Current future status of F1000

[lmpdesigner]

Hey guys,

Just would like a general understanding of the current status of F1000:

1.) Rules
2.) SCCA class and "vision" for cars
3.) Non SCCA races (Southeast)

Etc.

I have an FC car and access to a number of differing 1000CC MC engines so was thinking of a conversion. But the class seems to be slowly dying away. SO maybe a bad choice?

[Garey Guzman]

This seems to be a great place to race an FC:

http://southernformulacar.com/2018-s...p-FC_b_59.html

[GrahamLoughead35]

Do not convert to an F1000. The class was killed off this year in SCCA.

[sprocketmensch]

Great question. Many (most) of us in F1000 have moved over to run with FRP. We will be announcing the 2020 schedule in December but expect races in VIR, Road Atlanta, Barber, as well as NJMP, Pitt Race, Summit, and Mid Ohio. Its a great group and the racing is superb. Check out the NAF1000 website.

F1000 is the fastest car for the money, not the bull**** of older cars. We actually have multiple constructors making new cars each year. What other open wheen series can say that?

[JakeL]

LMPDesigner,

If you're anywhere east of the Mississippi, the Formula Race Promotions (FRP) series is a total no-brainer. F1000's with the original ruleset, great tracks, and decent enough car counts to go and have some fun competition.

the FRP events are all formula car (Atlantic, F2000, F1600, and F1000), so they definitely "get" open wheel. Every single person I've talked to about the FRP series has GLOWING remarks about the experience - the track time, the attitude of the officials and the competitors, etc. Sounds like a great place to be.

http://www.formularacepromotions.com/

Specifically, the link for the F1000 sub-series is here. in 2020, I believe they will run in a group with the F2000's, which should be an improvement from running with the Atlantics last year (eep).

https://northamf1000.com/


For those of us where the east coast is a long way from home...harder answer.

As for racing one in SCCA, it's sort of TBD. the CRB and FSRAC need to figure out what they're going to do with the cars. F1000 is being lumped into FA, but without any performance allowances, they'd be swamped, since FA's are 3-7 seconds a lap faster depending on the track. There's also some reservation about how advisable it is to make these cars any faster than they already are for safety reasons...but I admit a 1440 busa in the back of my car would be hysterical fun.

-Jake

[Jnovak]

For those of us where the east coast is a long way from home...harder answer.

As for racing one in SCCA, it's sort of TBD. the CRB and FSRAC need to figure out what they're going to do with the cars. F1000 is being lumped into FA, but without any performance allowances, they'd be swamped, since FA's are 3-7 seconds a lap faster depending on the track. There's also some reservation about how advisable it is to make these cars any faster than they already are for safety reasons...but I admit a 1440 busa in the back of my car would be hysterical fun.

-Jake

Do it Jake!

[JakeL]

You're not helping!

-J

[ghickman]

LMPDesigner,

As for racing one in SCCA, it's sort of TBD. the CRB and FSRAC need to figure out what they're going to do with the cars. F1000 is being lumped into FA, but without any performance allowances, they'd be swamped, since FA's are 3-7 seconds a lap faster depending on the track. There's also some reservation about how advisable it is to make these cars any faster than they already are for safety reasons...but I admit a 1440 busa in the back of my car would be hysterical fun.

-Jake

Already in progress, making a run up Pikes Peak with it next year with a Hybusa powered Phoenix. Wish me luck.

My retirement is short lived. I'm planning to run all the FRP FB races in a rented car.

[JakeL]

Gary,

I *knew* you couldn't stay away!

Congrats on your short-lived retirement

-Jake

[ghickman]

Gary,

I *knew* you couldn't stay away!

Congrats on your short-lived retirement

-Jake

I'll add this to my 4 other retirements. One for every decade.

As for the future of FB in Atlantic. Here's my rules proposal.

1) All FB's with 1000cc engines, open ECU and engines can be built. Weight minimum 1000lbs

2) Stock Motorcycle engines up to 1500cc. Weight minimum 1075lbs.

I've already tangled with an 016 Swift, no big deal. Not afraid of going faster in the Phoenix its well built.

