the FF/FC rules didn't make an allowance for the use of sheet metal (if I remember correctly), so that would need to be added in (and needs to be in the FF/FC proposal as well), since it has been in common and allowed use for 50 years or so already.

3 - Side intrusion protection - should be upgraded to allow the same as was stated in the FF/FC proposal. However, even that needs to be cleaned up a bit to insure that the allowed panels don't morph into actual structural reinforcement of the frame - eg - an allowance for defacto "hybrid' chassis - simple because the methods of fastening of those panels automatically allows for massive frame reinforcement. We might what to go that route in the future for safety reasons as car speeds increase, but for now it needs to be strictly worded so that we have a known baseline to work from.

In other, slightly more esoteric interpretation possibilities:

1 - Electrical system: Defined as unrestricted, and coupled with no ban on motive power from anything other than the allowed piston engine ( except for the general ban on using the starter while out on the track that is stated in the GCR Cars and Equipment section). This would seemingly allow KERS, as well as things like a simple battery powered PM motor as an auxiliary power source. Could be pretty cool, but I doubt we want to go there. (This same problem exists in most other classes as well!).

2 - No ban anywhere in the GCR (that I can find) against N2O. If someone decided to use it (in any class), at the moment they would win any protest against it.

Lastly, if the desire for this class is to help hold down costs by keeping it in line with the construction requirements for FF and FC, thereby allowing constructors active in all 3 classes to use the exact same basic tube frame and bodywork for all three, then we need to look at a total rewrite of those two sections (frame and bodywork) to use the same language, with any allowed differences spelled out (in the same manner that the FF and FC rules were combined, with allowance specif to either class stated directly).

[Stan Clayton]

Good start, Richard...thanks.

[Christopher Crowe]

-- body-width, shifters, materials and the way they're used... With these things in flux, car-building or even joining the catagory has become a scary thing.

I say -- for now -- leave it all as it is.

I believe FB is just now finding itself... And doing so both effectively and efficently with the rules exactly as currently written. I think the constant specter of rules changes has stunted the catagory's growth far more than any current rule or current rule vaguery ever has.

At this critical, formative time in Formula B's history: Rules Stability Uber Alles!

Chris

[R. Pare]

"Sidepods are defined as bodywork which is continuous from and attached to the main body with its upper surface being a minimum of 6" above the reference plane (shadow box rule as looking from the top down)."

Personally, I'd hate to see that sort of rule. These are supposed to be formula car classes, complete with all of the disparity in looks that different designers can come up with - this isn't F1 where the CFD and wind tunnel results pretty much dictate what the cars all look like. Having a bunch of f500 or RT1 look-alikes would detract at lot from the "gee-wiz, look at that!" fun factor that we have in the Club now, and used to have in the Pro levels - can you imagine a converted DB6 with wide sidepod undertrays sitting next to a Stohr,RFR, Piper, and Citation, with their varying design looks, and the amount of conversation that it would generate among budding car builders?

Chris: If done correctly, there would be no change in construction allowed from what is understood (but not always spelled out well) right now. Getting the gray areas fixed so that there is not a repeat of stuff happening in other classes (and here with the ridiculous shifter controversy) is what will help attract people to the class.

[ASRF1000]

Richard,

Like I said, only my personal opinion, but we are staying with the current rules. To each his own.

[R. Pare]

Yup - same here. And that is an example of the difference between the thought process of a designer and a promoter!

[ASRF1000]

Very True

What I was getting at is (look at the photos) even the Citation and the Piper fit into this rule ok (side pods upper surface 6" above the reference plane), they just wouldn't be able to have such wide undertrays (ie: less surface area / less undertray, less drag / less downforce)

But, since the rules are already written to allow wide undertrays and narrow bodies, the cat is already out of the bag (the rule states a maximum of 50mm wider than the bodywork and bodywork is defined as anything above the reference plane licked by the airstream), just by adding small pieces at the ends of the undertray means bodywork, therefore what's out there is legal.

