FIA Formula 4

[Matt M.]

Interesting interview with G Berger... New pres of single seaters...("well, I didn't vote for you..." "You don't vote for kings...").
Page 32.....

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre...ion_030812.pdf

The cars are already there..... Just needs a new name....

[Beartrax]

("well, I didn't vote for you..." "You don't vote for kings...").

Good article. From where did you receive the "king" feeling? I did not get that. It seems like Gerhard Berger is just trying to make a clear path. When you have the Formula BMW and Formula Renault, etc. the corporate entity gets all the limelight. They need to make it attractive to get the corporate $ into the single FIA formulae.

[Chuck Skowron]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/102477

[KenT]

Pretty cool. All RFR chassis' which appear to be their F2000 car with a different engine.

"The cars, which will be known as MSV F4-013, will be powered by the cost effective and proven 2 litre Ford Duratec engine, developing 175bhp and featuring a Cosworth engine management system. The gearbox will be more sophisticated than any previous car at this level, being a 6 speed Sadev transmission incorporating paddle shift. Cosworth will also supply the gearbox control system. The cars will run on slick and wet compound tyres provided by Yokohama"

"Teams are encouraged to purchase and run the newly built BRDC Formula 4 cars alongside private family-run entries in a bid to create a healthy and competitive paddock. Teams wishing to join the championship will be limited to running a maximum of four cars. The cost of participation is expected to range from £35,000 for a private entrant to £70,000 for a professional team."

[Canadian Formula 3 Championship]

[FONT=Verdana]Yes, I've had a conversation with Gerhard about this last spring and it's a great move on his part to define a clear ladder system to Formula 1. He thinks it's bad in Europe, but North America is by far in a much, much worse position.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]It’s so fragmented over here that I count 19 different formulas on this ApexSpeed website alone, and that is simply overkill as everyone and their mom is out there to construct their own chassis design and become the next Dallara.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Not only is it confusing for aspiring drivers to get to the top, but from a business stand-point it is hurting the system from teams and manufacturers participation. With so many Series’ out there, a race team owner, a tire or engine manufacturer, etc. may choose to participate in one particular formula over another. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]This produces very thin grids where a potential 30 cars for a healthy grid are instead split up into 3 separate Series with only 10 cars on each grid and then everybody suffers in the end from a bad showing. Too many people all vying for the same piece of pie.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]P.S. Where are all you Massachusetts racers coming from? Being from Boston myself I’m surprised to find fellow racers instead of Sox fans. It would be great to see high-level formula racing grow in the New England Area as it’s a largely untapped market in a very rich region.
[/FONT]

[Jnovak]

No question that we have way to many classes in NA. The only real question is how do we fix it?

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[R.DeVoe]

the SCCA could start by enforcing the 2.5 rule...

[rperry]

Gee, I wonder where RFR got the inspiration for the aero/bodywork design.....

[asw]

Mr. Firman has managed to flog 24 chassis' so far all of which are the same F2000 we see now, only differences are bits copied from the Radon like that shark fin.

[KAMcDonald]

the SCCA could start by enforcing the 2.5 rule...

look at a current GCR. there is no longer a 2.5 rule to enforce.

[Wren]

Gee, I wonder where RFR got the inspiration for the aero/bodywork design.....

Mr. Firman has managed to flog 24 chassis' so far all of which are the same F2000 we see now, only differences are bits copied from the Radon like that shark fin.

You cannot be serious. Have you checked a results sheet lately? I don't think there is much chance of someone copying anything from the Radon, including the aero.

Reference this picture from April 2011 that shows the RFR bodywork, including the fin, which is not an innovation of either Radon or RFR.


Get over yourself.

[rperry]

You cannot be serious. Have you checked a results sheet lately? I don't think there is much chance of someone copying anything from the Radon, including the aero.

I'm quite aware of the results sheets. I believe even as RFR gave cars away at massive discounts and/or for free, people were ditching them for older cars. I don't know of anyone who was unhappy with the radon wing package, or the radon Rn.10. I'm also aware that this brand new car was competitive after only a few track appearances - (those who have actually DESIGNED a new car without simply recycling old designs are also aware of how noteworthy that is.)

