How about an update!

[Rennie Clayton]

Hi Richard,

I have no idea what an "IPS car" is, but you can only check compliance with a plane after you've established the plane. The rules, as currently stated, do not establish a plane, other than the nebulous "plane formed by the bottom of the chassis" - which, as you have pointed out, may or may not be a flat plane itself. Do we try to press a straight edge up to a potentially curved surface? Is there going to be a rule stipulating that the competitor establish a sturdy flat plane on the bottom of the car from which all measurements will be taken?

The question still is, how is the plane established?

If you re-read my suggestion, the 3 hard points are there simply to establish the plane - the measurements from there are still done with the straight edge laid across the reference plane. I see that you advocate a 6" x 1" flat plane area from which to take measurements, which is basically like saying you have to have one large hard point on the bottom of your chassis to measure from. Is this really big enough to secure a straight edge to securely and measure accurately from, taking all of the potential angles into account? I suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is 33% of the effort and expense required to establish 3 hard points (although, in fairness, 3 threaded hard points are probably smaller, lighter and easier in total than a single 6" x 1" hard point), but the concept is the same yes? You're still talking about putting the onus on the competitors to establish the orientation of the plane when he constructs the car, right? You just happen to be suggesting a single flat plane as an actual, physical flat plate, in a specific location, rather than 3 broader-based points.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Stan Clayton]

There is an even simpler solution to hand. Why not use the DSR rules? They permit 1" of vertical deviation over 45% of the wheelbase through any longitudinal plane, and have been hashed out at the "Supreme Court" level of SCCA. Simple, enforceable, and yet they permit a certain amount of experimentation on the part of builders.

Just my 2 cents...

Stan

[R. Pare]

Rennie:

IPS stands for Infinity Pro Series - the IRL support series.

For a "plane" to exist, it HAS to be flat - a curved surface is not a flat plane.

I AM NOT advocating a plane of only 6x1 inches - that was purely an example of the possible underside designs you could encounter. The arguement I was putting forth was against specifying a straightedge length because of the possibility of a too-short straightedge not being able to reach all corners of the undersides while held against that small of a flat surface that is located in that sort of position. The arguement was also aimed at illustrating the necessity of specifying a minimum plane size.

What I am advocating is that we keep this as simple as possible in how we state the requirements. Worded correctly, there can be no mis-interpretation, be easy to check for compliance, and will still allow the constructors some latitude in how they play with the undersides for aero purposes.

The "flat plane" does not necessarily need to be something built into ( ie - welded into) the bottom of the chassis. It only needs to be a flat surface that is formed as part of the undersides,(regardless of the specifics of construction) and is immediately accessible when the car is raised up for a compliance check - ie - if you raise up the car and cannot find a flat surface of the required area, in the required area, the car is immediately illegal.

In the case of an exposed stressed panel bellypan, it most likely would take the form of a bonded and rivited alu panel on the undersides of the lower main rails - the current common construction practice we all are familiar with. It could also take the form of a sheet of Jabrock attached to the undersides of the main chassis and bellypan. Constructors choice.

If, instead, the manufacturer builds the car with a full-width undertray under the chassis, the flat plane would have to be formed as part of that undertray for a couple of reasons:

1 - by these rules, the hard points you advocated would have to stick down thru the undertray in order to be accessable for measuring purposes, making them prone to damage if the area of the undertray thru which they stick is "soft" and easily damaged ( ie - a glass/honeycomb/glass sandwich type of construction, as is common). Also, having a hard point sticking down that can possibly be snagged and ripped out on a curb or big bump is dangerous.

2 - more obviously because if the hard points established a flat plane that was above the undertray, the undertray would be measured as being illegal. In this case, the rules would have to stipulate that spacers of a specified length could be inserted in order to establish the desired plane. Unnecessarily complicated.

No, keep it as simple as possible and stick to just requiring that there be a flat plane of a minimum XX x XX inches size in a certain area under the main chassis. It is a lot simpler, and impossible for "interpretation creep".

[Lee Stohr]

The only simple solutions I can think of are :
No Rules ! or
A mandatory underbody that everyone has to use.

You know which one I like

[Rennie Clayton]

Richard,

Well, honestly with your points 1 and 2 in this last post, it seems like you're kind of getting lost in the weeds by pointing out problems with your implementation of my concept, and so the discussion is a bit frustrating for me in that respect. And then I'm told that your implementation of this concept is unnecessarily complex. So be it. My original point, which I merely offered a concept for implementing, is still valid:

Establish the location of the plane.

