Stohr to build a F1000

[Bill Maisey]

see this http://p081.ezboard.com/fdsrforumgen...cID=1652.topic

[R. Pare]

No worries Matt, I have no plans to build a F1000.

Huh??

[emotepix]

Apparently the new WF1 is a sports racer. Lee's not built an open wheel car since 1999, I believe.

[Sean Maisey]

July 7, 2006 - Lee Stohr Cars LLC announces that production of the WF1, for 2006 deliveries, ends August 1.
Work has begun on the new Stohr F1000 car along with preparations for the SCCA Runoffs in Topeka.
Another production run of Stohr WF1's will begin in September for January 2007 delivery. Visit our web site at www.stohr.com
A deposit now will secure a delivery date in time for next January's races. Call 503-775-1114 for more information.

The WF1 is the new sports racer that has been setting track records everywhere it goes this season. The F1000 is a new open wheeled car, I am told that a release regarding that car is soon forthcoming...

[Scott Gesford]

Very interesting. Lee builds great cars. Probably too bad for the guys who are converting old Van Diemans and think they will be competitive. In DSR, the professionally built cars grew the class tremendously. Maybe it will happen again.

Wish he would build a Continental with a Zetec.

[emotepix]

Sure, a mere $35,000 for a roller and you too can win a race. Or two. Until somebody notices a niche market opening up and ups the ante again.

Is everything only professional at the Continental level and above?

And thus bigger, richer professionals beat out poorer ones?

And the races become these processions of faster/newer, then slower/older cars that I've seen lately?

I thought F1000 was intended for home builders? So we have CF1000 before we even get started?

[sidney]

Lee is in the business of making and selling cars. This new class is another opportunity for kids with daddy's checkbook and guys with more money than skill to drop a load of cash and not have to know a thing about what it takes to make the car go. This is a general statement, and of course, there will be those persons who have both the money and the skill to hustle one of these around.

However, I think the cool part of this class is the SIR, and the lack of mods that can be done to the engine. Also the limitations put on the aero, allows for some play, but not reckless escalation like DSR has gone through. Everyone gets a similar powerplant output and doesn't have to have a windtunnel to be fast. Keep in mind, Dave W. in the FC ranks doesn't have the latest and greatest chassis of the year, but he goes pretty darn fast.

I for one, think this is a further confirmation that this idea has been a long time coming, and will be one classes SCCA needs to further the organization.

[Sean Maisey]

Am I correct is seeing that someone from Sherman Oaks, CA is concerned about cost containment? Shouldn't you be out looking for Nicole's real killer?

Seriously, I was a F1000 committee member. We gave very serious consideration to trying to minimize the incentives to repeat the engine and aero nuclear arms races that are beginning to ruin DSR. I have no reason to believe that Lee's new car will be any better than a 1997 or later Van Diemen coversion. In fact how many FF or FC races has a Stohr won over a Piper, Citation or Van Diemen over the last 5 years?

Sidney has it right. Lee is in business to sell cars. There are many racers who are not interested in used cars or conversions. They will flock to Lee's car or other options (Gloria, Speeds, OMS, etc...). We tried to design the rules to allow conversions to compete, but this is not a socialist endevor. The best car will win consistently. Isn't that the point of racing? If you are just looking for self validation, I suggest another sport...

Sean

[John Mosteller]

Sean based on Lee's past Formula Fords and FF2000 you may be right . None of them were that competitive against the Swifts and Van Diemens and they all had overheating issues.But he may surprise you as I am sure he is learning a few things along the way. But IMO a car designed around a motorcycle engine has the chance of being better than any conversion.The weight distribution,center of gravity etc are all different than a 2L pinto so a car optomised from the begining to use a motorcycle engine should easily out perform a conversion.

The fact that they are suspending the DSR production would seem to point to no DSR sales at this time so they are going to try to get some sales in F1000 from their DSR record. But I would think a prudent buyer would probably wait to see how they preform and whether they overheat etc. before buying.