I am also quite aware of CFD, wind tunnel, and track test data (all of which correlate quite nicely BTW) that you aren't privy to. There is plenty of reason to copy the aero, not least of which is the fact that actual aerodynamicists were involved, although no one seems to understand the "WHY" behind what was done, and thus keeps doing it poorly.

Reference this picture from April 2011 that shows the RFR bodywork, including the fin, which is not an innovation of either Radon or RFR.

By mid 2010 quite a lot of information about the Radon was out, including some preliminary CFD images among others. I believe around that time is when high noses became popular. Interesting.

I also find it interesting that despite "30 years" as a Formula car designer, and many years of shark fin use in F1, RFR only stuck one on the car right after Radon did. And this shark fin looks not like the shark fin from any other series, but from the Radon. Hmmmm.

And just to show that RFR can't be the only person to take "inspiration" from the Radon:
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...hlight=sidepod

I look forward to seeing how you brush aside that obvious connection

Get over yourself.

I think you should get over your unhealthy radon trolling. You don't need to chase down every thread with mention of it and bash it.

And while the rules topic can be somewhat subjectively approached, Aero is an objective science about which you are thoroughly uninformed, so be careful with the claims you make in that area.

[a. pettipas]

Radon aero is great but its fall-apart prevention system needs work

[Franklin Futrelle]

Are there any RFR' s in the front pack of f2000?

[Bob Wright]

Nikki Coello was third in the standings in a RFR (one win in the rain) and Chris Livengood was seventh.

http://f2000series.com/pdfs/Final_F2..._withdrops.pdf

(The leading Radon was driven by a 60 year old has-been with a couple of top tens, but one should look at the standings above for Mr. Orselon's results in the couple of races he ran.)

[HazelNut]

as a RFR owner (I got one of the early ones and have been running mine for 2 years, and having previously run three different 99+ van diemens and a year in a 97) and a friend of the geezer driving the radon (Hi Bob!) and the geezer's crew chief (Hi Angelo!) I can authoritatively say:

We were all 100% SPOILED by the older generation Van Diemens.

The setup window on them was huge and we all had setups data from big budget, constantly testing, rocket scientist engineer, front running teams. Armed with that, it was easy for anyone who was half way skilled to jump in and make them go.

I think those of us that bought new cars assumed that we'd be able to do the same with the new designs but we forgot that the only reason the Van Diemens were so dominant was because there are HUGE numbers of them running around with very skilled drivers and engineers with big budgets who've had OVER A DECADE to play with them to figure out how to make them work.

The RFR is getting closer and better every time it goes out. We're beginning to figure them out. Nikki (with help from Ralph who is at EVERY RACE) and Chris have done pretty well in their's.

the new cars will take some more time to truly come into their own, but they will.

[Wren]

I'm also aware that this brand new car was competitive after only a few track appearances - (those who have actually DESIGNED a new car without simply recycling old designs are also aware of how noteworthy that is.)

I guess competitive means different things to different people. There was one good finish while all of the fast guys were sorting out new cars.

What does it matter if a new car is designed or an evolution of an older design? There is nothing inherently better in a new car design and there is a lot to be said for continued development of a known package. I am really unsure what your point is.

I am also quite aware of CFD, wind tunnel, and track test data (all of which correlate quite nicely BTW) that you aren't privy to. There is plenty of reason to copy the aero, not least of which is the fact that actual aerodynamicists were involved, although no one seems to understand the "WHY" behind what was done, and thus keeps doing it poorly.

I am only aware of the anecdotal evidence offered by competitors in the F2000 series and the results sheets.

By mid 2010 quite a lot of information about the Radon was out, including some preliminary CFD images among others. I believe around that time is when high noses became popular. Interesting.

What? There were raised nose designs in FB as soon as the rules came out. There was a raised nose FC in the 90's. The raised noses on Van Diemens are a throwback to the cooper series days. It looks to me like the RFR is using primarily the same chassis as the FB car, with some changes for the current rules. Your claim about raised noses is entirely incorrect/ignorant unless I completely missed your point.

I also find it interesting that despite "30 years" as a Formula car designer, and many years of shark fin use in F1, RFR only stuck one on the car right after Radon did. And this shark fin looks not like the shark fin from any other series, but from the Radon. Hmmmm.