Now, you don't like my concept and that's fine - I ain't married to it, and I'm sure your suggestion of establishing a flat area on the bottom of the chassis will work just fine, as long as some guidelines are established with regards to size, location, flatness tolerances and flexibility restrictions, and those things are also objectively verifiable. Again, I don't want to get lost in argument because you're zeroing in on "3 points" when we seem to agree on my main point, in whatever manner is seen fit:

Establish the location of the plane.

Sorry if I sound more than a bit frustrated, but I feel that point has been overlooked in my posts, after I've raised and highlighted it as a major issue. That's all.


Cheers,
Rennie

P.S. - yes, I know what the nature of a plane is...

P.P.S. - Lee, I don't know what you're talking about, clearly the answer to all this is 1200cc air/oil cooled engines with 5 speed gearboxes, full-length flat bottoms and a vertical flat plate front and rear.

[RobLav]

Frankly, I'd like to see the DSR underbody rule applied to F1000. It's relatively simple and effective, and it allows some experimentation.

[R. Pare]

Richard,

Well, honestly with your points 1 and 2 in this last post, it seems like you're kind of getting lost in the weeds by pointing out problems with your implementation of my concept, and so the discussion is a bit frustrating for me in that respect. And then I'm told that your implementation of this concept is unnecessarily complex. So be it. My original point, which I merely offered a concept for implementing, is still valid:

Establish the location of the plane.

Now, you don't like my concept and that's fine - I ain't married to it, and I'm sure your suggestion of establishing a flat area on the bottom of the chassis will work just fine, as long as some guidelines are established with regards to size, location, flatness tolerances and flexibility restrictions, and those things are also objectively verifiable. Again, I don't want to get lost in argument because you're zeroing in on "3 points" when we seem to agree on my main point, in whatever manner is seen fit:

Establish the location of the plane.

Sorry if I sound more than a bit frustrated, but I feel that point has been overlooked in my posts, after I've raised and highlighted it as a major issue. That's all.


Cheers,
Rennie

P.S. - yes, I know what the nature of a plane is...

P.P.S. - Lee, I don't know what you're talking about, clearly the answer to all this is 1200cc air/oil cooled engines with 5 speed gearboxes, full-length flat bottoms and a vertical flat plate front and rear.

Rennie:

I give up. Until you can learn to read, I'll post not further on this subject.

[Art Smith]

There is an even simpler solution to hand. Why not use the DSR rules? They permit 1" of vertical deviation over 45% of the wheelbase through any longitudinal plane, and have been hashed out at the "Supreme Court" level of SCCA. Simple, enforceable, and yet they permit a certain amount of experimentation on the part of builders.

Just my 2 cents...

Stan

Stan-

with all the excitement, have I missed a change to the DSR aero rules "as written" in the GCR? if so, when is it effective?

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Rennie Clayton]

Ahem.





Art,

There has been some clarification of the XSR underbody rules with regards to the deviation amount (it is +1" deviation only, not +-1"), however the tricky part is that the rules are still a bit hazy (IMO) on where the deviation is measured from. It says vertical deviation, but vertical from what? Current convention has it being measured from "the plane forming the bottom of the chassis," but this is still open to some interpretation and confusion since, indeed, the bottom of the chassis may not necessarily form a plane. It is certainly not mandated that a flat plane be formed or established by some specified means. I would suggest either:

A
As Richard suggests, establish a reference plane surface on the bottom of the car, of a certain size, in a certain location, of a certain stiffness and of a certain flatness tolerance. Tech inspectors would the be able to apply a straight edge directly to this surface to check for rules compliance.

or...

B
Stipulate that, upon the request of an inspector, a competitor must provide a reference plane surface (again, of a certain size, in a certain location, etc.) on the underbody of the car that can be used by the technical inspector to apply a straight edge to, using whatever mechanical means the competitor sees fit. If they are unable to provide this surface, they are immediately declared illegal.

In practice, A is potentially simpler than B. However, also in practice, B would result in 95% of competitors adopting the direct approach specified in A anyway, while those who were interested and inclined would be free to pursue more complex aerodynamic solutions (within +1" of deviation from the lowest point, anyway, for whatever it's worth).