The SIR may help from the standpoint of the motorcycle manufacturers continual HP improvements from year to year but I seriously doubt that a stock motor will compete with a built motor from Arnie Loyning or George Dean.The SIR can limit peak HP but the engine builders will still get More HP and torque through the whole rpm range up to the peak.IMO peak HP is something you can brag about but it doesn't do that much for you on the track.On track it is power under the curve which I expect the built engines will have a lot more of.

John

[emotepix]

Funny, I thought it was the car and the person in it and behind it too.

[R. Pare]

I find it strange that someone would announce the start of designing of a car for a class that hasn't even had the construction rules decided on yet!

Quite frankly, the lack of detailing out the rules before submission to the CRB has me more than a bit worried.

[Stan Clayton]

The rules were written to similar detail as those for FC, but if you have specific concerns, please share them with us at crb@scca.com.

Stan

[R. Pare]

Stan:

There were ZERO details published in Fasttrack as concerns chassis layout restrictions (main frame lower rail width, pedal position, suplementary cockpit brace requirements, etc), safety requirements ( crushable structure, anti-intrusion panels, mandatory stressed bellypan, etc), air ducting restrictions, body material restrictions and requirements, and so on. As the rules proposal curently sits, it is only about half done.

[preform resources]

I thought the the rules were to mimick F-C rules (aero,layout,etc.) and the weight was such that a F-C conversion would be right in the ball park, so some guys with the dough will buy new cars(they wont be cheap) meanwhile the conversion cars will continue to be developed.
HOWEVER,Stohr is going to try to dictate the direction of this class,,,,,,,,,,,,in his favor and not be concerned with parity , As far as competition goes check Tom Robertsons response on the sports racer site. http://p081.ezboard.com/fdsrforumgen...cID=1653.topic

Dave Craddock

[John Mosteller]

A lot of that could be cleaned up by requiring the same as FF and FF2000.

All newly constructed cars shall meet the 1986 construction rules for Formula Ford cars.

John

[R. Pare]

PS:

Why also the allowance for front diffusers on a car that is supposed to be winged? Makes no sense at all! Have you guys decided to allow sports car noses all of a sudden? What is the body width allowed?

And on, and on, and on........................................

[John Mosteller]

Richard the body dimensions were in the fastrack at the end of the rules proposal.

John

[Lee Stohr]

Stohr Cars is working on a FS/F1000 announcement. I said here that I hoped F1000 could be like DSR. No one at Stohr was a member of the committee that wrote the F1000 rules. The final rules are not what I suggested, I hoped for fewer rules. The final rules are basically FF2000 with restricted bike motors. That appears to be what everyone wants. OK, let's go with that. Initially I thought it would not be possible to build F1000 cars for the under 30K price the market seems to desire. However, after analyzing it with my partner Wayne and our accounting department, with our new in-house composites facility and leveraging our DSR parts economies-of-scale, it looks OK. Everyone we talk to is very excited about the potential of F1000.
Drawings and specs will be coming soon !

[Anonymous Lee]

Perhaps Lee could elaborate on how he knows what the rules are going to be for the class when most people haven’t gotten a clean or clear idea of what the rules will be.

Formula/ Sports Racer advisory committee
Dave Gomberg, Chairman
Joe Stimola
Ben Beasley
Bruce Livermore
Phil Creighton
Randy Cook
Charlie Warner
John Merriman
Rick Silver
Rusty Cook
Dave Jansen
Lee Stohr

Although Lee, may not be on the committee to dictate the rules for F1000, I doubt he filled his ears with cotton when the topic came up. And in true SCCA fashion I’m sure Lee was approached about building a car for the class and you can’t fault him for that.

For clarification, the first generation Stohr quoted a cost of $27,000 and now it is $68,000
Lee has an oven to build composite parts, so you can say goodbye to your cheap class now, or you can get organized and dictate to the CRB what you really are looking for.

Can somebody please explain how SIR will reduce cost’s?

