Restrictors Recommended for 2015

[S Lathrop]

I will back up what Jay has said.

The committee was assigned a task. The BoD has decided not to follow through.

I think the FB will over time eclipse FA simply because the class is still in the development stage and new engines almost certainly will more powerful. I think this will be more fun to work with these cars now.

Don't be surprised if the BoD revisits this subject after Daytona.

[RobLav]

Throughout all this process, that seemed to be a bit rough, and all the bickering that we have had over the years on restrictors, this solution is absolutely the most brilliant decision they could have made. They've essentially capped the HP level at 2014 engines. Since you have to ask permission and include all the dyno info for 2015+ engines, there is quite the cost and much additional risk for an amateur competitor. It's essentially a barrier, or fairly rigid constraint, on engine HP. It also opens the path we had discussed years ago about limiting the engines to 2 or 3 year cycles and/or minimum 2 or 3 years old.

This new resolution also doesn't cut people at the kneecaps for all the past development.

Thanks to Jay, George, and all the other guys on the ad hoc committee, the FSRAC, the CRB, and BOD for contributing to a brilliant decision.

[Daryl DeArman]

What I am upset about is that we (the FB ad hoc committee) were given the very well defined task of evening up the engine power and limiting the power so that the class would not get much if any faster. We worked very hard on that task and spent a lot of our own money and time doing research and testing. We also achieved the goals defined to us by the CRB.

I don't blame you one bit.

The FB ad hoc committee should have never been tasked with such an endeavor before the class was polled. Then, if the the BoD/CRB/members of the class' goals aligned the FB ad hoc committee should have been tasked.

I was one of the few who thought block of eligible engine years was the best solution, as I came from a series where that worked. It stifled the engine of the year ordeal and still allowed some technology creep. I thought many of this class (at that time) didn't want to do anything to slow progress in the high-tech class. So, perhaps they still don't.

I am thinking this latest decision was more of "just pushing pause" than anything else. However, maybe it is an opportunity to revisit the eligible engine years option as a way to control costs/speeds without completely capping the horsepower at todays' level.

[JerryH]

So....no one has to to anything to their engine to be legal in 2015.....HOWEVER THE KAW CLEARLY HAS A 15 HP ADVANTAGE over the gsxr......so they will be FASTER IN THE SAME CAR THAN A GSXR. Look again at the hp graph Jay posted...that difference was consistant in every dyno run. MORE HORSEPOWER WILL MAKE ANY CAR FASTER.....WE ALL KNOW THAT.

When a Phoenix, a JDR or Jeremy's car puts in a kaw, does anyone think it will not go faster? Granted the kaw has closer spaced gear ratios....which means a few extra shifts per lap.....but that is not enough to offset the huge hp advantage. On a very short track it will not be as superior as at long tracks....maybe only a couple car lengths at the end of a short straight....but superior none the less.

So.....ANYONE RUNNING A GSXR who wants to challange for a win......especially at longer tracks (like Elkart or Daytona)....WILL HAVE TO MAKE THE CHANGE OVER.....and the change over CAN BE COSTLY. Why force them to do that? Is that good for the class? After most have been forced to change over, what have we gained? Let them change over as engine supplies dry up....but remain competitive till then.

CAR OWNERS not able to make that change over immediately, MAY WELL CHOOSE TO NOT RUN MAJORS OR RUNOFFS.....and that is NOT GOOD FOR THE CLASS in the long run.

That SITUATION WILL REPEAT ITSELF EVERY COUPLE YEARS as newer more powerful engines are introduced by the motorcyle companies. IF 15 HP DOESN'T WARRENT A RESTRICTOR, THEN THE NEXT CROP OF ENGINES WILL NOT EITHER......because the kaw will be the baseline by then.

Many people considering this class are not willing to do that and will choose a class with more stable engine rules......and some current owners have talked about leaving the class unless some engine stability is achieved. AGAIN...NOT GOOD FOR THE CLASS in the long run.