When the first FB wins a legit FA race then the FA guys will be screaming bloody murder. It will happen.

[JakeL]

Gary,

Your proposal almost 100% matches what I sent to the CRB.

-Jake

[Jnovak]

I'll add this to my 4 other retirements. One for every decade.

As for the future of FB in Atlantic. Here's my rules proposal.

1) All FB's with 1000cc engines, open ECU and engines can be built. Weight minimum 1000lbs

2) Stock Motorcycle engines up to 1500cc. Weight minimum 1075lbs.

I've already tangled with an 016 Swift, no big deal. Not afraid of going faster in the Phoenix its well built.

When the first FB wins a legit FA race then the FA guys will be screaming bloody murder. It will happen.

FA lap times at less than half the costs. Sounds like fun to me!

[Daryl DeArman]

Already in progress, making a run up Pikes Peak with it next year with a Hybusa powered Phoenix. Wish me luck.

Bucket List.

Awesome!

[greg pizzo]

I'll add this to my 4 other retirements. One for every decade.

As for the future of FB in Atlantic. Here's my rules proposal.

1) All FB's with 1000cc engines, open ECU and engines can be built. Weight minimum 1000lbs

2) Stock Motorcycle engines up to 1500cc. Weight minimum 1075lbs.

I've already tangled with an 016 Swift, no big deal. Not afraid of going faster in the Phoenix its well built.

When the first FB wins a legit FA race then the FA guys will be screaming bloody murder. It will happen.

Gary is there ANY effort to make these rules actually the rules ? I like them !

[JakeL]

I wrote nearly exactly that to the CRB several months ago, with supporting evidence in terms of laptimes, and even some in-car video.

So, depending on your faith in SCCA's process...yes or no...

-Jake

[greg pizzo]

I wrote nearly exactly that to the CRB several months ago, with supporting evidence in terms of laptimes, and even some in-car video.

So, depending on your faith in SCCA's process...yes or no...

-Jake

Need any help ?

[JakeL]

Greg, sent you an email...

Anybody else who's got a stake in F1000 in SCCA, drop me a line, be happy to provide a template for some (I feel) sound arguments for what they should allow.

-Jake

[JEREMY HILL]

I sent my letter suggesting that they allow built 1000cc motors @1000 lbs or 1355cc built @1075 lbs as in P1. I have been told that it is on the table for the meeting this weekend in Kansas. I provided data from the 3 FRP races that we ran with the Pro Atlantics this year which showed the FA cars were on average 6 seconds per lap faster. Jeremy Hill

[JakeL]

At this point we've completely hijacked LMPDesigner's thread (sorry!), but for anybody who wants to see (FA and F1000 alike) here's the complete letter I wrote.

Feel free to copy / edit / plagiarize in your letter: www.crbscca.com

-Jake

-----

Dear CRB & F/SRAC,

I’m writing this letter to submit my thoughts and data on the consolidation of FB into FA. I write this from the perspective of a long-time DSR competitor and more recently F1000, becoming active again after a hiatus. I’ve been on the Runoffs podium twice, but I'm clearly a step below most championship level drivers in these classes like Brandon, JRO, Loshak, and Chris Farrell are/were.

First, I agree this is necessary since both classes are doing poorly in the SCCA. My primary goal is to hope you will consider some performance adjustments to help give the FB’s a bit of parity vs the true Atlantics, with the secondary goal being that the resulting adjustments/allowances do not lead to a car that is so ruinously expensive to keep running as modern Atlantics are, or the result will surely be a continued withering in participation.

Since data is most useful for discussions like these, first I thought it useful to establish some information on the current performance gap. Using race results from the Formula Race Promotions semi-pro series in which FA’s and a reasonable crop of F1000’s are competing this year, as well as recent Runoffs results, some representative lap times can be gleaned.