[Stan Clayton]

Lee can read the same rules proposal that you can, and evidently he has decided to go public with his plans to build some cars. But this can't really be a surprise to anyone who reads these pages, since I posted long ago that every single constructor I spoke with said they would be interested in building F-1000 cars of the class was approved. That includes Matt Conrad at Phoenix, Jon Baytos at Elan, Brian Utt at Carbir, Lee Stohr, etc.

It looks to me like Lee is simply trying to score a PR coup on them by declaring early.

That said, I anticipate some filling in the blanks for safety issues, but no big changes to the rules before the CRB "goes final" to the BoD, so there is plenty of designing and engineering for Lee to do before the BoD acts on the proposal. And in any case, he is legal in FS, and clearly there is a market there.

An inlet restrictor extends the rebuild interval by restricting the power below what the engine is capable of making in an unrestricted condition. For example, the FC Pinto is running at or near the limits of its configuration and needs rebuilding avery 15-20 hours or so, depending on whom one asks. The similar displacement Zetec is going 100 hours or more at its Pro power level (~170 hp), and will probably go several hundred hours at FC hp levels...all because it is running well below what the parts are capable of. The SIR the CRB recommended to the BoD will slightly restrict late-model liter bike engines. Combined with restricting the engines in F-1000 to stock CR, bore, stroke and max cam lift, that should produce a reliable and fun to drive car, without getting into the expensive hp chase currently occurring in DSR. And since reliability and lower engine cost was a stated objective of the folks who wrote the proposed F-1000 rules, we are helping them make that happen without instituting a spec engine.

Stan

[R. Pare]

I repeat: WHAT RULES????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???

So far, all that has been laid out are some general guidelines, with many of those full of holes.

And no answers(yet) to the construction details questions I have posed.

This is probably the most amatureish attempt at writing rules that I have seen in 30 years!

Is this to be an almost anything goes class, that anyone with the slightest knowledge of car construction will understand that will end up producing cars that can cost twice that of current FC's?

Or is it to be a class where tinkering is allowed, but carefully restricted so that the construction practices allowed are no different than current FF/FC, with the attendant ability to keep costs in check?

You guys need to make up your minds.

Or admit that you haven't a clue as to what you are doing and hand the reins over to those who do.

[John Mosteller]

If the SIR chart on Raetech's web site are real numbers It looks like a 23 mm choke flow is about 165-170 cfm.Unless I am figuring something wrong that will only allow a 1L bike motor to rev to about 9000 rpm before it chokes the power.If that is true then you are looking at about 130-140 maximum HP which is a lot more than a little restrictive to the current motors plus it will make the cars considerably slower than a FF2000.

As far as the SIR saving money ,I doubt it will.It will cost more to develop a restricted motor than it costs in DSR right now and I believe the built SIR motor will have 10 to 20 more HP through the whole range up to the choke point but will take a lot of time and money to develop.One of the things I see in that engine proposal is limiting the compression ratio to what the motor came with.That alone may cause one to have to change motor brands every time someone ups there stock compression ratio.Right now the CBR1000RR is 11.9 to one and the ZX10R is 12.7 to one.With everything else being equal the ZX10R will probable have around 1-2 more HP through the entire range.Some of the cheapest motors from a few years ago have a ratio down around 10.8 to 1.Those motors would be a lot more reasonable to pick up but would always be at a 3 to 4 HP disadvantage with everything else being equal.Raising the compression is one of the things the bike manufacturers have done that has increased the power level in the last few years.Having different limits for each model and year engine would be like letting one of the FF2000 engine builders have 10 to 1 and the rest have 9 to 1.It would not be fair to the ones that had the lower rating and it will not be fair to the bike brands that have a lower stock level.IMO all the motors are the same size and if you want to limit compression they should all have the same limit.

John

[Anonymous Lee]

Did the people on the committee even talk to an MC engine builder? Every builder I have talk to rolls on the ground laughing at me when I mention it as a cost saving venture. If you really wanted to save money, look at what the mini sprinters do “no engine newer then 4 years old and stock”. Cases have to be factory sealed. You could get that motor from a wrecked bike for $1200.00 or less. Then who cares about rebuilds, blow them up.