So, it was good use of the rules by a few and we'll have to abide by it, as our rules are the same as club in this area. My rule wouldn't change anything drastic (from a building standpoint) on a car coming from FC, only the allowable width of the floor. Of course one could redesign the sidepods to come out more and take advantage of a wider undertray. I see that still as a Formula not a spec part. Either way, its just my personal preference and has no bearing on what the rules actually are. We all have things we would like to see different (right or wrong) and I'm not saying that I'm right, only stating my thoughts.

But I don't think this thread was meant to start a new debate, but rather for those to share their ideas of how to close any loopholes as they see them.

Even though there are areas I think could be changed, in the best interest of this class the bottom line of my opinion is "LEAVE FB THE WAY IT IS WITH NO CHANGES...LET IT GROW!!!!"

[Christopher Crowe]

And I agree that the rules should be understandable only by anyone able to read and have a grasp of simple math. Certainly no particpant should be required to have studied historical precedent, etc. -- it should all be in the book. And it's not...

But I believe the rules-boat has sailed. There IS a rule book. Not perfect, but it's been interpreted pretty much in the same way by all. No one has found an Unfair Advantage that would put the catagory on its ear.

So I'm opposed to ANY changes to the current FB rules at this time -- be it concerning the 4% weight penalty to those running legal-last-year shifting systems... or anything else. The class ain't broke. And I worry that even a gentle "clarifying" rewrite could only raise more hell.

If FB is to grow, it must become a welcoming environment for those considering participation. And it hasn't been. The madness caused by even the proposal of rules changes -- has been awful. And ultimately not good for business. So given it all, I say let it be, let it grow.

Regards, by the way!

[Brandon Dixon]

The current rules would permit bodywork (up to 150cm) in front of the front wheels and behind the rear wheels.

I don't think that anyone in the class is real keen on having to exploit the potential there. I don't want to see a bunch of pseudo sports racers...

I been meaing to send the FSRAC/CRB a proposed rule to limit bodywork ahead of the front wheels (other than the front wing) to 50 cm and limit bodywork behind the rear wheels to the width of the inside of the rear tires. I think that a picture could help.

[ASRF1000]

Brandon, I would like to see a copy of your proposed clarifications.

[Wren]

I don't think that anyone in the class is real keen on having to exploit the potential there. I don't want to see a bunch of pseudo sports racers...

The cars are already fugly. Exploiting this would just make them fuglier. Go for it.

[S Lathrop]

Lastly, if the desire for this class is to help hold down costs by keeping it in line with the construction requirements for FF and FC, thereby allowing constructors active in all 3 classes to use the exact same basic tube frame and bodywork for all three, then we need to look at a total rewrite of those two sections (frame and bodywork) to use the same language, with any allowed differences spelled out (in the same manner that the FF and FC rules were combined, with allowance specif to either class stated directly).

Consolidation the rules for these three classes is the first place I would suggest starting. Like it or not, the US martket is the primary market for this type car construction. If the market returns to health, a manufacturer might expect to do 10 to 20 cars a year between the three classes. The market for any one class will never sustain that production level. I, also, think that the market for these cars is soley dependent on healthy semi-pro series as we have now, especially if we can grow programs that are not confined to the two coasts.

[Fred2]

The biggest loop holes I find in rules books are when they say what you CAN NOT do.

For example, if the goal is to keep costs low by banning carbon fiber bodywork, the way that is should be done is to specify what IS acceptable.

If Fiberglass is the goal, say that they must be fiberglass (or aluminum or whatever).

By banning C/F, you leave the door wide open for Kevlar, Carbon/Kevlar, or any other similar weight but high cost composite materials yet to be discovered.

[Paul LeCain]

By banning C/F, you leave the door wide open for Kevlar, Carbon/Kevlar, or any other similar weight but high cost composite materials yet to be discovered.

Check this out:

http://www.highcroftracing.com/news/...-panoz-qa.html

[Fred2]

Looks like you found one!

[Stan Clayton]

By banning C/F, you leave the door wide open for Kevlar, Carbon/Kevlar, or any other similar weight but high cost composite materials yet to be discovered.

Yeah, I suppose carbon fiber is "high cost" if you consider cheaper than S-glass, cheaper than kevlar and only slightly more expensive than the absolute cheapest boat-glass to be "high cost".