I can find pictures as early as October 2010 of an RFR on track with a shark fin on the engine cover. Your theory is that the RFR guys saw one CFD picture from some car that was going to be some random guy's first attempt at designing an FC and redesigned the engine cover of their car at the last minute? I am not privy to any inside information from RFR, but I would be really, really surprised if that was the case. I have to respect your sense of self-importance though. Do you have any proof to back up your claim?

And just to show that RFR can't be the only person to take "inspiration" from the Radon:
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...hlight=sidepod

I look forward to seeing how you brush aside that obvious connection

I don't have to brush it aside, Pizzo already answered the question:

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...1&postcount=19

for those who don't want to click the link, Pizzo says the cad existed before the Radon was out and says where the actual inspiration came from but does say this about the Radon:

short is not really but the Radon got me thinking it could make it from the CAD to the real world

The design is not unique to the Radon, so it is pretty bold to see something like that and automatically assume that it is a copy of a backmarker FC car.

I think you should get over your unhealthy radon trolling. You don't need to chase down every thread with mention of it and bash it.

You drug up an old thread to make silly claims about people copying your design. I just pointed out how dumb that is.

Aero is an objective science about which you are thoroughly uninformed, so be careful with the claims you make in that area.

Do you have any idea what my background is? But, I will admit to being familiar only in passing with racecar aerodynamics. I have an advanced degree in mechanical engineering but I will freely admit that only required one intermediate fluids class beyond what is required for an undergraduate degree as my field of study was in another discipline. I don't think that spending time deriving Bernoulli's equation from Reynold's transport theorem gives me any special insight.

Are there any RFR' s in the front pack of f2000?

It has already been answered, but yes there are several fast RFR's in the F2000 series. The RFR was the first and only car other than a VD to win a F2KCS race.

[HazelNut]

I believe even as RFR gave cars away at massive discounts and/or for free.

the discounts weren't "massive". They are priced attractively yes, but how else o you get early adopters to new and still yet to be proven product?

Plus that is the van diemen business model and historically has been. If you want to argue with Ralph's business acumen and model, show me the recipients for 10,000+ race cars you've sold.

I don't know of anyone who was unhappy with the radon wing package, or the radon Rn.10.

old school moustache wings seem to be all the rage at the front of the pack.

By mid 2010 quite a lot of information about the Radon was out, including some preliminary CFD images among others. I believe around that time is when high noses became popular. Interesting.

I also find it interesting that despite "30 years" as a Formula car designer, and many years of shark fin use in F1, RFR only stuck one on the car right after Radon did. And this shark fin looks not like the shark fin from any other series, but from the Radon. Hmmmm.

seriously? lay off the opium a bit, i know chasing the dragon is fun, but you're starting to hallucinate.

[starkejt]

In case anyone wonders what Wren's qualifications are, here is a quick shot of his diploma:

[Beartrax]

In case anyone wonders what Wren's qualifications are, here is a quick shot of his diploma:

That made me laugh!
(No offense to Mr. Wren. I have no issue with him.)

[Wren]

It made me laugh too. I am offended by Josh, but not over that picture. It is just a standing policy of mine to be offended by him. That policy has never let me down.

[starkejt]

I just hope everyone is suitably impressed that I had a Holiday Inn Express receipt from last night on deck.

[stonebridge20]

I just hope everyone is suitably impressed that I had a Holiday Inn Express receipt from last night on deck.

You only stayed one night. How smart could you have gotten?

[HazelNut]

I just hope everyone is suitably impressed that I had a Holiday Inn Express receipt from last night on deck.

well done

[HazelNut]

BTW how did thisturn into a fighting bickering thread?

this thread is good news! OUR CARS (or very similar variants of them) are becoming part of the "F1 ladder" !!!!!!!

that is F*CKING AMAZINGLY GOOD NEWS!!!!!!!!! We need to quit bitching and realize the young kids we're running with (and are kicking our old asses) these days might get us F1 pit passes some day!!!!!!!!

[KevinFirlein]

I really should know better but if the discussion is shark fins then well Remmy Audette was running one back in what ? 07 ? I guess Radon influenced that as well ?

not to mention the one I have on the shop wall from 1997 of a RF97. I know damn well Radon didnt influence that. Just give it a rest.