I want to hear what George Dean SAY’S. after he picks himself up off the floor.

[Rennie Clayton]

Anonymous Lee,

So pick up the phone and call George Dean, or stop by his shop there in Seattle. Assuming you're inclined to be part of the process and not just a rabble-rouser, talk to him specifically about the F1000 SIR engine rules, and get back to us. This will probably be more informative than a generic and unsubstantive conversation you may have had with him, oh, say 6-8 months ago. Problem solved.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Stan Clayton]

Yes, Richard, the guys who wrote these rules are amateurs, and yes, the rules need some work. That's already been pointed out, and we have some folks working to clean them up in time for the BoD's August meeting. The rules were published in their rough form so we could get them out in front of the members in time for 2007, rather than waiting another year.

John, the numbers on the Raetech website do not represent actual performance. For instance, a 1600cc Atlantic engine making 250 hp is making about 155 hp per liter. With a 24 mm SIR they make about 172 hp. A modern 1000cc bike engine makes about 180 hp/l, making it a more efficient user of air than the best Altantic engine. As I note above, the engines will be "slightly" restricted, perhaps 1000 RPMs, but with a 23mm SIR it will still make much more power than an FC.

Minor differences in CR don't greatly affect an engine's power. The equation for looking at how CR improves or decreases and engine's efficiency is (1 - (compression ratio)^-0.4), so a 12:1 engine is about 63% efficient. Raising the CR to 12.5:1 raises its efficiency to ~63.6%, or about 1 hp on a 180 hp engine ((.636-.63)x180=1). Are folks going to do an entire engine swap for one hp or so? I doubt it.

All of that said, will there be benefits to using a new engine and having it professionally prepared? Of course! You'll get a few more ponies out of it than with an older model, and by restricting its output its reliability will be greater than with the open DSR rules.

Stan

[Anonymous Lee]

I’ve had the conversation with him and when he gets done laughing he’ll post about SIR and supposed cost prevention.

[John Mosteller]

Stan I agree that minor differences in compression won't make big differences but a lot of the few year old motors have ratios in the 10 .5 to 11 to one and by your formula it is about the 4 hp I quoted.The manufacturers were keeping the compression ratio down as these bikes are for street use and the bikes being raced in superbike are built with higher compression pistons.So my point is that this plan is going to require a very late model engine that you can only use stock pistons in.A lot of the bike engines are using a better forged piston like JE but we would not be able to use them because their pistons for the 2001 and newer engines are all 13.5 to 1.I fail to see the point behind not being allowed to use a better piston that can inprove the duribility and yet you could put in a 3000.00 lightweight knife edged crank, thousand dollar plus custom billet cams as long as the lift isn't increased, 300.00 each rods etc.There was a post on one of the bike boards from someone that works with some superbike teams that claimed they were getting 8-10 HP more through the entire range with aftermarket stand alone ECU's and they only cost about 3-7 thousand and yet you want to quibble over a compression ratio that is fair no matter what brand or year motor one has and one that wouild allow everone to have a decent set of forged pistons.
John

[Stan Clayton]

John, I'm not quibbling with you over CRs. I am telling you what the writers of the rules sent up to the CRB. We are now in the commentary period, and if you want to permit CR changes then write to the CRB at crb@scca.com. This forum is useful for discussion, but it is not a subsitute for writing the Board. BTW, since the proposal came out three weeks ago we have received exactly two letters addressing the rules.