The AD HOC COMMITTEE WAS TASK BY THE CRB to find a way to LIMIT SPEED GROWTH in the class. RESTRICTING current and future engines to somewhere near gsxr levels was the only easily policed, hard to cheat on, simple way to achieve that goal. It also gave us a way to MAKE SEVERAL ENGINES COMPETITIVE.....EVEN THE HONDA......and thus INCREASE ENGINE AVAILABILITY. It also AVOIDED FORCING ANYONE TO UPGRADE to a newer engine if he had a supply of the older ones. IF THE CRB WANTED TO LIMIT SPEED GROWTH THEN THIS WAS A WIN WIN.

HAS THE CRB CHANGED THEIR MINDS ABOUT THAT? I DOUBT IT. The BOD has task the crb with reducing Majors and runoffs classes to 14 to 16 over the next several years. That will require combining some classes and eleminating others. IF WE GO ATLANTIC LAP TIME.....AND WITH MORE POWER, WE WILL....FA AND FB COULD BE COMBINED. THAT WOULD BE A REAL FIASCO......WAY TO MUCH DIFFERENCE IN THE CARS. THEN ALL KINDS OF PERFORMANCE ADJUSTMENTS WOULD BE USED.....WAY WORSE THAN OUR RESTRICTORS. Does anyone want that to happen?


USING ON TRACK DATA to evaluate engine differences is VERY DIFFICULT TO DO. To get truely comparable data we will need acceleration data (fast roll to max speed) from the same type car, same wing angles, same ride ht, same rake, same tires and tire pressures.....at the same track (and portion of the track)...in the same session of the same day. We would also need the throttle position and steering angle to be sure neither of those were different. CAN WE GET THAT....maybe.....if there are enough of the same type car with the two different engines on board....and the drivers are willing to run the same exact set up.....and are willing to share the data.....POSSIBLE BUT NOT LIKELY. Even on the same car, the mandated solo box doesn't give us enough data. DYNO TESTING IS THE EASIEST AND MOST RELIABLE WAY TO EVALUATE ENGINE OUTPUT......AND WE ARE NOT TRYING TO EQUALIZE CARS. Now if someone is willing to do a dedicated test day with two of the same type cars with the two different engines aboard, we could get good on track data. Any takers? Yeah.....I know......it would be costly. Let's be rational and use the dyno results your committee spent so much time and money on.

Given the fact that ( AT DAYTONA) we will spend MORE THAN HALF OUR LAP TIME AT WIDE OPEN THROTTLE IN 5TH AND 6TH GEAR ABOVE 12000 RPM....the kaws will have a real advantage there. Will a restrictor then be slapped on the kaw? If track results is what we wait for, that could be the result. Is that fair to those who will spend money to change over between now and then? Far better to use the dyno results and do it now. Only those who currently have the advantage could have any reason to oppose this. They want to keep the advantage as long as they can.....and that is understandable...but not good for the class in the long term.

Apparently, many did not realize the kaw has such an advantage. If I recall there were some graphs posted on Apex over a year ago.....and some discussion followed.....but the conversation died until late this year. The committe was ask not to release any of our data until a decision was reached. In retrospect, had we posted some of the dyno work, some of the uncertainty, confusion, lobbying efforts, and defensive posturing could have been avoided.

It is my opinion that SCCA needs to create a data base of all competitors email addresses (in each class).....and start using that to solicit opinions on rule changes, and for notification of rule changes. Having people write letters to crb isn't working.....and opinion poles conducted by others....which may, or may not reach all competitors, cannot be depended on for a true consensus. More input and more transparancy cannot hurt the process. Certainly, it would be easier to understand the decisions being made.

I think we all love this class....I certainly do.....which is why I try to look at what will keep guys coming to the races.....and keep new people coming into the class.

Thanks.....