Here are some current prices per yard I was just quoted by brokers for 100-yard rolls of 6 oz, 50" wide cloth:

E-glass: $8/yd (we use for molds)
Uncertified carbon fiber: $9.50/yd (not legal to make airplanes from, but perfectly good for race cars)
Certified carbon: $14.50/yd (wanna build a Boeing Dreamliner?)
Kevlar and Kevlar-Carbon blends: $15 - $21/yd
S-glass: $15 -$18/yd, depending on color (what we make FB/C/F parts from)

And yeah, raw Tegris is even cheaper than e-glass, but IIRC you need closed molds and high pressure and heat to properly form it.

[Brands]

If Don Panoz has got anything to with anything I'd stay away from it! It's not very nice stuff at all. Hard to laminate and hard to trim, but it's pretty good at stopping a bullet!

[Mike B]

Here are some current prices per yard I was just quoted by brokers for 100-yard rolls of 6 oz, 50" wide cloth:

E-glass: $8/yd (we use for molds)
Uncertified carbon fiber: $9.50/yd (not legal to make airplanes from, but perfectly good for race cars)
Certified carbon: $14.50/yd (wanna build a Boeing Dreamliner?)
Kevlar and Kevlar-Carbon blends: $15 - $21/yd
S-glass: $15 -$18/yd, depending on color (what we make FB/C/F parts from)

Can you clarify what styles and finishes you're being quoted? On the surface, those look like great CF prices, but you might want to find a different 'glass broker.

[Stan Clayton]

Can you clarify what styles and finishes you're being quoted? On the surface, those look like great CF prices, but you might want to find a different 'glass broker.

The cf is 3k 2x2 twill in nominal 200 GSM (6 oz)...same as you see on all our cf products. CF uni is about the same price, as at the broker level cf is all sold by weight. BTW, those prices are as delivered to our shop...no add'l charge for delivery.

[starkejt]

Question from someone who's ignorant: how much does country of origin affect the price of the cloth? i.e. is there crappy chinese CF cloth out there?

[Stan Clayton]

Question from someone who's ignorant: how much does country of origin affect the price of the cloth? i.e. is there crappy chinese CF cloth out there?

I've never seen any Chinese CF here in the US, Josh, though I can't say there isn't any. We have a lot of CF production capacity in this country, and everything I get quoted has USA as the country of origin.

China does import (mainly colored) S-glass to the US, though I pretty much stick to Hexcel brand, made in Texas. (Is that in the US? )

[starkejt]

I've never seen any Chinese CF here in the US, Josh, though I can't say there isn't any. We have a lot of CF production capacity in this country, and everything I get quoted has USA as the country of origin.

China does import (mainly colored) S-glass to the US, though I pretty much stick to Hexcel brand, made in Texas. (Is that in the US? )

Thanks. So it sounds like pretty much any CF pieces one might buy that are made in the USA would most probably be made with domestic cloth.

[Fred2]

Thanks. So it sounds like pretty much any CF pieces one might buy that are made in the USA would most probably be made with domestic cloth.

And it sounds like C/F parts should be less expensive than fiberglass.

????

[ASRF1000]

Remember, glass is laid up and carbon is best cured in an autoclave. Not too may people have an autoclave this size. Please correct me if I'm wrong. As Richard pointed out earlier, I'm a promoter, not an engineer.

[Stan Clayton]

Thanks. So it sounds like pretty much any CF pieces one might buy that are made in the USA would most probably be made with domestic cloth.

Yes, almost certainly.

And it sounds like C/F parts should be less expensive than fiberglass. ????

I don't know what the question marks are for, but we charge the same for the same piece in either glass or cf. Back a few years ago cf was more expensive than glass, so prices differed then, but not now...at least for us. I don't know what other shops are charging. The price on cf has been dropping for months, and some projections have it cheaper than even e-glass within a year or two. More and more production is coming on line so the price continues to drop with competition for buyers.

