F1000 Rules Proposal

[S Lathrop]

Sean:

Lets go at it this way.

What is the difference between you car with Pinto power and a current, top end, track record VD FC? Or what is your handicap?

With bike power, how much faster is your car now? Aren't you going top FC speeds?

How much faster could you make your car if some one was there each time you went out to keep you honest by running just as fast as you could go?

Is the sum equal to maybe 4 seconds?

If I gave you 200 lbs more down forceand no more drag, you should pick up 2 more seconds a lap.

Total now is 6 seconds. As I remember, there was 6 seconds between pro FC and FA at Atlanta.

I stand on my pervious statements.

By the way, I am glad you are out there showing everybody what is possible. Keep up the good work. I hope you are enjoying racing you project even if it might be lonely some times.

Steve

[Purple Frog]

You know...

This challenge we are witnessing of writing rules is the reason that all the open wheeled series in the past decade have been basically built around spec cars. Formula BMW, Formula Mazda, Skippy, Pro Mazda, and to some extent FF2000 (zetec).

I get bored with spec cars. Maybe that's why I still remember cars from the old Can-Am days (i.e. UOP Shadow). Probably why i still monitor the DSR site. I love to watch engineers conquer challenges and the eighteen ways they may come up with to skin a cat.

With that said... I think Racing Axiom #3 is: There is and will always be somebody that can and will spend more than you.

So if these rules ever get approved, somebody(ies) will spend over $250K building one (or more) of these cars. And some of them are going to go blue blazes fast.

Great, let's get on with it.

[carnut169]

Lol. See where you are comming from Mike. I'd love to plate the frame w/ aluminum, mount up those FA tunnels I own and install a 1550cc.... (or a turbo-?) it always on the back-burner and there is always FS. However, it would not be high performance at a low cost like the F1000 concept.

Steve- My car has yet to go as fast as I went w/ the Pinto at Road Atlanta. 1.29 w/ Pinto and 1.31 w/ the 1000. I did go 3 secs faster at CMP w/ the 1000...

that said I have not been driving as much (and I have more development to do) so I'm not sure the comparison is fair. Next year should be better.

e

[S Lathrop]

Sean:

You have hardware while the rest of us have hot air.

I would be interested in hearing about your development process and any problems you are having.

Keep at it.

Hopefully my next project will be the rear assembly for a chain drive formula car. Richard has shipped the first run of the chain drive differentials. LaRue will start testing the Zetec car shortly.

Concurrent with finishing the Zetec car we are looking at setting up an operation to sell kit versions of the new car. A kit might be offered very much as an airplane built under the FAA amature build (experimental) 51% rule. We would do all the hi-value jobs that require specialized tooling and leave all the general type work the the customer. The car will require some welding. But it may be possible for a customer to save $5,000 or even $10,000 by doing his own work and scrounging some of the standardized parts. The kit might be available for under $20,000 for a Zetec FC and much less for a FF.

I would be interested in hearing what people might be willing to do themselves and what they think they would have to have done for them. Also how they would like the kits to be shipped -- ie frame, body, suspension, and aero package. You could buy the car a package at a time and buy only what you need for your project. If you want a turn key car you would contract a prep shop to assemble the car.

Steve

[RussMcB]

Steve,

I've been a close observer of Sean's progress. His biggest current obstacles regarding his car (working out the bugs, etc.) are: New House, New Job, New Baby on the way!

[carnut169]

Concurrent with finishing the Zetec car we are looking at setting up an operation to sell kit versions of the new car. A kit might be offered very much as an airplane built under the FAA amature build (experimental) 51% rule. We would do all the hi-value jobs that require specialized tooling and leave all the general type work the the customer. The car will require some welding. But it may be possible for a customer to save $5,000 or even $10,000 by doing his own work and scrounging some of the standardized parts. The kit might be available for under $20,000 for a Zetec FC and much less for a FF.

I would be interested in hearing what people might be willing to do themselves and what they think they would have to have done for them. Also how they would like the kits to be shipped -- ie frame, body, suspension, and aero package. You could buy the car a package at a time and buy only what you need for your project. If you want a turn key car you would contract a prep shop to assemble the car.