Atlanta: ~1:19 vs ~1:23 (FRP 2019)
Watkins Glen: 1:40 vs 1:47 (FRP 2019)
Mid Ohio: ~1:16 vs 1:21 (2016 Runoffs)
Daytona: ~1:47 vs 1:51 (2015 Runoffs)
Road America: 2:01 vs 2:05 (2013 Runoffs)
VIR: 1:43 vs 1:48 (FRP 2019) [Edit: Now 1:41 as of 2019 Runoffs]

As you can see, the performance gap is consistently 4-6 seconds between the best Atlantics and FB, with top-level drivers. Given the above, as a first step to try and bring the level of performance of FB up, I propose two simple rule set changes for F1000 style cars being merged into FA, that will provide a baseline for future adjustments:

Change #1: Open up the engine table for cars to be allowed to use the same table as the motorcycle-engine portion of P1’s engine table – both weights and engine displacement/restrictor combinations.

Duplicating this table provides a known benchmark as a starting point, as well as being able to take advantage of the now well-trodden path by engine builders and competitors.

Further, some F1000 chassis will not accept the larger Hayabusa engine easily, so allowing the built 1005cc engine at lower weight allows a performance option for cars where conversion is impractical.By implication of non-stock engine configurations, note this removes the stock ECU and stock injection requirements currently limiting F1000 cars. This was intended as a cost-saving measure, but that ship sailed years ago as we have all seen.
Additional horsepower will reduce the disparity on tracks with long straights, as well as increased torque for the initial out-of-corner on-throttle advantage the larger displacement engines in FA have vs the small FB engines.

An easily visible example of this initial corner-exit torque advantage is in the following video. This Atlantic was not well driven (slow in the corners), yet notice the substantial straight-line speed difference between the two cars, especially coming off of corners. Further notice that this is true in both low and high-speed corners meaning the effect is present regardless of different wing/drag configurations (my car was very trimmed out for this track anyway): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6hNJhTOBCc&t=440s

Further, additional horsepower will open up the option of FB’s using larger wheel-and-tire packages, which at the moment we simply lose too much in straightaway speed vs the increase in cornering, on all but the shortest tracks. (Note JRO used a large tire package at Sonoma 2018 Runoffs for this very reason - no long straight to worry about the top-speed deficit).

Change #2:
Open up the aero rules to allow full-length Atlantic or P1 style tunnels on FB’s, instead of just the small diffuser. This will reduce the disparity in high-speed corners. With increased horsepower available, FB-style cars will be able to pull the additional downforce from these tunnels down the straights more effectively, whereas at current horsepower levels, more downforce would be a liability, as the cars are already very power/drag limited relative to the FA’s. Hence, I believe both changes are warranted in order to allow the F1000’s to gain a few seconds per lap at most tracks.

Finally, I thought it useful to dispel a few common refrains when the topic of adjusting FB/F1000’s is raised:

Argument: “We shouldn’t make tube framed cars faster”:
Response:
To this I note that tube-framed Stohr DSR/P1’s have been at this relative performance level for 15+ years now – as far back as 2011 we were doing 2:00-2:02 at Road America doing ~160-165mph, and have through empirical evidence (aka crashes) shown to be safely constructed.Currently FB’s are at approx 10mph shy of that. One side benefit of using the P1 Engine/Weight table above is that higher weight limits bring more scope for additional safety modifications, e.g. cockpit side panels and true rear crush structures, while still being able to make minimum weight - perhaps improvements in this area should be mandated as part of the merger into FA to protect us from ourselves...

Argument: “We shouldn’t have the light FB’s in with the heavy FA’s”
Response: Again, this situation already exists in P1 (1000cc = Stohr at 1000lbs vs DP02 at 1475#). Further, my proposal above of allowing increased engine displacement and weight on the FB’s brings the weight of the cars more equal in terms of the resulting mass/energy should they have contact.

Argument: “I don’t want all of these ____ cars in FA”
Response: Usually this is from one of Swift/Atlantic competitors. FA has been a dumping ground for cars for years anyway (Pro Mazda, F4 come to mind). With the last Atlantic pro series some 10 years dead and buried, it seems a certainty that no more Atlantics will be built, whereas there remain several constructors still building F1000’s here-and-there. In my view, the laptimes achievable by an enhanced-spec F1000 as I’ve described above should be the new benchmark for the class to be known as “FA”.

Closing Thoughts
As a final note focusing less on BoP and more on simple fun: A car with engine/weight/performance characteristics as described above should ultimately be similar to the performance of the current P1 spec, as FA and CSR/DSR were 8-10 years ago.