Stan

[John Mosteller]

Stan I was not pointing a finger at you personaly only trying to get some information on what the intent was.The compression ratio bit doesn't fit in with allowing all the other stuff. It is so minor by comparison. I think whoever came up with this thinks an SIR is going to level things out and reduce prices which IMO couldn't be farther from the truth.IMO they should be looking in the direction of the AMA supersport rules in conjuction with an SIR if the intent is to minimize engine costs.Below is an excerpt from their rule book.To that I would be a proponent for us to further restrict aftermarket ECU's.I would be for stock ECU plus a relatively inexpensive Power Commander or the replacement of Fuel Injection with carburators for those that don't want the complexity of Fuel Injection and the 25 lb weight penalty.IMO Some of the things like no porting , no costly special internal parts etc would go a lot farther in closing the gap from stock to engine builder motors.I also think the lack of details in the rules on motors and the chassis construction is what Richard is talking about.Things need to be a lot more detailed before it gets voted in.

John



[SIZE=2]

13. Carburetor/fuel injection/intake modifications are limited to the following:

a. Carburetor jets and needles may be replaced.
b. Re-sizing of air metering holes involved in CV carburetor throttle
slide control is permitted. Throttle slide and return spring
may be replaced with aftermarket parts.
c. Electronic or mechanical enrichening devices must remain
installed but may be deactivated.
d. Fuel lines and vent lines may be replaced.
e. Aftermarket fuel filters may be added.
f. All components involved in fuel injection systems must remain
standard except electronic control modules, which may be
modified or replaced with aftermarket modules.
1. Replacement modules must connect to original connectors.
2. Installation of additional components to the fuel injection
system is not permitted.
g. The original equipment airbox must be retained but the air filter
may be replaced with a commercially manufactured aftermarket
filter designed to specifically replace the OEM filter.
Filtering material must be made from paper, foam or gauze. All
intake air must pass through the filtering material. The only
modification permitted is the sealing of airbox drains. See
Fluid Containment under General Equipment Standards.

[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]14. Engine/Ignition modifications are limited to the following:
a. Except as noted, all internal and external engine parts must
remain stock with no modifications, metal removal, blueprinting,
or surface treatments.
b. Pistons, rings, piston pins, and circlips may be replaced only
with standard bore, stock production items. There is no
allowance for overbore.
c. Cam sprockets may be slotted solely for the purpose of altering
cam timing. Press-on cam sprockets may be replaced with
aftermarket steel bolt-on cam sprockets and adapters.
Aftermarket cam chain tensioners are permitted.
d. Cylinder head, cylinder and crankcase gasket surfaces only
may be machined for increased compression. All other surfaces
of the cylinder head, cylinder and crankcases must
remain absolutely stock, with no metal removal. Light cleaning
of gasket surfaces with steel wool, Scotch-Brite®, etc. is
allowed. Deburring radius of machined area must not be
greater than 0.020" or 0.5mm.
e. Cylinder head combustion chambers may be cleaned by bead
blasting with valves seated in place. Intake and exhaust ports
may not be bead blasted or cleaned with abrasive material
such as steel wool or Scotch-Brite®.
f. Valves must remain as produced with no modifications. Valve
springs may be shimmed with standard or aftermarket shims.
g. Valve seat inserts may be reworked or replaced with OEM or
aftermarket seats of original dimensions. Any dimensional
thickness of the stock inserts may not be increased. Aluminum
casting of cylinder head ports and combustion chambers must
remain absolutely stock, with no metal removal.
h. Gaskets may be replaced with aftermarket parts.
i. Clutch plates and springs may be replaced with aftermarket
parts.
j. Transmission gears may be shimmed only for the purpose of
proper engagement. Standard or aftermarket shims may be
utilized.
k. Shifter return or detent springs may be replaced with aftermarket
springs.
l. Electric ignition cutout shift devices are permitted. These
devices may not physically operate the shift lever or the shift
mechanism.
m. Oil pressure sending units may be replaced with a safety-wired
pipe plug.
n. Modifications to the stock starting and charging systems are
not permitted. Starters and complete charging system must be
in place, connected and functional before, during and after an
event. Charging systems must meet manufacturers minimum
output specifications, as listed in the service manual.
o. Engine case guards in the form of strengthened engine side
covers must be be installed on certain models and must be no
lighter in weight than the stock covers. See Engine under
General Equipment Standards.
p. 49-State model engine and ignition components may replace
those same components on California-only motorcycles of the
same manufacturer, year, and model.
q. The complete ignition/engine control system must be the original
OEM parts for the model being used in competition except
as follows:
1. Ignition timing may be altered by slotting the ignition trigger
mounting plate or replacing the stock ignition rotor with an
aftermarket rotor.
2. Ignition control modules may be modified or replaced with
aftermarket modules. Replacement modules must connect
to the original connectors.
3. Spark plugs and plug wires may be replaced with aftermarket
parts.
r. The original cooling system thermostat may be removed or
modified.
15. All other parts, except as previously noted, must remain as originally
produced by the motorcycle manufacturer at the time of sale
to its dealer network.
[/SIZE]