Jerry Hodges

[Nick77]

So well said from a person who genuinely cars about the future of the F1000 class.
Jerry PLEASE forward this to the CRB AND THE BOD who have failed so miserably to protected the future of this class

Nick Mayer

[Jnovak]

Thanks Jerry for stating what I could not get right.

How much will competitors love FB when it costs as much as an Atlantic to run at the front?

[sprocketmensch]

Jerry, Nick and Jay,
I am with you 100% on this. As someone who switched to this class to be in a vibrant, growing, modern formula car, I now find find myself at a disadvantage with what was the engine of choice. I had expected to be in a class that would not advantage the "engine du jour" but seemed to have guessed wrong. This sends a message to every prospective racer considering moving to the most fun car out there that it will be a time consuming and expensive endeavor.
I think the CRB got it right the first time, gave us plenty of warning, and put in a plan that was in the best interest of the class. The fact that the Kawi camp is complaining because they can't use their HP advantage is not the point. Wait til the BMW (or Ducati, or...) people get theirs working and smoke the Kawis, then they'll be whining for restrictors.
My car is overweight. I have worked very hard to get it down to min. Adding the Kawi won't help me as I will dragging every addtl pound around with the additional HP. So for me it will mean a new car, etc. Otherwise I'm back of the pack. Not what I bargained for.
CRB - reinstate the restrictor rule and lets get on with racing!
Doug

[JohnPaul]

1) there is no advantage to having a kawi, long or short track (as seen on the track this year) as a matter of fact the gsxr' low end power is more of an advantage.
2) A fresh gsxr will cost you $5k right now and a kawi maybe $3k. So if you spend a few more bucks converting your car from gsxr to kawi it'll probably cost the same. Plus if you can't afford to convert your car then this sport isn't for you ( I know I'm a dick that speaks the truth)
3) if FA and FB get combined FB will be in the best spot because they'll slow down the FA's to make them even. That's going to make the FA cars obsolete and grow FB as we know it.

I wouldn't worry.

Oh if you can't win in a gsxr you're not in a kawi either....

[glenn cooper]

I will take EVERY SINGLE Gen 4 Kawi you can find me for 3k...
I'll even throw you a bird dog fee!

[JohnPaul]

5 on eBay in that range. What's my fee big cat?

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from...engine&_sop=16

[Jnovak]

5 on eBay in that range. What's my fee big cat?

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from...engine&_sop=16

None of these are car kits. I have already checked. You will have to buy everything else you need for about $2K more.

[JohnPaul]

Ok my point is that give or take a grand here or there we can agree that converting isn't that big a deal.....and also most people are still convinced the gsxr is still the dominant package......and maybe it still is

[Gearslingr]

O.K., let's get some input from those who've done the Conversions and see what they've spent. Just asking for costs / time etc. No speed secrets need be revealed.

Just going through some numbers I'm coming up with a heck of a lot more than mid 3.5k and the ~2K more in kit stuff. I'm seeing 7-8K if you send out the motor and have it checked out / freshened before racing it vs. just plopping it in and adding that cost in also.

Is a Dry Sump also required for the Kawi setup vs Wet Sump? That's another chunk.

Am I way off on this?

Doug

[Jnovak]

OK. for those of you who think that there is no difference between the engines take a look at this graph. It shows the torque at the rear wheel for each engine and gearbox assembly when the final drive sprockets give the same top speed for each engine combination at peak power. in this particular case they were geared for a top speed of 149mph.

Now this is the actual driving torque at the rear wheels as calculated from the engine torque X the trans Ratio X the final drive ratio. This is what actually accelerates the car.

The higher line on the graph will always accelerate the car harder. you will note that the Suzuki has an advantage in first gear up to about 63mph and from then on that Kawasaki takes over. also note that I put actual torque numbers on a couple of points on the graph. These show that at the speeds indicated that the Kawi has right around 10% more torque at the rear wheels. It is more than 10% at lower speeds above 60mph and less than 10% at higher speeds.