Cheers,
Rennie

[Stan Clayton]

Art, last fall Mike Devins, Jon Staudacher and myself banded together to seek clarification of the DSR rule, centered on the question of whether the 1" deviation cited in the GCR meant +/- 1", +1" or -1", and how it was to be measured.

In the end the CoA ruled that 1" meant +1" from the lowest point within the 45% in the longintudinal section in question. The ruling did not refer to a "plane", nor do I think there needs to be one.

Regards, Stan

[Art Smith]

Rennie/Stan-

thanks for your responses; guess I wasn't distracted after all.

what am I missing, what is so hard about getting a rule(s) fixed and the changes incorporated into the GCR for all to use. if the club wants the rule to be +1"/-0" (ie: plus or minus 0.5"), a rule(s) change is required since Websters isn't likely to change the definition of deviation. the well intentioned effort to get a "court" to rule that deviation mean's +1"/-0" didn't work; the court offered an opinion on a different question.............. AND since the "court" is not empowered to change rules only hand down opinions on the rules "as written", their opinion is worth just about the same as everyone else's opinion! the rules "as written" remain unchanged and unverifiable in my opinion; and I worry more each day about unused.

it's not a secret that quite a bit can be done aerodynamicly with a surface that is flat within plus or minus 1/2". before investing the time to develop a solution that's close/right, I'd like to know what the rules are that everyone will be playing to and how those rules will be verified. what we have today doesn't even approach a "gentleman's aggreement". the challenge only gets tougher with the ever increasing number of cars that have been built.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[preform resources]

Guys, here's a link to an excellent site for sir's It's Dave Finch's company and I'm sure a lot of you have heard of him from the GT-2 wars. The parts they are building are of super quality and there has been much time in development. http://www.raetech.com/Motorsports/motorsports.htm

Dave Craddock

[RobLav]

I would be surprised if everyone in the new F1000 class doesn't run of those from Dave. Frankly, you'd be silly not to (unless your engine is not approaching the HP limit).

[R. Pare]

OK. Here's a proposal for the wording of the shaping of the undersides. This should give pretty much max latitude in doing whatever you want for undersides aero, and be easy to check compliance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft, revI 05-24-2006

For the full width of the body between the rearmost point of the front tire to the frontmost point of the rear tire, the location of the lower surface of the car (surface licked by the airstream) shall not exceed 2.54cm (1 inch) upward from a reference surface designated by the entrant.

The entrant shall designate on the lower surface of the car (surface licked by the airstream) a flat reference surface with minimum dimensions of 12 inches by 12 inches centered within plus or minus three (3) inches of the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.

Compliance with the 2.54cm (1 inch) deviation rule shall be verified by placing a straight edge on the reference surface designated by the entrant.

A car without a designated reference surface shall be found non compliant.

A car with a designated reference surface with curvature or damage that will not support non-rocking contact by the straightedge shall be found non-compliant.

A car with with a reference surface not meeting the minimum size or central location requirements shall be found non-compliant.

A car with anything other than suspension lower than the designated reference surface shall be found non-compliant.

A maximum of four (4) one (1) inch by four (4) inch rub blocks may protrude below the reference surface a maximum of 0.25 inches. A car with more than four (4) protruding rub blocks, one or more protruding rub blocks larger than one (1) by four (4) inches, or one or more rub blocks that protrude greater than 0.25 inches from the reference surface shall be found non-compliant.

A car with any part of it's lower surface (licked by the airstream) that is located more than 2.54cm (1 inch) upward from the designated reference surface measured perpendicular to the straight edge shall be found non-compliant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It could be made a bit less wordy or redundant, but the repetitive nature makes it pretty hard to get misunderstandings.

If a more restrictive undersides areo package is desired, all that needs to be changed is the size of the reference surface.

[Lee Stohr]

How to deal with flexible floor and bodywork issues ?

[R. Pare]

Good question, but the simple answer is that is it can't pass the inspection proceedure, it's illegal.

If it is desired to make flexible/moveable floors illegal, ( it would be kinda fun to play with a dynamicly shapable floor!) that would have to be addressed as a separate issue. However, if the "no moveable aerodynamics" rule is kept, that rule would address that problem all by itself.

[Craig]

What about early 90's Van Dieman cars (maybe others?) that have a steel skid plate on the front. This plate is generally as wide as the chassis at the point where the nose box attaches (more than 4", closer to 10 or 12") and is bolted onto the bottom of the bellypan, also supporting the bottom of the nose box. I realize attaching the nose a different way or changing to a smaller plate is possible. Is there a way to incorporate an allowance for this?