[Lee Stohr]

I will not spend time answering anonymous members posts. Please identify yourself and we can have a mature, positive conversation.

[sidney]

I for one, am not interested in this class if I have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to have the motor competitive. Mr. Mosteller's suggestions seem to be very valid, and I suggest that any persons not wanting to try to compete against a current DSR without fenders, Submit a similar note to the CRB to limit the work that can be done to the motors. I also am in agreement that the aero rules need to be a pretty close copy to FF2000.

[marshall9]

What do you race now? If it is FF or FC, you already have to spend tens of thousands to make the motor competive, maybe not all at once, but start a thread and ask what national competitors spend in two years on engines.


Now, I am going to say an ugly word. This word was banished to the island of Elba with Napoleon, in so far as racing engines are concerned.

If, I was, and I am not, a constructor in the newly developing F1000 class.

I would give a WARRANTY on certain parts, including engines, or insist that my suppliers did.

Imagine if you could actually count on your budget, how many of you would then spend the money?

[Matt Conrad]

We would like to also announce our intention to build a car for the new SCCA F1000 class. This is an opportunity that I've been looking at for a long time and believe that the F1000 class has a great deal of potential. Even though no images or any official specifications will be released until well after the actual rules have been formally approved, we can share that the tube-frame chassis will be a completely new design from the SR07 sports racer we are currently building, but the car will share many of the already race-proven parts from that car. We intend to offer the car as a complete turn-key package with a George Dean-built Suzuki GSX-R1000 engine or as a Roller if the customer desires a different engine package.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.

[marshall9]

Of course you will. It makes sense. Not only do you build a fine C/DSR, but having raced with/against you in the past, you also know what it takes to make one work properly from the driver's point of view. My only prayer is that, as Lee [Stohr] said, it can be done for under 30K, on the track. I think this is possible, with the direction that the rules are going. Being based on current FC guidelines, should help with R&D cost containment.

[sidney]

The last time I was able to race, I ran a motor that was traded for a '86 pickup in FV. I'll tell you now, we weren't the fastest, becasue we didn't have a Noble or Peak Performance package, but we were competitive. We sat on the pole at a national at Second Creek, in Colorado. The car was mechanically immaculate, and cared for with white gloves. We didn't have a big budget, but we were consistent, and always reliable. Lots of guys spent more money, and had the latest chassis packages (Vortech) but the nut behind the wheel and the preparation prior to belting him in, also determines what happens when you can get engine power within resonable equality. The reason I gave up on Vees, is because the technology is way outdated (drum brakes, etc.), and the cost of a new motor is approaching $7k. This class is dying (only 14 cars at the Sprints!)

I thought the goal of F1000 was to create an environment where a car could have similar performance to an FC, while reducing the cost of continual engine overhauls. The ad hoc committee did a fine job of laying the groundwork, now we have a few more folks who are saying the SIR is great, but to control engine costs, you also need to limit the mods you make to the motor. I'm all for mods to make the package more reliable (forged pistons, upgraded clutch, etc.). I'm not a fan of having to have every component touched by and expert so I can get that extra 0.3% out of the motor. I am by no means an authority on the subject, but I'd respecfully submit that the AMA has a lot better handle on what is needed to limit motorcycle power and cost. If you go to their website, they talk about the privateer and the factory teams, and the attempt to gain equality.