Steve

I believe you may be on to something here Steve. 1st time I've heard someone talk about offering a menu of parts... I've got to believe most of us want at least some level of involvement during the build. Great idea.

......and Russ is of course correct. I've got grand plans to continue to develop the car with the advise I received in a recent thread. Building it is 1/2 the fun- so what if it takes a bit of time.

[RobLav]

Steve,

I'd be interested in a kit for an F1000 car, of course dependent upon what the rules end up saying. As you say, I'd want to maximize the underbody floor area with minimum frontal area. I already have a quaife, wheels, 3 Penskes, Wilwoods, uprights, hubs, etc. from an RF96 I might consider using. I'd like Aero suspension arms, max track width at the front, and the rear assembly engineered. I'm willing to weld (have a TiG) and would want the kit in November to be ready for April. I'll do the assembly, plumbing, wiring, cables, controls, etc. Lightweight body would be nice too. I will use either an 05 R1 (preferred) or an 04-05 ZX-10R. The dash will come from the same engine. It should weigh no more than 800 lbs.

You asked... that is what I would want. I'm sure I could specify more, and I would have cash after the sale of either my RF99 or my 1970 Porsche 911S in October.

Oh - I forgot - I want a reverse too. A small electric motor with a pushbutton on the dash should suffice.

Rob

[S Lathrop]

Rod:

All I can offer now is either FF or FC. I will have to see what the rules are for F1000.

The rear end assembly will only accept our diff as it is much smaller and lighter than the Quaife. The internals of the diff have been used in GT 2 through GT 5 for the last 10 years and we have the championship wins to prove the unit. Our unit is similar to the Hewland Power Flow.

Richard tells me that he will build a chain drive diff with a reverse.

All our suspension is airfoil tubing. But if you use your own uprights, the suspension components will be up to you. Guaranteed that my links mate nicely to my uprights but every manufacturer is different. I have allowed a lot of space for pickup location.

As to calipers, we are looking at making our own to fit a .5 or .625 vented rotor. The rotor may be our own as well.

Some of the body panels have been setup for vacume bagging. It only costs more money.

My cars use 4 shocks.

I can probably work out a credit agreement that makes it possible, I use to have a real job in New York banking.

I will not promise anything until I get LaRue on the road.



Steve

[R. Pare]

It is quite possible that these cars will not need anything other than an open diff. If that ends up the case, and if some other career plans haven't taken over yet, I should be able to make an open version for a fair amount less than the limited slip version.

Before anyone starts any plans on building, I'd suggest that they get the rules written first - as of the moment, my current vote sent to the CRB on the last set of rules is in the negative.

I can write out a list of the most important issues that I see if anyone is interested.

[Mike B]

Richard,
I think everyone reading this thread is interested in your take on the rules proposal. Please post the list here.

[R. Pare]

Assuming that there have been no further changes since my last communication with Dave Gomberg a couple of weeks ago, I'll see if I can post something later tonight.

[formulasuper]

It is quite possible that these cars will not need anything other than an open diff. If that ends up the case, and if some other career plans haven't taken over yet, I should be able to make an open version for a fair amount less than the limited slip version.

Before anyone starts any plans on building, I'd suggest that they get the rules written first - as of the moment, my current vote sent to the CRB on the last set of rules is in the negative.

I can write out a list of the most important issues that I see if anyone is interested.

Richard, I'm curious why you say these cars might not need anything other that an open diff.

[R. Pare]

These cars will, even as a converted FC with no bodywork width changes, have the same downforce as an FC, a lower center of gravity, and at a minimum the same contact patch (using 6's & 8's), and less torque (at least over a narrower band). The current FC's have no need for anything other than an open diff, so I see no reason that these would. If you do go to the wider bodywork and bigger tires, the needs for anything other than an open diff are slim to none. If we upped the HP to 200+, then there might be a need.

Even the Indy cars need not much more than an open diff - the place they want LS action mostly is for a fast pit box exit, and maybe for slow full-lock corners like the one onto the main straight at Long Beach. It's only when you can overpower the inside unloaded wheel that you have any need for any LS action in cars of this type - other than that you are wasting HP with the tires fighting each other, and creating a push that you have to dial out some other way.

