The rule you referenced a few posts up is still there, but doesn't stipulate whether the competitor is required to supply/provide the accompanying mounting bracket.Originally Posted by J Leonard
The rule you referenced a few posts up is still there, but doesn't stipulate whether the competitor is required to supply/provide the accompanying mounting bracket.
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...7&d=1427122770
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...0&d=1427122770
Seeing images of Jake's car in a wind tunnel or his modified frame being FEA analysed definitely do not help the perception that there exists the potential (and therefore to some the necessity) to spend and develop cars at an extremely high ($$$) level.
-Mark
Mark Uhlmann
Vancouver, Canada
'12 Stohr WF1
Italy?
are the Aprilia engines on the approved lists?
Obviously F1000 ( FB) will not make entry numbers this year and will, in all likelihood, be part of FA for next season and there goes any semblance of cost controls! Just my opinion.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Which approved list?
No list in the current GCR in FA or F1000 section, no list in the F1000 section of Dec 2018 GCR.
I think that list vanished some time ago.
thanks Daryl!Which approved list?
No list in the current GCR in FA or F1000 section, no list in the F1000 section of Dec 2018 GCR.
I think that list vanished some time ago.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Get to know your local FSAE teams. Cost to Jake for all that was precisely $0.00. And, it was fascinating to see and learn about.
Go CSU Rams!
-Jake
What about a seven post test?
Isn't this the norm for almost every front running car in SCCA or elsewhere? The karting boys even go to the tunnels.
For clarity, I have no axe to grind, I just am offering an opinion from somebody who has been on the sidelines and is looking for an opportunity to jump in. If there is a need to book wind tunnel time to be a front runner in the class, it is probably too much class for me - all I am suggesting is I am probably not the only person who feels that way.
If F1000 was (in my understanding) designed to approach FA performance levels with more reasonable cost constraints, I am not sure that this level of optimization was originally considered by the "founding fathers" of the class. Formula cars in general do not have a great reputation to outsiders of being accessible to the "average Joe" who are probably more comfortable buying a sedan-based race car.
There are many threads on this forum bemoaning the shrinking grids across various series - F1000, FC, etc. I just think the answer is quite clearly rooted in the actual or more likely perceived cost to run at the front. If a basic new Formula Ford is $75k USD+ and apparently I should also be budgeting for wind tunnel time to run the car if my goal is to run at the front (I am not nearly as good friends with the local FSAE team!), then I absolutely understand people either running SRF3 or heading entirely over to a production based car.
-Mark
Mark Uhlmann
Vancouver, Canada
'12 Stohr WF1
You might be surprised at how many sedan car teams ( mostly the GT classes) get FEA and wind tunnel work done.
From my understanding SRF and many of the "budget minded" classes are frequent fliers at the low dollar tunnels.
Cost Control
Formula Vee has done the best job of controlling costs of all formula car classes. That is because all the cars are built from a collection of common parts that are production car derived. FF in the 1970's was very similar where the cars were largely based on production car components from British Leland or VW parts. Common to almost all the cars were the Hewland MK8-9 transmission and a bell housing adapter. For many years during the 1970's we were adding a 100 new cars a year to the inventory. And cars cost about 1/2 of what was average income at the time.
Starting in the 1980's, the number of production derived parts and parts common to several popular makes of cars diminished and were replaced by purpose built parts. The cost of new cars started to increase faster than the incomes of the potential buyers. The result is that today, we have cars that are 1.5 times medium income and sales are just what one would expect. Formula Vee has not suffered from nearly as big a cost explosion as FF and FC. Result, it is the largest formula class today. At one time FF and FV were quite close in numbers. It can be argued that FC came along and split the FF market into 2 classes. That is probably true.
To compound the woes of FF and FC, along came the "spec car" craze, FM and FE. The market for these cars was and is FF and FC type customer. So now we are dividing the customer base 4 ways and no one is doing all that well. Just to add to the confusion we now have F4. And there is F3 taking aim at the FA market.
Back to the F1000 issue. F1000 was conceived as a cost effective way to build cars that were clearly faster than FC but not quite at FA level. The cost of a F1000 is a fraction of a FA. Dollar spent to go fast, it may be the most economical formula car class. It also is a demanding car to drive and as such, in my opinion, has some of the best amateur drivers competing today.
Because of the speed involved, these cars are going too fast to not get the cars setup right and that probably includes aerodynamic testing and shaker rig testing. With a drafting program like SolidWorks, FEA modelling is just an additional feature that comes with the drawing program. Again, the performance of these cars demands that good design practices be used.
If people want an economical (what ever that implies) formula class, maybe FV is the model for such a class but with bike engines.
Wind Tunnel?
As the winner of two FRP pro races this year and the current NAF1000 championship leader I can assure everyone you don't need a wind tunnel to be competitive. BTW we also set new pro lap records for qualifying and race at the Glen in a converted 99 Van Diemen.
I was trying to think of a response like this, but would have fallen far short of Jeremy's.
I guess a wind tunnel could help if everything else was close to perfect, and if the competitors were, too. Otherwise, there can't be that much left on the table regarding drag/downforce, right? I don't know, just assuming.
Racer Russ
Palm Coast, FL
I have had cars in the wind tunnels on several occasions. And yes it is somewhat helpful. But because the ground plane is not moving, some of the data is erroneous when it comes to a car on the track. This is especially true for getting answers about down force questions.
Some years ago, I spent a full day at a local airport doing "coast down' testing. The data I got from that day of testing was infinitely more practical and at a fraction of the cost of a wind tunnel. It does require a decent data logging system. And to refine the data, an airspeed source would improve the quality of what one gets. It took me over forty hours to get through all the data but it was illuminating. Unlike a wind tunnel, you can calculate how down force changes with speed because you are collecting data over a range of speeds unlike a wind tunnel where all tha data is gathered at a single speed. And that wind tunnel speed is at the lower end of where we operate race cars.
I have put yarn tufts on a car and drove beside that car to observe the tufts. With the cameras available today, you could do the same with 2 race cars. It would be a lot easier to have a recording and study that than trying to remember what you saw.
In short, I think there are a lot better ways to spend testing money than in a wind tunnel. Testing smart is more valuable and spending a lot of money.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