Also, a slightly twisted chassis or such could cause a corner of the car to be slightly lower than the reference plane. Is there an easy way to make the allowance a +/- 1" rather than a just positive measurement? I know this may open a new can of worms but......lets hear some opinions.

Craig

[R. Pare]

If I remember correctly, the VD skid is forward of the trailing edge of the front tire, so it is not subject to this rule.


"Also, a slightly twisted chassis or such could cause a corner of the car to be slightly lower than the reference plane."

It is up to the competitor to make sure their car passes, not the rules committee to make sure that there is allowance for every (in)concievable situation!

[Stan Clayton]

Richard's suggestion would eliminated all those older doner cars with stepped bottoms, like the older Formula Renaults and tube frame F3 cars. More to the point it would also eliminate the current production Gloria, with its FIA-mandated 50 mm lateral step.

With Gloria being one of only 3 current producers of F-1000 cars (VD and Speads being the others), I don't think that's in our best interest.

Regards, Stan

[Art Smith]

if the club (the racing community) wants a verifiable plus one minus zero flat bottom rule there's probably going to be a few cars that need some work to be compliant. rules don't eliminate cars from competition, manufactors or competitors unwilling to configure their cars for competition compliant with the rules do!! of the cars destined for F1000, how many might need some work? as for cars being sold for competition that would need work to compete compliant with the rules, how many have been sold in the US? and if they're not compliant with a verifiable flat bottom rule what's the plan for updating the rule. or is the plan to accept them for competition by decree and continue to attempt to convince everyone else that Webster's was wrong and deviation really means plus one and minus zero? what's the criteria for being treated as a manufactor; how many cars?

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[R. Pare]

While Stan's observations are correct, the counter question is : Who cares?

How many tube frame F3's are available over here as donor cars? Will (many, if any?)people really want to go to the expense of bringing over an old and obsolete orphan car to then spend buko mucho $$ to convert and then run against bespoke-built cars that (if the design is done right) are going to be probably much faster?

What prevention is there to a buyer of any of the mentioned cars from adding material to the undersides to make the car compliant to our rules?

If we are going to be concerned about doner cars, lets keep the concern to those that are actually readily available over here.

You wanted a simple and easily verifiable rule outlining what is permissible in shaping the undersides that isn't going to be subject to tortured interpretations and interpretation drift over time, and this is about as simple and bullitproof as you are going to get. Dimensional details can be changed easily enough if the collective decides that they want to increase or decrease the permissable aero potential.

[Stan Clayton]

Gloria have cars over here and available for sale today.

[Art Smith]

I'd add one additional idea to Richard's key point:

If we are going to be concerned about doner cars, lets keep the concern to those that are actually readily available over here "AND compliant with the rules as currently written".



Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[R. Pare]

True, Stan, but how much of a basis is that for us deciding on our rules? I would submit that it should have nothing to do with it at all.

If we are to decide to structure the rules to allow in the majority if readily available cars - ie - current FCs that are falling into disuse otherwise - with the minimum of mandated changes, then almost all current FCs will pass these rules with minimal reworking - the only really necessary reworking on the majority would be to support the side pods more positively to get rid of potential droop of the outer edges.

A Gloria car, or any other built with a big step in the undersides, needs only to add in a simple (reletively) panel to fill up the offending areas.

As worded, the rule allows full-length tunnels to be formed if the competitor wishes, as long as they fit the compliance check. The Gloria and others of that ilk can be modified if desired for tunnels also.

If it is desired instead to severely limit the formation of tunnels, all that is necessary is to sunstantially increase the size of the reference surface. Again, current FCs already comply, and the Glorias of the world can gain compliance with an insert.

As they say, keep it simple.

[Lee Stohr]

My point is that the more complex the rules you write, the harder people are forced to look for gray areas or loopholes to win. That would include moveable aero devices. Everything on a race car deflects under load, so a rule saying 'no movable aerodynamics' makes every car illegal. That being the case, no one pays any attention to the rule. Is 1/8" deflection of the sidepods OK? How about 1/4" How about 1/2" ? How do you police it ?

I'd suggest using 600cc engines, and no rules. You couldn't pull much downforce with only 600cc of torque. That would take care of everything. 1000cc in a lightweight single seater is just too close to FA performance, and hence FA cost.