The best type of diff is fluidic - they can be made to be totally "free" up to a pre-determined difference in wheel speed (allowing you to get around even the tightest of corners without drag at the tires), and then start "locking" up when asked to differentiate at rpm differences above that ( say about a 12 rpm difference) to combat any wheel spin. CART used to use a version of what is called a Fergusen Coupling - a pretty neat devise, but rather expensive and hard to set up. I have a design to do all that that is a lot simpler, but have never produced anything more than a testing prototype.

[roadrace27]

Lee,

Since I know that you are an engineer at heart and love a technical challenge. Let me pose this whole F1000 thing to you in a different light. How would you solve the following problem...

Propose a new racing formula...
- Limit total car investment to $25,000 range.
- Provide modern powerful powerplants.
- Sequential Shift
- Modern brakes,
- High performance for minimum costs...
- Create disincentives to spend on development of engine, shocks, chassis, aero - the aim is that the best driver wins

How would you solve that equation???

Sean

Sean,

I believe you have reduced the entire problem with all the over-abundance of "entry-level" formula car series to one very well thought out proposal.

Now we just have to see if anyone can answer it.

[Bob Stolkin]

I am a FF driver with an interest in F1000. I've been intrigued with motorcycle-powered racers, and considered getting into DSR, but, at least in my region (SF), there are not enough entries on any given day. I'm used to, on the regional level, having at least 12 to 15 entries minimum, and am always guaranteed close racing in FF.

From talking with other guys, I believe that there are many others with similar interests, but were discouraged by a) small turnouts, and b) high cost of buying and running a competitive car. It is probable that these two things are directly related. In looking around the club, it seems to me that there is a generally inverse relationship between the cost of buying in/running and the field sizes.

I realize from reading some of the threads that you folks are taking this into consideration, but I didn't see (perhaps I just missed it) a ton of discussion about minimum weight. I think that by having a 900 lb. minimum weight, you are just re-creating DSR without fenders, and making it impossible for a guy to buy an older car and hope to compete. Am I wrong that this is the single factor that motivates the buying of a $50,000 car instead of converting a Swift or other older car?

I guess it depends on whether you're aiming to establish a new class with 3 or 4 gorgeous, lightweight entries per weekend, or 10 or more that are less hi-tech, but with great wheel to wheel racing.

I can tell from my standpoint as someone interested in running F1000, I would do it if I can convert a Swift or Van Dieman and get in for $20,000 - $25,000. But, if I have to spend $40,000 - $50,000, forget it. I won't do it because I don't have the money, and even if I did, there won't be enough other guys with that kind of dough to build a substantial class.

I'm no expert, but it's my opinion that if you want to make F1000 a success in the long run, you should have a higher minimum weight.

[RobLav]

Bob,

In the F1000 rules committee, we debated the min weight issue quite a bit and came up with 1000lbs, not 900. 1000 lbs is the last I saw...

[RussMcB]

<snip> ..., I would do it if I can convert a Swift or Van Dieman and get in for $20,000 - $25,000. But, if I have to spend $40,000 - $50,000, forget it. I won't do it because I don't have the money, ...<snip>

Bob, I can't think of anything that would prevent you from doing it for $20,000. I'm curious what would make you "have" to spend $40,000 - $50,000 (unless you are saying that you want to be able to WIN with a $20,000 investment. That's a different story than just "getting in".).

My guess is it's the same in FF. You can get in for $10,000, but there are some FF racers with $30,000 cars, right?

[Bob Stolkin]

Guys,

Thanks for the quick replies. Let me respond to each.

Rob,

That's great that you were discussing 1000 lbs., because that would make a substantial difference from 900 lbs. At 1000 lbs, I think I can get a converted car pretty close. While it still might be a bit heavier than a brand new car, and not quite the geometry, it at least gives me a shot at them if I've got everything dialed in. Question, what do the the motorcycle engines and transmissions tend weigh, ballpark?

Russ,

I do want to win at the regional level. I understand that it may be a challenge to beat a new Stohr in an old Swift, but if I'm in at a little more than 1000 lbs., I like my chances a lot more against a 1000 lb. Stohr than against a 900 lb. Stohr. You're right that some guys have $30k FFs, but because of the higher weight minimum, the difference lies more in detail items (shocks and some other things). While these can create advantage, the return in speed gain on each dollar invested is MUCH lower than the same investment that results in a 100 lb. weight advantage. Therefore, while a few guys will splurge, the overall range of lap times will be compressed at a higher minimum weight, resulting in closer racing at all points on the grid, which will attract drivers.

