IRL Pro FF2000 series

[jimj11]

Rumours about FF2000 pro series run w/ IRL used as a stepping stone ? D. Anderson involved.

[Michael Rand]

Representing the F2000 Championship Series, we just finished our 4th season, I can catagorically say we are in no way involved.
We did have a meeting with IRL officials in July at Watkins Glen but their insistance on including ovals pretty much ended the discussions.
In years past various incarnations of F2000, FF2000, FC etc have indeed run on ovals, from 5/8's to 1.5 miles in length.
The class's history on ovals shows there have been numerous severe injuries suffered on ovals and it is our belief that the current spec tube frame cars are not appropriate for sustained high speeds found on ovals.
F Mazda with a carbon tub chassis, ok, but not a tube frame car.
There were no small accidents in F2000/FC/FF2000 cars on ovals and while there is some enthusiasm for running the occasional oval the discussions were pointed in that they, IRL, wanted at least half the season oval and half road courses.
We chose to say thanks, but no thanks, and while we are aware of this latest initiative by Dan Andersen and the IRL we respectfully agree to disagree.

[stonebridge20]

Rand,.....Smart decision!

How nobody got killed in the old days on ovals in the F2000 series is a miracle!

[Swift17]

How dare you look after the health and well-being of drivers vs. money. It is this kind of attitude that caused you to do something self serving like having a 40th Anniversary Celebration for Formula Ford creating hundreds if not thousands of smiles. Next silly thing you'll do is have a Ford Festival every Labor Day with the first one at VIR -I can see it now- heat races on both courses (cars to be included would be Club Ford - FF1600 -/- S2000 -FF2000/FC, etc.) as prelims: test Tuesday, Practice and Qualify on Wednesday -- Heat Races on Thursday and Friday -- Consolation/Semi & Finals Practice on Saturday full course (maybe find some time for the Vingage guys 'cuz those cars were neat) -- the Consolation and Elimination Finals races on Sunday full course -- drive home Monday -

Again thanks to you and Steve for the 40th ....

[Daryl DeArman]

Michael Rand

[LenFC11]

thanks mike

[HazelNut]

thanks for looking out for our safety mike!








(better?)

[ChuckU2]

What if the series didn't use the current F2000 selection of chassis and went to a CF tub (ala the failed Cooper 07 car)?
What if the series didn't use the current F2000 engines, and were backed by say...Honda?
What if they used sequential gearboxes?
What if they weren't looking to be "crossover" series?
What if this series ran at virtually every IRL event?
What if it was less expensive than both Atlantic & Pro Mazda?
What if you could get some of the IRL teams on board?
Might it be a relevent step in the ladder system?

What if?

[dc]

There ya go with those damn hypotheticals again. Too many "new" things in your what if scenarios, Chuck. I'm scared of anything new.

[Camadella]

What if the series didn't use the current F2000 selection of chassis and went to a CF tub (ala the failed Cooper 07 car)?
What if the series didn't use the current F2000 engines, and were backed by say...Honda?
What if they used sequential gearboxes?
What if they weren't looking to be "crossover" series?
What if this series ran at virtually every IRL event?
What if it was less expensive than both Atlantic & Pro Mazda?
What if you could get some of the IRL teams on board?
Might it be a relevent step in the ladder system?

That would all be very interesting, but then it wouldn't be an FF2000 series, at least not one that in any way resembles the current series. Less expensive than Atlantics and Pro Mazda is probably still at least double, and probably much much more, than the budget of even a very well heeled FF2000 team.

With every team having to buy new cars, not to mention spares, etc., it would probably cost at least $150,000 just to get ready to show up at the first race with one car.

The fact that the FF2000 series crosses over with club racing is what makes it successful, and keeps the car counts high at every race, despite the downturn in the economy. Many of the competitors are club racers looking to have more fun than club racing - and that is why the series has 30+ cars instead of 16.

I think that if you "what if's" came true, that there would be yet another expensive formula car series that starts 10 or 15 cars per race. I can't think of any other series like this:

Pro Atlantics
Indy Lights
Pro Mazda
FBMW

Just to name a few

Besides, if you want to compete in the series that has already been named as the feeder series to the USF1 team, you should race in the F2000 series. I don't see the F1 guys racing on too many ovals...

Just my $0.02, and I have a fire extinguisher ready.