[a. pettipas]

Reynard CART engine covers carried shark fins in the late 90s, IIRC

[rperry]

What does it matter if a new car is designed or an evolution of an older design? There is nothing inherently better in a new car design and there is a lot to be said for continued development of a known package. I am really unsure what your point is.

The point is that no ground up car reaches its full potential in a handful of track appearances. You fail to recognize the importance of on track setup and development. Hazelnut has touched on it rather well.

The raised noses on Van Diemens are a throwback to the cooper series days.

Cool. When I talk about features influenced by the radon, that's definitely the time period I'm referring to.

I can find pictures as early as October 2010 of an RFR on track with a shark fin on the engine cover. Your theory is that the RFR guys saw one CFD picture from some car that was going to be some random guy's first attempt at designing an FC and redesigned the engine cover of their car at the last minute? I am not privy to any inside information from RFR, but I would be really, really surprised if that was the case. I have to respect your sense of self-importance though. Do you have any proof to back up your claim?

I've got about as much proof as they did as you have that they didn't. I never made a concrete claim because that's impossible to prove. And another take could be that RFR haven't a clue about aero, and took some cues from a similar car which was actually being designed by professional motorsport aerodynamicsts.



And then:


Just makes me wonder is all I'm saying.

I don't have to brush it aside, Pizzo already answered the question:
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...1&postcount=19

for those who don't want to click the link, Pizzo says the cad existed before the Radon was out and says where the actual inspiration came from but does say this about the Radon:

And you believe that? The guy seems to have a penchant for copying other designs.... http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51258

Do you have any idea what my background is?

I don't need to. Your posts clearly illustrate you don't know aero. Beyond that I make no claims to your skills or background.

Plus that is the van diemen business model and historically has been. If you want to argue with Ralph's business acumen and model, show me the recipients for 10,000+ race cars you've sold.

My comment had nothing to do with his business model. Just pointing out that giving out race cars to top drivers, who then reject them in favor of older designs, does not speak well about it's performance.

old school moustache wings seem to be all the rage at the front of the pack.

The fact that the cars are great in other ways, or a good driver can drive them to the front, doesn't mitigate the fact that the wings are turds aerodynamically.

[KevinFirlein]

Penske developed them in 94 to hide the pushrod Mercedes Indy only engine. Since the cars flew everyone adopted them. they come and go every few years.

[Wren]

The point is that no ground up car reaches its full potential in a handful of track appearances. You fail to recognize the importance of on track setup and development. Hazelnut has touched on it rather well.

I do understand that. After more than a year of time on track, you don't get to claim that it is a new car. Also notice that the RFR is winning races and performing well while they try to sort it out.

Cool. When I talk about features influenced by the radon, that's definitely the time period I'm referring to.

Please, be more specific.

I've got about as much proof as they did as you have that they didn't. I never made a concrete claim because that's impossible to prove. And another take could be that RFR haven't a clue about aero, and took some cues from a similar car which was actually being designed by professional motorsport aerodynamicsts.

Actually, it is easy to produce pictures of an RFR on track with that exact bodywork that you are complaining about from long before the Radon hit the track. That is a much more convincing argument. As pointed out already, there were other cars running the fin before either of them.

Just makes me wonder is all I'm saying.

I'm wondering what the treatment for Dunning-Kruger is.

I don't need to. Your posts clearly illustrate you don't know aero. Beyond that I make no claims to your skills or background.

To my memory, I have never posted about aero. Observing that someone would be ill advised to copy aero from the Radon based on their results and anecdotes from the F2000 paddock about how they don't seem to carry as much straightline speed is not offering an opinion on aero.

The Radon does not even have a legal aero package and cannot compete.

The fact that the cars are great in other ways, or a good driver can drive them to the front, doesn't mitigate the fact that the wings are turds aerodynamically.

Really? Do you have any real data to back that up?

[rperry]

I do understand that. After more than a year of time on track, you don't get to claim that it is a new car. Also notice that the RFR is winning races and performing well while they try to sort it out.

lol, a "year on track." That's a nice way to spin it to sound like it's been shaken down extensively, but the reality is that it has been raced a few times, and never by big budget operations.