[Lee Stohr]

Bob,
Bike engines weigh about 160lbs complete.
Then add a quaife diff at approx. 15lb. and a chain.
Connect them together with some kind of frame or spar.

[superbikestore]

To go faster than FC you need much less weight than 1000lbs Lower weight is cheaper and safer than a tuned engine for more power.
How about a ready made car been running in UK for 10+ years? Steel tube framed cars.
Jedi quotes 625lbs wet no driver.
OMS is under 700lbs wet no driver.
Formula 600cc Jedi cars (100hp) are faster than F3 cars at some circuits, very little aero assistance as anyone who has seen one will agree - all down to very low weight and a driver with big balls.
Here is the performance increase you are looking for.

I vote for 800lbs weight limit all inc driver wet.
David

[Brands]

I raced a Jedi in the UK and they are super light and super quick. Even with the blue printed CBR 600 motor we ran in Formula Honda there was nothing quicker for the money. I remember getting frustrated with a Lister GT1 car at Donington Park circuit as it was so slow through the corners. Left me for dead on the straight bits of course. The 1000cc Formula Jedi cars are even quicker and as mentioned are quicker than club F3 cars at the tighter tracks. Light weight and not much aero but big tyres (tires!) seemed to work just fine. At the Mallory Park cicuit we would reach 118 mph in the F Honda before the first corner (taken flat - just) and th efirst time we ran a 1000cc car it was doing 125mph half way down the straight and still pulling like a train. Still only a little lift/brush of the brakes for T1 as well. Not relevant I know but just got me reminiscing.

[race95]

Can you have a drive shaft or does it have to be chain drive in this class????

[R. Pare]

There is not requirement for chain drive that I'm aware of, so shaft drive should be perfectly legal.

[race95]

Thanks, Richard.

[race95]

What are some of the glaring, obvious problems with turning the motor 90 degrees and installing a driveshaft into a empty LD 200??

[RussMcB]

You'd lose a little drive line efficiency since the engine rotation is no longer the same direction as the final drive.

On the other hand, "packaging" might be easier. I considered it, but decided to go with tried and true. I've seen lots of fast sports racers with chain drive, but none with a drive shaft and R&P. I'm sure they exist, but if they were better, or equal to chain drive, I think you'd see more.

I'd guess a shaft arrangement might add weight, but I'm not sure about that, or how much.

[Brands]

I looked into doing just that - empty LD200 and just changing the one ratio set for different tracks. Weight wise there wasn't much in it , you can keep all the stock suspension and it would make the exhaust run easier. Downside would be clutch access. As I am looking at building the most competitive car I can we ruled it out because of the power loss compared to a chain, which is much more efficient. However the biggest problem that we couldn't solve cheaply was the torque capacity of the input shaft. The LD200 is designed to handle the torque from a Pinto or Zetec motor and I just don't think it would cope with the bike motor. There is a company in the UK called Muffett Gears and they make a neat little diff unit designed specifically for this application. http://www.muffettgears.co.uk/insert...00-il-diff.pdf but it is super expensive. Hope this helps!

[Mike Devins]

this may be worth a new thread so that it does not get lost in the rules discussion.

If you try to use the stock sprocket output the motor will move to the left side of the car. I have attached a side view of the motor to illustrate the point. 18.5 inches from the output shaft to the front of the cylinder head



Maybe with an offset diff carrier?

[Straight8]

Greetings all. Two points, the first a a question I posed to MikeB elsewhere: Are front engine/rear drive layouts permitted under these rules? Assuming all the safety and dimensional criteria are met, I see no logical objection. Something like a Mallock, for example, seems pretty close in spirit to what's described here even if it isn't among the conversions approved or tried so far.