Cheers,

Chris C.

[Nardi]

What if the series didn't use the current F2000 selection of chassis and went to a CF tub (ala the failed Cooper 07 car)?
What if the series didn't use the current F2000 engines, and were backed by say...Honda?
What if they used sequential gearboxes?
What if they weren't looking to be "crossover" series?
What if this series ran at virtually every IRL event?
What if it was less expensive than both Atlantic & Pro Mazda?
What if you could get some of the IRL teams on board?
Might it be a relevent step in the ladder system?

What if?

Isn't that what FBMW was supposed to do?

[Steve Demeter]

Chiuck,

The main result would be it would cost lots of money.

I like very much the idea of a pro F2000 series running with the IRL on road courses.

Would be great exposure for anyone with a chance of getting real sponsorship.

[Brad Smith]

Also, what happens if the IRL tanks? It is just hanging in there as a viable series.

[LenFC11]

yeah, true! they didnt want f2k to be the bigger show so made silly demands

[Steve Demeter]

Len, such as?

Not being smart, just trying to understand

[LenFC11]

i don't take as being smart. did kinda think was clear since thread went towards demands of half the series to be run on ovals. and safety concerns in tube frame car, along with f2k regularly having feilds of 30+ cars does make it a bigger show..

[racer27]

I was in the stands (The 90) at the WG IndyCar/Pro race, and every person seated in my vacinity indicated that the F2000 Race was more exciting then the Indy Car Race. From my perspective and those around me, they were upstaged. On the start they were 4 wide comming thru turn 1, with tight racing thru out the whole event.

[dc]

Not being an engineer myself, can someone explain to me how a tube chassis car like a late model Van Diemen is any less safe on an oval like IRP than say a tube chassis late model stock car or a USAC Midget? And how is it any different from the concrete walls at Watkins Glen?

Are the speeds that much greater?

[Clyde]

Doug & others; In my opinion the reason many drivers do not want to race on Ovals is that they are busy looking at the walls instead of looking at the Apex (the racecar tends to go where you are looking). Maybe they MUST repack the right side wheel bearings but it all seems to boil down to a "Mind Set" and the excuse of tube frames is just that. NHRA dragsters are tube framed at over 300 MPH, Midgets, SIlver crown sprinters and engineer Ashmore believe in tube frames PLUS tube frames are easier to repair and maintain. I also believe that the skill at the Level most of the drivers are at require an Oval that forces braking into turns 1 and 3. This method is much safer as if something were to break you are already off the throttle. Just my opinion, but with some experience.

[racer27]

First, I think Mike's decision is a Smart one.


I don't know if tube frame is less safe, but on a full sized oval like Indy Car Runs, you are almost always running at max speed. So most hits are going to be closer to that speed. On a road course, your are not at top speed all the way around so contact speeds vary.

Secondly, on an oval, 50%+ of the track is sourounded by concrete walls as soon as the pavent stops. No run-off. If you spin to the outside, you are going to hit it. If you spin on a roadcouse, there may or may not be a barrier immediatly present.

Bottom line, even if the frames were equal in strength, in an incident on a high speed oval (Pocono or IMS Type) you are more prone to hit something, probably going at a higher speed. based on this fact alone, I think your chances of getting hurt are higher.

Not sure about the enginnering aspect, I'll let others who know better chime in. I'd be intrested in a response myself. I once asked a builder who is considering building a Tube Frame FB if he felt tube frame offers adaquate protection for the speed potential offered. He replied that tube frame is what they use for drag racers and they go over 300 MPH. Never having seen a drag car exposed, I've got no clue as to sizing, spacing or denisity of tubing, so not sure if that comparision is a valid one.

If you run an oval, there are special precautions you have to take. I know some trannys require extra oil. I know some car manfactures require spindles to be replaced/checked much more often (I think Reynard reccommends every 2 races).

[Dennis McCarthy]

Putting aside all of the conjecture regarding engineering tube frames, Mike Rand is spot on. History speaks for itself with the accidents that have already occured with the previous F2000 Pro series........

[nulrich]

The class's history on ovals shows there have been numerous severe injuries suffered on ovals and it is our belief that the current spec tube frame cars are not appropriate for sustained high speeds found on ovals.

If you read Mike's post again, he actually said the "current spec tube frame car" is not safe on ovals. I totally agree.