Actually, it is easy to produce pictures of an RFR on track with that exact bodywork that you are complaining about from long before the Radon hit the track. That is a much more convincing argument. As pointed out already, there were other cars running the fin before either of them.

If the fin is the only similarity you can see, then it's a lost cause. Really there's not much that ISN'T similar, aside from the rear endplates.

The Radon does not even have a legal aero package and cannot compete.

Says who? This is the same stuff you said while it was racing on track.

Really? Do you have any real data to back that up?

Tons. I've simulated them, and they've been wind tunnel tested. Nathan has threads about it, IIRC. The wings I designed were 4+mph faster on long straights and worth over a second. Maybe I'm used to pro motorsports, but I was amazed such poor wings were ever driven. Some of the streamlines from testing show separation mid chord.... I actually think a turd might have a lower CD. Then there's the adjust-ability and rideheight sensitivity....

[Wren]

lol, a "year on track." That's a nice way to spin it to sound like it's been shaken down extensively, but the reality is that it has been raced a few times, and never by big budget operations.

There have been several(sometimes as many as 5?) chassis on the track over that year. That is a lot of development miles. I've seen people do a lot more with a lot less.

If the fin is the only similarity you can see, then it's a lost cause. Really there's not much that ISN'T similar, aside from the rear endplates.

Ok, so now your belief is that RFR saw the single CFD picture posted by Radon on their website in mid 2010 and went back to the drawing board and completely redesigned their car to look like the Radon? That makes a lot more sense. smh.

Says who? This is the same stuff you said while it was racing on track.

That was phrased poorly, what I meant was that the aero package was not legal and even with that advantage the car was not competitive.

Tons. I've simulated them, and they've been wind tunnel tested. Nathan has threads about it, IIRC. The wings I designed were 4+mph faster on long straights and worth over a second. Maybe I'm used to pro motorsports, but I was amazed such poor wings were ever driven. Some of the streamlines from testing show separation mid chord.... I actually think a turd might have a lower CD.

The moustache wings were not wind tunnel tested by Nathan. He also claims that they are second to only the Radon wings in terms of performance. You seem to have a problem with making things up.

Your wings were not 4mph faster than anything. That's funny.

[starkejt]

I can think of many cars that had Radon wings on them at one time. Can't think of many that still do. I guess they all were afraid of the additional speed.

[rperry]

There have been several(sometimes as many as 5?) chassis on the track over that year. That is a lot of development miles. I've seen people do a lot more with a lot less.

Development miles? A driver in the masters series running a race is development miles? Really? I think you're getting ridiculous on this front there's no need to respond to it anymore. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's your anti-radon sentiment speaking, and that you're really not that oblivious.

Ok, so now your belief is that RFR saw the single CFD picture posted by Radon on their website in mid 2010 and went back to the drawing board and completely redesigned their car to look like the Radon? That makes a lot more sense. smh.

It was 2009. So just like the single angle with the shark fin, your new angle is a single image. As if that was all the info available...

That was phrased poorly, what I meant was that the aero package was not legal and even with that advantage the car was not competitive.

The only rulings I am aware of regarding the car is that it is legal for competition.

The moustache wings were not wind tunnel tested by Nathan. He also claims that they are second to only the Radon wings in terms of performance. You seem to have a problem with making things up.

Your wings were not 4mph faster than anything. That's funny.

Have you done back to back tests of these wings? I was provided data that they were, along with CFD and later wind tunnel data backing that up. I'm really not interested in being lectured on which set is best by someone who is completely ignorant as to how to evaluate them and how they work.

[Wren]

Nathan has claimed a Cd of .605 for a VD with a standard aero package, which I believe is the raised nose with full width front wing. That is from wind tunnel data and I have no reason to doubt him.

Nathan then claimed a Cd of .598 for a VD with a full Radon aero package.

That 1% change in Cd was probably where the 4mph came from.

[andyllc]

There is no way that the wings are a second faster. IF that was the case, every other car would be obsolete and instead of it being a mainly Van Diemen field it would be full of Radons. NO WAY are the wings a second faster....as far as fins on f2000 cars, I know Knapp put them on his stuff in '96 in the original Andersen series.