[R. Pare]

I'm assuming that your arguement is tongue-in-cheek, as it makes zero sense otherwise for a car designer/engineer to put such an arguement forward!

In explanation to those who don't understand, Lee's arguement about 'moveable' aero is not valid at all - he is confusing 'moveable' with 'flexible', and they are entirely different things both by definition, their physical properties, and (more importantly to anyone trying build something) to the understanding of those who will enforce the rules.

"Moveable" refers to devices that are manually adjustable from the cockpit, or have been designed in such a way that they 'adjust' themselves mechanically in response to externally applied forces (a 'passive' response) - ie - things like spring loaded wing mounts - or are adjusted actively via electronic controls (an 'active' response).

"Flexibility" is the passive strain response to externally applied stress loads. Since ALL physical objects have a strain response to stress, legislating away all strain response is against the laws of physics. All that can be done if limitations are to be imposed is to specify a max allowed strain under a specified stress.

And that is not within the perview of what the underbody shaping rules are desired to do.

[carnut169]

My point is that the more complex the rules you write, the harder people are forced to look for gray areas or loopholes to win. That would include moveable aero devices. Everything on a race car deflects under load, so a rule saying 'no movable aerodynamics' makes every car illegal. That being the case, no one pays any attention to the rule. Is 1/8" deflection of the sidepods OK? How about 1/4" How about 1/2" ? How do you police it ?

I'd suggest using 600cc engines, and no rules. You couldn't pull much downforce with only 600cc of torque. That would take care of everything. 1000cc in a lightweight single seater is just too close to FA performance, and hence FA cost.

What??

F1000 is close to FA speed hense FA cost!?! Sorry Lee, thats just not true. At least the cost part of it. 1000cc bike engines have less power, last longer, and cost $2,000 to $3,000 in stock form* w/ the trans. I'm sure the FA guys would love to know where to buy engine/ trans for under $5000! Yes, at some tracks the speeds are close due to the weight and ratios but otherwise FAs are faster.


*and no matter what people tell you the stock components are just fine. No need to have anyone "build" a motor for you unless you want to sacrifice power for reliability. I am getting close to rebuild time if I had a Pinto but this all stock motor keeps going strong.

[Lee Stohr]

Richard, I can't wait to watch you explaining flexible and movable to the Tech people

Regarding FA performance, I meant an unrestricted 1000cc engine in a car lighter than a FA would be very close. If you are going to use a restricted engine, that's different.
No one will be using $2000 engines if F1000 takes off. You can drop a junkyard engine in a car and hope nothing is wrong with it. Most people don't want to take that risk, if it blows, there is nothing left of a bike engine.
After rebuilding the stock engine, oil system mods, clutch mods, etc you will have a $5000 engine at least. Most everyone in DSR carries a spare too.

[R. Pare]

Lee:

My verbiage useage was in anticipation that the average racer on this forum is a bit more intelligent than the average (scca tech) bear!

Actually, the general understanding of the difference between 'flexible' and 'moving' was instilled in most of them (the scca techies) starting about 30+ years ago when most organizations banned 'moveable' wings in response to all of the failures of driver-adjustable wings and those attached directly to the uprights (some of the contraptions we saw back then were unbelievably bad), refined further with the ban on flexible and sliding skirts in the '80s, and reinforced about 20 years ago when a flexible rear spoiler was put on the back of an S2 - they screamed bloody murder at first, until the difference was explained, and then decided that they had to instate a new rule to ban that sort of spoiler!

What ever happened to that rule?

More recently, both F1 and NASCAR - the two most opposite series technically that you could ever dream up - have separate rules governing moveable aero devises and flexible devises as entirely separate entities. The taxicab guys started making flexible rear spoilers a long time ago, until tech instituted a maximum-deflection-under-load rule, and the F1 guys are still fighting over flexible wings - witness the most recent Ferrari rear wing controversy.

Anyway, under this particular proposed undersides rule, flexible components would be perfectly legal as long as they pass the measurement test in tech, or not legal if there was a separate rule governing that type of devise.

That, of course, assumes that the current tech guys haven't morphed the two types into one single category under the "moveable aero devises" rules! In that case their take will be that flexible devises are not legal at all. I personally don't agree with that, as they are technically entirely different things, but would be willing to live with it if that were the case.

[Lee Stohr]

I think Ferrari says they are 'aero-elastic' , not 'flexible' and hence totally legal, they say.
And they won the fight, everyone else is rushing to copy them.