How many pre-98 VDs are parked in garages because they aren't currently competitive? Guys don't come out and play because, like me, they don't like getting waxed every weekend by an '01. Even the '98 is considered a flexible (non-competitive) chassis compared to later versions in FC. If the goal of SCCA and this class is to increase participation, then make it cheap and equal for the guys that want to spend $20k on a package, as well as the guy that can spend $100k. If you want to move current drivers from one class to another, then make carbon/composite tubs, tiatanium, and the engine completely unlimited. The manufacturers of cars and turners of motors don't care, they get their additional sales and the little guy stays at home with his older car collecting dust.

When I talk about low cost engine packages, I'm talking a maximum of $5k. I don't want to spend dollars changing intake manifolds, messing with valve seats, the latest and greatest this and that to keep up the arms race with the next guy in the paddock that has money he burns like it's going out of style. -- I just want to have fun racing an open wheeled car that's equal to a bunch of others. I want to race, not parade around at speedwaiting for something to happen. OBTW, I don't want to spend $100k to do it.

I'll go back to one of my old posts -- make it a claimer class -- $3k gets your motor for mine. I doubt too many people would be willing to ship the motor to Quicksilver or the like and then have it claimed for $3k.

Ian MacLeod

[John Mosteller]

[SIZE=1]I have modified the excerpt from the superstock rules that were in my previouse post to [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]eliminate the things that don't pertain to the installation into a formula car.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]Below is what I intend to send to the CRB to be added to the items in F1000 class proposal
to insure any new cars be at least constructed to the current level of FF and FF2000 designs[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]and to propose engine rules that will allow one to buy a stock 1 Liter motorcycle engine install
it and go racing without being at a big disadvantage to professionaly built engines. The
professional engine builders will probably still be able to do a few things like play with
clearances and reduce the ring tension to gain a little power even with the rule against
blueprinting.The manufacturers don't list what the stock ring tension is and have a range
of clearances that are acceptable.So it would be very difficult to prove that some blueprinting
has taken place.I am going to wait a few days before sending this in to allow comments and
maybe some tweeking if someone can point out any holes in things or a reason why something should be added or eliminated. Then I encourage every one who feels like I do and would like to be able to compete with a stock engine to copy the letter and send it to the CRB.If they recieve a lot of support for something it is more likely to get incorporated in the new class.

[/SIZE]
To the CRB,

I request the following to be added to [SIZE=1]the items in F1000 class proposal
to insure any new cars be at least constructed to the current level of FF and FF2000 designs
and to propose engine rules that will allow one to buy a stock 1 Liter motorcycle engine install
it and go racing without being at a big disadvantage to expensive professionaly built engines.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=1]All newly constructed cars shall meet the 1986 construction rules for Formula Ford cars.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]1 Carburetor/fuel injection/intake modifications are limited to the following:

a)Fuel injection may be replaced with carburators for those who want
to symplify the Formula car installation and run at the lower weight limit.
b) Carburetor jets and needles may be replaced.
c) Fuel lines and vent lines may be replaced.
d) Aftermarket fuel filters may be added.
e)All components involved in fuel injection systems must remain
standard except a Power Commander may be added to enable
the mixture to be tailored to the exhaust and SIR intake requirements.
f) Installation of additional components to the fuel injection
system is not permitted.
g) The airbox is open in order to incorporate the SIR into the system.