Second (this may belong in a new thread and I also ran it by Mike), this class fits with a scheme I've been mulling over to rationalize formula racing via the FIA, ideally with world championships in each category but at minimum as a logical set of international standards below F1. Obviously the details would need to be worked out in terms of permissbile materials and so on. I view it as increasing in complexity and cost as you go up the ladder, from steel tubes to carbon fibre etc. But the basic form would be:

F4 = Up to 1200cc production motorcycle or snowmobile engines, thereby pegging the maximum displacement to World Superbike regs and allowing 2-strokes to compete a la F500;

F3 = Up to 2000cc production car engines (as is);

F2 = Up to 2500cc production car or motorcycle engines unsupercharged; up to 600cc production motorcycle or snowmobile engines supercharged, again permitting 2-strokes (again, most likely via the snowmobile angle). This not only pegs blown displacement to World/AMA Supersport regs, but recalls the classical 2.5 unblown/750 blown Formula 1 of the 1950s, a neat marketing hook if nothing else!

Thoughts on any or all of the above would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for listening.

[Dave Gomberg]

There is nothing in the rules that prohibits front engine/rear drive setups.

While F1000 would fit within your F4, clearly F4 would allow things that F1000 does not. The F1000 rules were constructed to meet certain specific criteria. If you are suggesting that if F4 were endorsed/approved by FIA, F1000 would be expected to expand to match F4 rules, don't hold your breath.

Dave

[Straight8]

There is nothing in the rules that prohibits front engine/rear drive setups.

While F1000 would fit within your F4, clearly F4 would allow things that F1000 does not. The F1000 rules were constructed to meet certain specific criteria. If you are suggesting that if F4 were endorsed/approved by FIA, F1000 would be expected to expand to match F4 rules, don't hold your breath.

Dave

Thanks Dave. I get what you're saying regarding "expanding" F1000 to meet an FIA standard. Yes, my proposal would allow some other things, mainly powertrain with the two-strokes. I would NOT change anything else, materials and aero included. But I've always wondered why the FIA/CSI never followed their FIM counterparts and launched multiple world championships. As I recall, immediately after WWII, they defined multiple classes from the 4.5/1.5 F1 all the way down to 600cc; I'll double check that, but I seem to remember Ludvigsen writing something to that effect.

At any rate, the proliferation of essentially similar formulae begs the question, why not run them together? Just how closely would a top FF2000 FAtlantic run against an F3? How about an FVee v. a FFord, or an FRenault v. a FBMW, or, an F1000 v. an F500? I defined things the way I did with the idea of "capturing" as many different classes as possible. I don't see a per se problem of running "tubes v. tubs" in terms of structure as long as an appropriate degree of crash protection can be reached by either method. Brabham, for one, long ago proved that the "less advanced" one can be competitive if well executed.

I'll put this thread over into one of the broader Formula forums, since it's kinda off topic, the F1000 rules having been set already. In the meantime, I'll keep plotting and scheming design-wise: first you get your whale...

[Janko]

My 2 cents.

Foreword: The problem with racing these days is its cost and way too many racing classes. Cost keeps out a majority of the population apart from the serious enthusiast and the rich. If we want it to grow, we need to make it more accessible. What too many classes does, is spreads out the fan base too thin, so that anything but motorsports related sponsorship (& cigarettes back in the day) is hard to come by in the lower classes of racing. With the fan base spread out too thin, its had to fill the stands and for the race tracks to make money which means higher racetrack costs to the racers.

In my opinion, F1000 has the possibility to change that by curbing costs and adding significant excitement to the equation. The engine formula by itself has real potential in driving costs down and attracting fans by making the racing more exiting...lets not ruin it. I rode sport bikes and participated in Formula SAE...which has done a lot to expose racing to a huge college population.

Wheels: Lets stick with Aluminum or Steel. Magnesium drives the cost way up, and has a huge performance benefit if you have the money. The more weight you take away closer to the contact patch the bigger performance difference it makes.

Chassis: Aluminum Monocoque - allows for a stiffer lighter frame with a lot less metal, but with a lot more rivets. Rivets=labor=$$$ Less labor=cheaper cars.
Carbon Tub - Can probably be made competitively, but at what risk? The manufacturer better be iso certified, because imperfections (air
bubbles, delaminations, weak bonds in critical places like inserts are impossible inspect without expensive inspection equipment. To take advantage of carbon fibers fatigue resistance properties, the mounting point inserts have to be very well integrated into the design.
Not very long ago I read an article about how late nineties/early 2000's Ferrari F1 car's nose fell off completely during a vintage race...Find me an F1000 or any manufacturer that has higher quality controls than an F1 team?