This simply shows that the Kawasaki engine will always out accelerate a Suzuki engine above 60mph in the same car at the same weight. This is simply a fact of physics and nothing else. Now another point to consider is that the systems in the Suzuki are very well developed and the Kawasaki is in its infancy and will get better as people continues to develop the engine package.

Now don't tell me that the Kawasaki weighs in at 20lbs more. This only make a difference if you can't make minimum weight. Sorry dudes the lighter car with a Kawi wins this battle.

Of course the CRB and the BOD have made the decision that most of you seemed to want so be prepared to get those Kawi engines in your cars if you want to win Daytona. I know I will be.

[Jnovak]

O.K., let's get some input from those who've done the Conversions and see what they've spent. Just asking for costs / time etc. No speed secrets need be revealed.

Just going through some numbers I'm coming up with a heck of a lot more than mid 3.5k and the ~2K more in kit stuff. I'm seeing 7-8K if you send out the motor and have it checked out / freshened before racing it vs. just plopping it in and adding that cost in also.

Is a Dry Sump also required for the Kawi setup vs Wet Sump? That's another chunk.

Am I way off on this?

Doug

yes, dry sump needed right now and that is $2500 - $3000 on top of the motor, race headers, brackets, dyno etc. you know the list goes on and on.

we did our best to keep the Suzuki competitive.

[Northwind]

You may want to add in the $5000 to $7000 shift system I've heard is needed to make the Kawasaki shift adequately.


I think there are a few people wanting to go faster in these cars but have not considered the safety factor. These tube frame cars are marginal for crash protection at speeds going faster than we are now. When one of the F1000 cars finally has a big shunt I think there are going to be some eyes opening up. Add in we are near the limit of what the tires can handle and the crash possibility increases further. I know I dread the thought of what might happen to one of these cars rolling at 135 + mph thru the kink at Road America and hitting one of the concrete barriers.

[ghickman]

You may want to add in the $5000 to $7000 shift system I've heard is needed to make the Kawasaki shift adequately.


I think there are a few people wanting to go faster in these cars but have not considered the safety factor. These tube frame cars are marginal for crash protection at speeds going faster than we are now. When one of the F1000 cars finally has a big shunt I think there are going to be some eyes opening up. Add in we are near the limit of what the tires can handle and the crash possibility increases further. I know I dread the thought of what might happen to one of these cars rolling at 135 + mph thru the kink at Road America and hitting one of the concrete barriers.

I believe Coop has already tested his old Firman chassis in a fairly high speed crash. From what I saw it was a fairly violent one.

Yes this is true. The Kawasaki doesn't shift worth a damn without some help. Vollum tried it and made the switch to the Geartronics.

As of now the Kawasaki requires a dry sump. I've been quietly working on a wet sump pan. I'll have them for sale very soon.

The way I look at it switching to the Kawasaki is about a $15,000 investment. However if you have a car that is already 30lbs overweight in my opinion you should stay with the Suzuki. The Kawi will only add to your weight deficit.

Side note the Suzuki headers will bolt right up to the Kawasaki. You'll likely have to do a few mods for best fit because the Kawi sits at a different angle than the Suzuki but at least you don't have to start from scratch.

[RobLav]

A couple comments:

Jays graph only shows potential optimal benefit. It doesn't show the costs (like extra weight, dollar costs, shifting issues, etc).

Also, the manual bump shift mechanism I made for the Yamaha engine worked perfectly fine with the Kawi. The placement of the cross shaft was different because of the differing heights of where the shift rod was located. I also bought brand new complete Kawi engine kits for $5800 each. Then added the dry sump for about $3K. I don't consider this cost too outrageous when compared to an FC Zetec or especially an FA. This still remains within our original intent of high output engines at relatively low cost.

And I agree with Gary... keep the Suzuki if you are overweight.