[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]2 Engine/Ignition modifications are limited to the following:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]
a) Except as noted, all internal and external engine parts must
remain stock with no modifications, metal removal, blueprinting,
or surface treatments.
b) Pistons, rings, piston pins, and circlips may be replaced only
with standard bore, stock production items. There is no
allowance for overbore.
c) Cam sprockets may be slotted solely for the purpose of altering
cam timing. Press-on cam sprockets may be replaced with
aftermarket steel bolt-on cam sprockets and adapters.
Aftermarket cam chain tensioners are permitted.
d) Light cleaning of gasket surfaces with steel wool, Scotch-Brite®,
etc. is allowed.
e) Cylinder head combustion chambers may be cleaned by bead
blasting with valves seated in place. Intake and exhaust ports
may not be bead blasted or cleaned with abrasive material
such as steel wool or Scotch-Brite®.
f) Valves must remain as produced with no modifications. Valve
springs may be shimmed with standard or aftermarket shims.
g) Valve seat inserts may be reworked or replaced with OEM or
aftermarket seats of original dimensions. Any dimensional
thickness of the stock inserts may not be increased. Aluminum
casting of cylinder head ports and combustion chambers must
remain absolutely stock, with no metal removal.
h). Gaskets may be replaced with aftermarket parts.
i) Clutch plates and springs may be replaced with aftermarket
parts.
j) Transmission gears may be shimmed only for the purpose of
proper engagement. Standard or aftermarket shims may be
utilized.
k) Shifter return or detent springs may be replaced with aftermarket
springs.
l) Electric-assisted gear change mechanisms are permitted.Shift
mechanisms operated through direct-acting electric actuators or
air shifters operated by electric solenoid are permitted.
n. Modifications to the stock starting and charging systems are
not permitted. Starters and complete charging system must be
in place, connected and functional before, during and after an
event. Charging systems must meet manufacturers minimum
output specifications, as listed in the service manual.
p. 49-State model engine and ignition components may replace
those same components on California-only motorcycles of the
same manufacturer, year, and model.
q. The complete ignition/engine control system must be the original
OEM parts for the model being used in competition except
as follows:
1a. Ignition timing may be altered by slotting the ignition trigger
mounting plate or replacing the stock ignition rotor with an
aftermarket rotor.
2a. Ignition control modules may be modified or replaced with
aftermarket modules.
3a. Spark plugs and plug wires may be replaced with aftermarket
parts.
4a. The original cooling system thermostat may be removed or
modified.
5a. All other parts, except as previously noted, must remain as originally
produced by the motorcycle manufacturer at the time of sale
to its dealer network.

3 the motorcycle wiring harness may be altered or replaced with a custom
harness to facilitate the installation.

[/SIZE]

[Matt Conrad]

....and by the way, I've had conversations with George Dean and he does feel that the SIR will only ADD costs to these engines. He's not a member of this Forum so he said he may e-mail me his thoughts on it and I'll forward them.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.

[John Mosteller]

I belive the SIR can be cost effective with stock engines as it will cap the HP level below maximum and allow the engine to last longer as well as eliminating the possibility of having to buy a new engine every year when the manufacturers up the HP.But if you allow engine modifications it will increase costs.

John

[sidney]

I give two thumbs up to John for doing some great work on the engine side. Now how about some help from the experts on the aero side? Is a general statement that all aero must comply with 1986 FF and F2k clear enough? I think maybe it is, but again, I'm no expert, just a guy with a dream to get back into a bead seat and have some fun with a bunch of other folks in similarly equipped cars.

Ian MacLeod

[carnut169]

As the owner/ driver of the only true existing F1000 that I know of, and a member of the F1000 committee here is my take on the above:

Anonymous Lee- Why bother. Are you afraid to speak your mind w/ your real name?
Richard- Give us a break. We wrote the rules to the best of our abilities... they are clear, easy to understand and the intent of the class is very clear. Where are all the new FCs that should be taking advantage of the holes in these rules? If you feel the need to re-write them do it! Send a letter to the CRB w/ the other two... but keep the "amatuerish" comments to yourself.
John- Constructive suggestions, thanks. Please send to the CRB!
Lee, Matt, etc- Welcome! I am thrilled that you guys have decided to build cars for the class. I hope you sell a ton of them & I get to race against other F1000s soon.


If the SIR is the wrong answer, fine. If adding the Superstock rules to the SIR helps, fine.
We just want to end up w/ an inexpensive high performance car & you don't need to do anything to the current 1 liter bike engines to acheive this.... they are fast, reliable and inexpensive as-is!