In the mixed-class racing we usually have in SCCA events across the country, Regional or Major, this will also make for more opportunities for fun wheel-to-wheel racing both within and between classes, which is what we all came here to do anyway. At the most recent Laguna Super Tour, the most fun of the weekend was chasing/being chased by a P1 that was off the P1 front-running pace. We had a great time.

Thanks for your consideration.

-Jake

[greg pizzo]

letter sent !

[JakeL]

Following up on this, it is my understanding that the CRB has gotten its recommendations from the F/SRAC, and will be chatting about them today or tomorrow in Kansas, so there will be clarity one way or another, hopefully, in a few days.

-Jake

[Daryl DeArman]

Is your intent for both engine options (1005cc or 1355cc) to be "open" in their configuration like P1 or more stock-like as in P2?

Your letter mentioned the tables, but I inferred the desire was to have the 1005cc more open and the 1355cc more stock-ish. Maybe I missed that part.

[JakeL]

Daryl,

P1. Nowhere did I mention P2.

P2's are significantly slower than F1000's as it stands.

-Jake

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl,

P1. Nowhere did I mention P2.

P2's are significantly slower than F1000's as it stands.

-Jake

I understood what you wanted with regards to table specs (P1) wrt displacement, weight and restrictor sizes. I also understood you were advocating for built 1005cc engines.

Wasn't clear if you were also asking for built 1355cc engines (P1 table and rules) or more stock-like engines (P1 table, P2 mods) as there was talk on this thread from others about 1500cc stock MC engines.

[RussMcB]

Who makes stock motorcycle engines near 1500cc? I'm only familiar with the Suzuki Hayabusa 1340cc.

[SEComposites]

Kawasaki have a ZX14 I think.

[Jnovak]

Letter sent!

[lowside67]

Step 1 - give FB a hope in hell to be competitive in "FA".

Step 2 - consider ways to reduce the cost to run the FA chassis competitively - perhaps a light weight option for a stock K20 Honda motor?

-Mark

[Daryl DeArman]

Kawasaki have a ZX14 I think.

Yep, 1441cc currently. 208HP. 113ft/lb torque at rear wheel.

What, within the P1 engine rules and tables is preventing someone from using a Kawasaki H2r motor? less than 1000cc and 322HP?

[JEREMY HILL]

Yep, 1441cc currently. 208HP. 113ft/lb torque at rear wheel.

What, within the P1 engine rules and tables is preventing someone from using a Kawasaki H2r motor? less than 1000cc and 322HP?

H2R is supercharged...

[Mike B]

H2R is supercharged...

It might be an oversight but I don't see anything in the P1 rules that prohibits forced induction. This is one of those situations that I would want to get a ruling before I bolt one in my car...

[Thomas Copeland]

While I like the parity proposals they might have the effect of killing off the pure-bred FA's completely. They are already too expensive to operate to justify running them at the club level. Even the FRP pro series couldn't sustain numbers enough. There might even be a time in the future where FA is made up of 99% or more F1000's anyway.

Just going by recent history I doubt the SCCA will do anything that'll help out F1000, and that includes any form of parity. I'd be the first to congratulate them on their sudden and unexpected attempt at insightfulness, but I'm skeptical. I'll try and write a letter anyway. Who knows, maybe miracles can still happen.

I was pretty vocal about the risks of pretending to race an F1000 as an FA when it first came out, but that's exactly what I'm planning to do next year(I'm not currently planning on doing any NorthAm events at all). I may not a fast as Alex or Gary, but I'm actually looking forward to seeing how it works out.

[Jnovak]

Step 1 - give FB a hope in hell to be competitive in "FA".

Step 2 - consider ways to reduce the cost to run the FA chassis competitively - perhaps a light weight option for a stock K20 Honda motor?

-Mark

The currently available Honda K20 engine weighs over 300lbs and I did not see any real opportunities to get lighter!

[lowside67]

While I like the parity proposals they might have the effect of killing off the pure-bred FA's completely. They are already too expensive to operate to justify running them at the club level.