Remember, glass is laid up and carbon is best cured in an autoclave. Not too may people have an autoclave this size. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Nobody I know uses an autoclave for bodywork or wings. If one is using aerospace prepreg, then you'll get better debulking in an autoclave, but for non-structural stuff like bodywork or wings just an oven with vacuum is all that's needed. Also, with today's resins lots and lots of cf work is done room temp with only vacuum, either hand layup or infused.

[JerryH]

Brandon is absolutely correct about the bodywork rules as it applies to width in front of the front tires and behind the rear tires. Eventually someone will exploit that and we will be looking at quasi sports racers. I don't want to build one....and updating older cars would be a pain.

Like others, as the rules were written, I saw the narrow side pod/wide undertray as inevitable. However, I see no need to change it now.

Jon.....a variety of sidepod configurations would (I think) make your series more interesting than having all the sidepod/floors look alike.

If the intent is to limit the material that can be used for bodywork (for cost containment or any other reason), then specify what can be used. No grey areas.

Richard covered everything else I can think of.....

As someone who has tooled up to manufacture cars for this class (and FC), It would be nice to have rules stability....but some things do need to be addressed.

Thanks,

Jerry Hodges
JDR Enterprises

[urbanimports02]

interesting on the n2o. i was talking to george about this last winter, and told him i do not actually see anything that says it is not legal. i assumed it was in some general rule some how some way and left it alone. i have wondered in the past if people were doing this. you hear reports of competitors being secretive, or not wanting anyone near there car at the runoffs(mainly in dsr) and they could be hiding a n20 system, not from the scca, but from fellow competitors! brilliant! does anyone know of anything in the gcr that would actually limit this? would it be considered other then normally aspirated? if that is in fact a problem, this is the kind of thing that needs addressed. i agree on leave it alone, but to clarify rules that could become a problem later should not be a bad thing. the rules that need addressing that could be interpreted in an odd manner, but are not currently, should be changed now before they become a problem like the shifter thing. not saying the shifter rule should be changed or that geartronics should be illegal or weight penalized, just that trying to do so has caused a rift. i do not think defining bodywork minimums is a good idea, as that limits design, and i do not think the floor width is a problem, 150cm is not that wide. i do think get rid of the 50mm rule as it is easy to get around as tom showed last year, and it wont catch anybody out making a current design illegal. rather other cars could widen floors to exploit the full 150cm for a gain if they want to, or see fit.

[ASRF1000]

Actually, just to clarify a point being made, the maximum width of the front bodywork could only be 135cm as per the Dimensions Table in the GCR, see below:

K. Maximum width of any bodywork in front of the front wheel center line (includes wing and endplates) 135cm

Jerry, you may be correct in having different sidepod configurations being more interesting. I guess its just a personal like/dislike for how cars look, but its all in the eyes of the beholder. As I stated though, I'm not looking to change the current rule.

[ASRF1000]

What materials then should be spelled out that are legal for bodywork? They need to be materials currently being used by teams, so that there is no impact on current teams to change, only clarification and stabilization for future builds. Am I correct?

What are the materials currently being used?

These are the clarification points I was talking about. They're not going to impact anyone, just make it more clear what is acceptable and what is not.

Anyone?

[R. Pare]

"What are the materials currently being used?'

Glass, Kevlar, foam, wood, aluminium. (not sure about steel), possibly sailcloth.

[ASRF1000]

If its best to list what is acceptable, there would need to be a accurate list. Wood? Who's using wood?

Or better yet list those prevalent and "other materials must be pre-aprroved in writing by the club (series)"

[starkejt]

Jabrock is wood....

[ASRF1000]

Jabrock is wood....

Yeah OK for floors, you got me there. Thanks.

[starkejt]

Or side pod bottoms, which doesn't necessarily = floors.

[ASRF1000]

floor of the sidepods....LOL....simantics.

So, I guess fiberglass covers sglass, eglass, etc?

Any other materials prevalent?

[starkejt]

Not semantics, sir.

[ASRF1000]

Po-tA-to / Po-Tah-to, we always referred to the floor as anything under the car (chassis, sidepods, whatever). Maybe not accurate in a technical sense, but you get what I mean.

[Nicholas Belling]

N2O, its a restricted class.

so if it doesn't specify you can.. well then you cannot. Am I missing something.