[Jnovak]

A couple comments:

Jays graph only shows potential optimal benefit. It doesn't show the costs (like extra weight, dollar costs, shifting issues, etc).

Also, the manual bump shift mechanism I made for the Yamaha engine worked perfectly fine with the Kawi. The placement of the cross shaft was different because of the differing heights of where the shift rod was located. I also bought brand new complete Kawi engine kits for $5800 each. Then added the dry sump for about $3K. I don't consider this cost too outrageous when compared to an FC Zetec or especially an FA. This still remains within our original intent of high output engines at relatively low cost.

And I agree with Gary... keep the Suzuki if you are overweight.

Do you think that building a min weight Kawasaki powered car will not happen?

[glenn cooper]

Jason Bell to the white courtesy phone...

[ghickman]

Do you think that building a min weight Kawasaki powered car will not happen?

Already has

[Jnovak]

Already has

I know.

I just think it is amusing that there is so much denial about the "potential" advantage.

[Nick77]

I know.

I just think it is amusing that there is so much denial about the "potential" advantage.

Shhh, it's a secret,they want to win
Nick

[Brett Lane]

Never thought about wringing out a Kawasaki at Daytona. With the right aero package maybe the low fifties? Hmmm.

[Brandon Dixon]

Never thought about wringing out a Kawasaki at Daytona. With the right aero package maybe the low fifties? Hmmm.

Low 150mph has been done at Elkhart. We did 156 at Homestead in early 2010, without really developing the car for that mission.

I think that a good FB developed for Daytona would do 160 there. I believe that the FB laptimes will be closer than ever to the FA times. The FB is likely to have a higher top speed there.

[Brandon Dixon]

OK. for those of you who think that there is no difference between the engines take a look at this graph. It shows the torque at the rear wheel for each engine and gearbox assembly when the final drive sprockets give the same top speed for each engine combination at peak power. in this particular case they were geared for a top speed of 149mph.

Now this is the actual driving torque at the rear wheels as calculated from the engine torque X the trans Ratio X the final drive ratio. This is what actually accelerates the car.

The higher line on the graph will always accelerate the car harder. you will note that the Suzuki has an advantage in first gear up to about 63mph and from then on that Kawasaki takes over. also note that I put actual torque numbers on a couple of points on the graph. These show that at the speeds indicated that the Kawi has right around 10% more torque at the rear wheels. It is more than 10% at lower speeds above 60mph and less than 10% at higher speeds.

This simply shows that the Kawasaki engine will always out accelerate a Suzuki engine above 60mph in the same car at the same weight. This is simply a fact of physics and nothing else. Now another point to consider is that the systems in the Suzuki are very well developed and the Kawasaki is in its infancy and will get better as people continues to develop the engine package.

Now don't tell me that the Kawasaki weighs in at 20lbs more. This only make a difference if you can't make minimum weight. Sorry dudes the lighter car with a Kawi wins this battle.

Of course the CRB and the BOD have made the decision that most of you seemed to want so be prepared to get those Kawi engines in your cars if you want to win Daytona. I know I will be.

I wonder what the BMW will look like on a similar graph

[Jnovak]

I wonder what the BMW will look like on a similar graph

No data yet Brandon.

[glenn cooper]

I think Brett mighta been talkin about a lap time?

[Randy Cook]

OK Call me stupid for believing the SCCA when they told me restrictors would be required 1/1/15. I sure feel that way after committing yet another $5K+ for a new GSXR with restrictors. Sure I can use it without restrictors but that money could have been spent toward a Kawasaki.

The argument that shelving restrictors is the will of the competitors doesn't ring true as the data from which the decision was made was withheld from us. Just as a lynching is the will of the people present at the time there's something wrong with this decision. We didn't have the facts and so weren't in a position to make an informed opinion. This fiasco was the result of an ill advised decision to keep the stakeholders in the dark and let the loudest voices make it look like everybody didn't want restrictors. If you admit that opponents of restrictors didn't have the facts behind this proposal (that is, the committee generated dyno data and the thought process behind establishing initial restrictor sizes), you must also admit that it's a position based on anecdotal evidence and personal opinion. This isn't the way our club should be run.