Carbon Tub Proposal: If Carbon Tubs are desired, have one or two high quality manufacturers build safety tubs that enclose the driver (tub length = from firewall to in front of feet). These tub builders (maybe from aerospace) cannot build cars to prevent unfair competition. The chassis manufacturers can then add their front and rear subframes, bodies and wings onto the safety tubs make their individual cars. The reason we do not want too many tub builders is because of safety and economies of scale...to keep their cost down...<$3000 or so.

Safety is not a clear answer and is hugely dependent on the individual chassis design.
Safety = impact energy absorption characteristics Energy increases with the square of speed...
a chassis crashing at 160mph will have to absorb 30% more energy than a crash at 140mph (14% speed difference, 30% impact energy difference)

Aero: To keep cost down, require wing airfoils to be flat, not curvy like F1 and ban endplates on the front...sharp edges are dangerous.

To prevent dangerous Aero related crashes, raise the minimum front wing height above ground to 10cm or so to make lift less sensitive to ride height changes and therefore less complicated to adjust for the nonprofessionals. Get rid off the diffusers which are highly sensitive to car attitude and ride height changes and add to fabrication costs. They do not contribute to the look of the car for the spectators. If a car has a badly adjusted suspension and bottoms out, the diffuser stalls and a car looses 50% of its downforce...I wander what that feels like at the exit of a turn?

Brakes: 2 or 4 piston...no piston size requirements...to my knowledge, the performance benefit of unequal piston sizes or individual piston pads is not going to make any quantifiable performance difference at this lever of racing. The biggest performance difference may come from caliper weight reductions.

Shifting: Get rid of the paddle shifters...let people make mistakes which aids in passing and racing excitement. They only add cost at no benefit to the racing spectacle and fun. If you want cheap paddle shifting go buy an MR2.

I you got this far, Thank you for reading.

[Mike B]

Jan,
I may be misinterpreting your post but it appears that you're under the impression that the FB rules are still being developed. This class was finalized and made a national class in 2007 and the full rules are available here:
http://www.scca.com/documents/Club%2...%20GCR/FCS.pdf

If I'm wrong and you are simply making some suggestions for improving what is already in the rulebook, you can formally propose those rule changes to the Club Racing Board:
http://ams.scca.com/netforum/eweb/dy...&committee=CRB

Good luck!

[Janko]

Thanks Mike,
I just making suggestions how to improve them. This thread was an interesting discussion on the topic and I figured I would put my 2 cents in. Thanks for the link for the formal rule change process.

[Purple Frog]

A lot of you probably weren't F1000 enthusiasts in 2006. This thread is a very interesting read into the history of the class.

I played on the rules committee for a while, then dropped out when the Tatuus i had got destroyed and ended my conversion.

I was strongly opinionated in favor of inlet restrictors in '06.

Now looking back over the last five years... what are the two successful pro series? F2KCS and F1600CS. Why, looky here, they employ restrictors to limit engine creep. How about that? Maybe something to be learned there.... nah...

[jose gerardo]

Mike,

what do you think about raising the minimum weight of the class to 1,050 or close to 1,100?, and or setting a power to weight ratio of X amount to control costs?.

[RobLav]

We're back in this again??!! If it is done, use rev limiters rather than restrictors.

[Nicholas Belling]

I vote to raise weight.

It would good if a 200 to 225 lb driver could get in the car and meet minimum.

Manufacturers could also build safer cars vs weight reduction in mind.

[glenn cooper]

every other class I have driven in has required ballast to get to minimum.

[S Lathrop]

Schweitz was within 20 lbs. of the min. with his FB. And I have made no compromises in safety to get to that weight. I probably have more weight in Citations related to the roll cage structure than any other car. The cage structure goes from the front bulkhead to the roll bar in one form or other. The FB chassis is the same as my FF and FC. As fast as these cars go, increasing the weight will not make them safer because you will have to increase the structure to handle the increase in weight.

Why dumb the class down.