[Wren]

Development miles? A driver in the masters series running a race is development miles? Really? I think you're getting ridiculous on this front there's no need to respond to it anymore. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's your anti-radon sentiment speaking, and that you're really not that oblivious.

I'm not sure what I am oblivious to. Maybe you could help me?

An over 40 driver running in a race is certainly useful for development of a car. I have witnessed it many times and I don't really understand what you are saying. The F2KCS weekends have a lot of quality track time associated with them, not just the races. If people can develop cars during a club racing weekend, then they can certainly develop cars during an F2KCS weekend.

It was 2009. So just like the single angle with the shark fin, your new angle is a single image. As if that was all the info available...

Could I get that again in English? The mid-2010 data was supplied by you.

This isn't a single angle of the RFR with the shark fin, this is clearly their FC bodywork.

Ultimately you have zero proof that the RFR copies the Radon in any way at all. The RFR was out first and seems much more inspired by their previous cars. As it is impossible to prove a negative, I cannot prove that they didn't. I can prove that they had their car on track, in it's current configuration well before the Radon. My personal experience with Ralph and Baldwin leads me to believe that they are not scouring the tubes of the internet to copy some guy's unproven, non-unique design. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the better one.

The only rulings I am aware of regarding the car is that it is legal for competition.

There is no such ruling and the SCCA lacks a process to even provide such a ruling.

I was provided data that they were, along with CFD and later wind tunnel data backing that up.

Who provided you this data? Nathan was quite clear that they did not test a moustache wing in their initial trip to the wind tunnel. Are you sure that you have that data, or is this another fabrication like the 4 mph claim?

I'm really not interested in being lectured on which set is best by someone who is completely ignorant as to how to evaluate them and how they work.

I've made no claim about which set is best, so I certainly haven't tried to lecture you on which set is best. On the other hand, I have fabricated and tested wings on a car that was actually successful, so I might have an idea on how to evaluate them and how they work. What could possibly have led you to the conclusion that I am "completely ignorant" of either?

[Wren]

There is no way that the wings are a second faster. IF that was the case, every other car would be obsolete and instead of it being a mainly Van Diemen field it would be full of Radons. NO WAY are the wings a second faster....as far as fins on f2000 cars, I know Knapp put them on his stuff in '96 in the original Andersen series.

Actually, his claim was that the wings were a second faster when you bolted them on a VD.

I don't know about that, but I do know a well known prep shop who was running them on several cars in 2010 (they are not now). I asked about them and the response from the team manager was, "there is no visible improvement on the data, but they are well built and available, so we are happy to run them."

I know another well known prep shop owner who just starts swearing when you mention the Radon wings.

[KevinFirlein]

funny thing about the 'terrible' mustache wings, both Coello and Lievengood have adopted them onto their Firmans looking for speed and differing times. Coello didnt run them at the Glen but Chris did.

The only new car that isnt noticebly larger from a head on view then either a Van Diemen or a Citation is Paul Reiffles new Metrik that he is slowly developing. Its not hard to see where the top speed is when you look at the cars head on and it shows when passing the cars on track.

Coello got a Saturday podium at the glen at a track that has a series of longish straights and medium and high seed corners. Sunday was a clean VD sweep. Winner both days and of course 11 times during the year ran the mustache wings while Wyatt and Rob had raised noses on their VD's.

[HazelNut]

My comment had nothing to do with his business model. Just pointing out that giving out race cars to top drivers, who then reject them in favor of older designs, does not speak well about it's performance.

That not really a fair statement, not to mention it contradicts your previsou statements about cars requiring on track developments. Make up your mind, you can't have it both way. Bashing the RFR and then using the same logic to lavish praise on the radon. So far you kind of just seem like an internet troll who just likes to stir **** up.

Also the driver who "rejected it in favor of an older car" has zero interest in developing new FCs. His goal is to win at whatever cost, get noticed, move on, and forget about FC/F2000. If the older car was at the time was the best tool available that's what he demanded. My understanding is there was a pre-season tantrum and threats of leaving the team if that didn't happen. Rumor mill, but doesn't seem at all out of character.