At least now restrictors are in the F1000 rules and are subject to competition adjustment. Please review the available information and the thought process finally revealed by the committee to see if it makes sense to you. It does to me. If it makes sense to you please write letters not only to the CRB (and also copy the Board of Directors) supporting the work of the committee to equalize the power of existing and future engines.

[Brett Lane]

I think Brett mighta been talkin about a lap time?

Yeah- low 1:50's- doing 160...

[James Michael]

If you want to grow the class, enticing people to spend $10-20K on an engine conversion isn't the way to do it. I think restrictors is a good idea to give some sanity to this engine race.

[Jnovak]

OK Call me stupid for believing the SCCA when they told me restrictors would be required 1/1/15. I sure feel that way after committing yet another $5K+ for a new GSXR with restrictors. Sure I can use it without restrictors but that money could have been spent toward a Kawasaki.

The argument that shelving restrictors is the will of the competitors doesn't ring true as the data from which the decision was made was withheld from us. Just as a lynching is the will of the people present at the time there's something wrong with this decision. We didn't have the facts and so weren't in a position to make an informed opinion. This fiasco was the result of an ill advised decision to keep the stakeholders in the dark and let the loudest voices make it look like everybody didn't want restrictors. If you admit that opponents of restrictors didn't have the facts behind this proposal (that is, the committee generated dyno data and the thought process behind establishing initial restrictor sizes), you must also admit that it's a position based on anecdotal evidence and personal opinion. This isn't the way our club should be run.

At least now restrictors are in the F1000 rules and are subject to competition adjustment. Please review the available information and the thought process finally revealed by the committee to see if it makes sense to you. It does to me. If it makes sense to you please write letters not only to the CRB (and also copy the Board of Directors) supporting the work of the committee to equalize the power of existing and future engines.

This exact comment should be in a letter to the CRB.

[racerdad2]

Outsider's view point. The class grew quickly with cheap engines & speed. Now, it appears to be morphing into a "Low Cost" alternative to FA. Forging ahead with the next great engine may leave many regional cars parked.

The decision facing this class appears to be either inclusive or exclusive.

Seemingly, restrictors are on the inclusive side and will grow the class.

[ghickman]

This fiasco was the result of an ill advised decision to keep the stakeholders in the dark and let the loudest voices make it look like everybody didn't want restrictors. If you admit that opponents of restrictors didn't have the facts behind this proposal (that is, the committee generated dyno data and the thought process behind establishing initial restrictor sizes), you must also admit that it's a position based on anecdotal evidence and personal opinion. This isn't the way our club should be run.

There are 2 key mistakes I believe the Ad Hoc Committee made.

1) Putting a restrictor on the Suzuki (big mistake should have focused on new higher HP engines only bring them down to the same HP as Suzuki). Was told this was the original intent but somewhere it went away from that.

2) And what Randy says above, keeping the competitors in the dark.


The problem with putting the restrictor on the Suzuki was you sent a clear message to the competitors that you really were intent on slowing the cars down, nobody wanted this.

[Jnovak]

There are 2 key mistakes I believe the Ad Hoc Committee made.

1) Putting a restrictor on the Suzuki (big mistake should have focused on new higher HP engines only bring them down to the same HP as Suzuki). Was told this was the original intent but somewhere it went away from that.

2) And what Randy says above, keeping the competitors in the dark.


The problem with putting the restrictor on the Suzuki was you sent a clear message to the competitors that you really were intent on slowing the cars down, nobody wanted this.

You make great points Gary.