[kbee00]

I'd suggest using 600cc engines, and no rules. You couldn't pull much downforce with only 600cc of torque..

Lee,

I think that is a great idea. When the F1000 idea was originally bantered around - it all started with a general statement. Of course the details were different, but the thought process was the same. "Wouldn't it be cool to take an FC car and put a bike motor in it....etc". Why don't you push forward for an F600 class based on your idea and see what happens? I think there are quite a few racers out there that would jump on that ship. The SCCA is ready for bike engined cars and from many of your earlier posts, I'm sure you could attract quite a few buyers. For all those individuals pushing for more open aero rules, this is your chance to have your cake and eat it too. Richard - what do you think? Once the F1000 class gets out of the gate, F600 might be able to take hold - and maybe even quicker - once the word is out.

Just a thought....

Loren

[carnut169]

We briefly discussed a 3 tier strategy...

F1000- 1000cc, 1000lbs, FC rules (pretty much)
F1500- up to 1500cc, NO rules
F600- 600cc, no wings, FF rules

then we have always had FS... only SCCA safety rules.

We are really only focusing on F1000, but if someone wants to get the ball rolling on the others I say go for it!

[formulasuper]

Richard, I can't wait to watch you explaining flexible and movable to the Tech people

Regarding FA performance, I meant an unrestricted 1000cc engine in a car lighter than a FA would be very close. If you are going to use a restricted engine, that's different.
No one will be using $2000 engines if F1000 takes off. You can drop a junkyard engine in a car and hope nothing is wrong with it. Most people don't want to take that risk, if it blows, there is nothing left of a bike engine.
After rebuilding the stock engine, oil system mods, clutch mods, etc you will have a $5000 engine at least. Most everyone in DSR carries a spare too.

Lee,
The "junkyard" motors being used are usually low mileage, 50 to 2,000 miles, removed from wrecked bikes. (Kids get these high powered rockets & crash them before they are barely broken in.) Therefore, no rebuild is required. (I have an older sport bike, 92 GSXR 750, which I have run the cr-- out of for 13 years = 30,000 miles on & off the track, without any internal engine work & the thing still runs like new!) The $2000 purchase price includes a complete car kit which means wiring harness & computer, fuel injection system, ignition system, exhaust system, even the radiator & oil cooler. Yes, a drysump & a few reliability mods bump them up to $5000, but what FA powerplant, including tranny, can you get for anywhere close to that figure? The last time I checked I found a used Toyota 1600 FA, engine only, for around $17,000.

[Lee Stohr]

You can run a $1500 bike engine if you want, Maybe it didn't scream itself to death at 15,000rpm when the throttle stuck during the wreck. Maybe no peices from the broken alternator cover got into the primary drive gears. Do you feel lucky?
I was just relating my 5 years of experience in DSR, I was explaining where people are going with engines in DSR. My point is that I never spent as much on a FF engine as we have on bike engines. You are fooling yourselves if you think F1000 is going to be cheaper than FF/FC. It will be faster and cooler, no doubt about that. I'm not in love with Pinto engines, but bike engines are not cheaper in the long run. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I'm talking about averages that I've seen over the years in DSR.

[Stan Clayton]

Lee,

Your point about the true cost of unlimited 1000cc m/c engines is well taken. From the original intent statements of the F-1000 working group and their recent comments about SIRs, they clearly recognise the importance of limiting the hp to a level that helps ensure a decent engine life along with an exciting ride. And if the proposal goes through, I am confident we can give them an SIR that accomplishes those goals.

Stan

[R. Pare]

The arguements about the potential costs of a possibly suspect junkyard engine are rather moot when you consider that you can buy the whole bike brand new for way less than the cost of either Pinto motors fully prepped. AND that bike engine includes getting the gearbox essentially free of charge.

What goes on in hiking engine costs in DSR is irrelevant to the F1000 proposal, assuming that the rules are designed to keep down engine development as has been discussed previously. Such is not the case in DSR, and it isn't surprising that some have spent a small fortune!

Lee: I wouldn't even try to explain "aero-elastic" to the tech guys!

[Lee Stohr]

Stan, The use of an SIR may be the answer. I have no experience with them.
How is the working group progressing ?

[Stan Clayton]

Lee,

I expect the F/SRAC to have the proposal in your hands early next week.

Stan