If they are already too expensive to operate to justify running them (which I agree, and explains why the level of participation is nearly nothing) then isn't the pure-bred FA already dead?

The goal in my eyes is not to "preserve" the pure-bred FA but rather to increase the size of grids who can closely compete for better overall racing. I think that a lighter, lower powered FA would actually be even better competition to an F1000 since it is closer to the same overall formula.

Edit - and if it's not a K20, then maybe it's another motor - just thinking aloud for a cheaper, more reliable motor. The Fit conversion for FF was fantastic because it took the motor to a non-event that are largely equal and unbelievably reliable since they are so understressed.

-Mark

[Thomas Copeland]

If they are already too expensive to operate to justify running them (which I agree, and explains why the level of participation is nearly nothing) then isn't the pure-bred FA already dead?

The goal in my eyes is not to "preserve" the pure-bred FA but rather to increase the size of grids who can closely compete for better overall racing. I think that a lighter, lower powered FA would actually be even better competition to an F1000 since it is closer to the same overall formula.

Edit - and if it's not a K20, then maybe it's another motor - just thinking aloud for a cheaper, more reliable motor. The Fit conversion for FF was fantastic because it took the motor to a non-event that are largely equal and unbelievably reliable since they are so understressed.

-Mark

Bringing FA down to match F1000 is a much better idea. That's where I think parity should go (should have stated that). But Real FA is probably going to have trouble saying alive anyway. It's stupid money. It belongs in a pro series. Maybe I'm wrong but it's why I've been thinking SCCA FA will eventually end up being 99% F1000 anyway, regardless of any parity.

[Garey Guzman]

.....Edit - and if it's not a K20, then maybe it's another motor .....

How about a 12a or 13b?

[lowside67]

How about a 12a or 13b?

Sorry - we are looking for something MORE reliable than an FA motor

-Mark

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Edit - and if it's not a K20, then maybe it's another motor - just thinking aloud for a cheaper, more reliable motor. The Fit conversion for FF was fantastic because it took the motor to a non-event that are largely equal and unbelievably reliable since they are so understressed.

As someone who has spent the last year dealing with engine issues on a budget, I have to ask:

Why is there such a love of high-strung/stressed (aka expensive) engines in amateur Formula racing?
What is the benefit I'm not understanding?
It's seems to me that seeking "parity" erases the benefits and justification of running engines on the ragged edge.
I'd rather run a bigger motor at low power - forever.
This should be about driving (which I haven't done all year because I'm spending engine money)

I know there is a lot of love for FB. I like it too. It was the first class I looked at.
But it simply failed on it's principle of cheap engines.
You can argue that, but I suspect if you ask anyone NOT in the class they'd agree.

Other than car dimensions, etc classes should be simply a weight and restrictor plate size.

The simple "Formula" for bigger grids is reducing cost in any class.

Why not have FA run J series v6s with restrictor plates. 250hp all day every day reliability.

[Jnovak]

As someone who has spent the last year dealing with engine issues on a budget, I have to ask:

Why is there such a love of high-strung/stressed (aka expensive) engines in amateur Formula racing?
What is the benefit I'm not understanding?
It's seems to me that seeking "parity" erases the benefits and justification of running engines on the ragged edge.
I'd rather run a bigger motor at low power - forever.
This should be about driving (which I haven't done all year because I'm spending engine money)

I know there is a lot of love for FB. I like it too. It was the first class I looked at.
But it simply failed on it's principle of cheap engines.
You can argue that, but I suspect if you ask anyone NOT in the class they'd agree.

Other than car dimensions, etc classes should be simply a weight and restrictor plate size.

The simple "Formula" for bigger grids is reducing cost in any class.

Why not have FA run J series v6s with restrictor plates. 250hp all day every day reliability.

Good thought except that you can't put a V6 in any of the current FA chassis imo.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Good thought except that you can't put a V6 in any of the current FA chassis imo.

Adapt or die? Just saying. Everyone is sitting watching the ship sink.
If it takes 3.0 to 3.5L to produce the power - reliably - adapt to it.

I understand ragged edge in Pro racing , but not in amateur racing. I may be alone.

We need solutions that burn more fuel than cash. Literally.