1. We were specifically told NOT to divulge the data/info. I agree this was not the right decision. I am pretty sure that the reception of the restrictor rules would have been much different if the info had been made public.

2. We were specifically told to cap the speeds of the cars/class, thus the very slight restriction on the Suzuki. The Suzuki restrictor actually knocks about 3 hp off of the peak power. While this is not a big deal it may have created the perception that we were slowing the class a lot. I am also certain that there would have been lots of complaints about no restrictor on the Suzuki too.

[ghickman]

You make great points Gary.

1. We were specifically told NOT to divulge the data/info. I agree this was not the right decision. I am pretty sure that the reception of the restrictor rules would have been much different if the info had been made public.

2. We were specifically told to cap the speeds of the cars/class, thus the very slight restriction on the Suzuki. The Suzuki restrictor actually knocks about 3 hp off of the peak power. While this is not a big deal it may have created the perception that we were slowing the class a lot. I am also certain that there would have been lots of complaints about no restrictor on the Suzuki too.

I wish you guys had asked me to test the Suzuki restrictor. I've already tested it at WSIR and it made more than a 3HP difference. I passed this on to Jerry Hodges but by then it was too late.

[Thomas Copeland]

There is one thing everyone should know about Coops crash - the Firman is the only F1000 chassis I know of that meets FIA crash tests specifications. This is not a bash at other chassis but I can't help but think it might have made a difference. I do also worry about too much speed in these tubular frame chassis. Where is the limit?

Back to slowing cars down - there is a time and place for it. I'm not totally against the idea, but it needs to be done in a more transparent way than this was done along with plenty of time between the rule passage and implementation. If enacted in such a way I doubt there would have been such an uproar.

[S Lathrop]

There is one thing everyone should know about Coops crash - the Firman is the only F1000 chassis I know of that meets FIA crash tests specifications. This is not a bash at other chassis but I can't help but think it might have made a difference. I do also worry about too much speed in these tubular frame chassis. Where is the limit?

This is my soap box speech about chassis construction:

The one characteristic of the crash test that does not get mentioned is that no chassis, be it composite or tube frame, will pass the crash test without a proper nose cone. The Firman test was run with a Dallara nose cone originally. One characteristic of the Firman chassis and probably any good tube frame was that the frames survived the crash test without damage. That is not the case for the F3 cars which is the standard the Firman was compared to. So based on that fact, I think that the tube frames are very capable of protecting a driver as well or better than a composite chassis.

The one area a composite chassis is superior to a tube frame is penetration protection. For the new Citations, we are offering the body panels that surround the driver in 6 layers of Kevlar, prepreg, vacuum bagged and oven cured. This should be equivalent to .060 hard aluminum which is the SCCA standard for metal side protection.

The worst injury to a driver that I was working with came in a FIA compliant chassis, FA. The nose cone was lost in the initial impact and the secondary impact severely injured the drivers left foot and destroyed the tub. A tube frame might have protected the driver better because a steel tube front bulkhead likely would have been better able to withstand the force of the steering rack being driven through the tub and cast front bulkhead.

[David Locke]

There is one thing everyone should know about Coops crash - the Firman is the only F1000 chassis I know of that meets FIA crash tests specifications. This is not a bash at other chassis but I can't help but think it might have made a difference. I do also worry about too much speed in these tubular frame chassis. Where is the limit?

FC uses similar tubular frame chassis and is not all that much slower on the straights than FB. With the exception of one "outlier" trap speed from an FB on a single qualifying lap, the difference in terminal speeds for FB and FC was less than 6 mph at the 2013 Runoffs at Road America. I doubt that an additional 6 mph makes much difference, particularly since crashes rarely occur at top speed on the straight anyway.

[Thomas Copeland]

Good points both of them. Don't know if this is true or not but I think I remember reading somewhere than composite chassis absorbs energy from an impact whereas with the tubular frame transmits that energy through the chassis to the driver. Does this make any difference in regards to impact speed?