That doesn't mean a tube frame car can't be made safe on ovals, but it would require a totally different design. The Silver Crown cars, for example, have a MUCH more substantial frame than any F2000 car. And Bruce Ashmore's Gold Crown design has both a stout tube frame and large side pods that extend almost the full width of the car.

The current FC rules have no meaningful crash protection requirements. There are undoubtedly good reasons for this, and changing the rules would outdate all of the current cars. On road courses this hasn't been a major problem, but ovals are a different matter, with much higher sustained speeds in close proximity to other cars and immovable barriers.

There are several concerns in driver safety for formula cars. One is limiting the maximum sustained deceleration in a crash. In order to absorb all of the kinetic energy, you need a fair length of crush structure to minimize the maximum acceleration. That's pretty easy to do on the nose and tail. Our new car, for example, has 32 inches of carbon nose/crush structure in front of the front bulkhead and 20 inches of carbon wing mount/crush structure in the rear. Both parts are designed specifically to absorb impact and will be tested and refined on an instrumented test sled.

Side impact is another issue entirely. The current FC rules limit overall width to 950 mm, which means there is only about 10 inches of sidepod width, and no minimum required height. Carbon fiber is also prohibited in the construction of the sidepods. We are doing some innovative things to improve the side crash protection in our car, but the rules are pretty restrictive.

I know I could design a tube frame car that would be reasonably safe on short oval tracks, but not within the current rules structure, and not without giving up substantial aerodynamic performance.

Nathan Ulrich
Radon Sport LLC

[Scott Gesford]

I don't want to run on these big ovals but:

All of the ovals that Indycar runs on have soft walls installed I sure.

I don't really remember a huge amount of injuries other than a kid in a taatus at homestead I think. This was before Hans were used or soft walls.

Sprint cars have much more crushable area in front of the driver unlike a f2000 that has very little. Also, very few sprint races are held on tracks bigger than 1/2 miles but the speeds on those are really getting quick. Unless something breaks, there are not a lot of straight in hits in sprints as most of the time, flipping is involved.

The ovals on the irl schedule other than Iowa are all over 1.5 miles. No lifting required.

I never spent a lot of time looking at walls when on ovals except when exiting a corner if I was on the cushion. I actually was more freaked out a few times I ran tracks that didn't have walls in the corners and you went over a bank if you messed up.

[DFR Dave Freitas]

My guess is that if they ran the 1.5 or 2 mile ovals, they would put chicanes on the straights like they used to.
Watch the old USF2000 videos, some of the best races of the season would take place on these types of tracks.

[Daryl DeArman]

Not being an engineer myself, can someone explain to me how a tube chassis car like a late model Van Diemen is any less safe on an oval like IRP than say a tube chassis late model stock car or a USAC Midget? And how is it any different from the concrete walls at Watkins Glen?

Are the speeds that much greater?

Not an engineer either, but tubing size, distance between tubes and driver, and the energy absorbed by the parts outside of the tubing structure is greater in the Late Model and Midget. The USAC midgets have a narrower track relative to their CG height so they flip (scrub speed ) before hitting the wall more often than a F2000 would.

As far as the WGI comparison, the probability of contact with each other and subsequently a wall is higher on the oval.

[Scott Gesford]

My guess is that if they ran the 1.5 or 2 mile ovals, they would put chicanes on the straights like they used to.
Watch the old USF2000 videos, some of the best races of the season would take place on these types of tracks.

remember the crashes at the chicanes? I remember a massive one, I think it was at atlanta, was it AJ IV?

[stonebridge20]

[QUOTE]

I once asked a builder who is considering building a Tube Frame FB if he felt tube frame offers adaquate protection for the speed potential offered. He replied that tube frame is what they use for drag racers and they go over 300 MPH.

Not too many dragsters race directly at a concrete wall 2 times per lap. Comparing a 300mph dragster that runs parallel to concrete walls is not a valid comparison to oval racing which the cars race directly towards a concrete wall at least two times per lap. I have raced formula cars on ovals. Thompson and Pocono 3/4 mile oval in FF's and Nazareth in Pro Atlantic. The absolute worst crashes I have ever seen were on those tracks in races I was in. The problem is not drivers looking at the wall too much. The problem is when you have cars racing at terminal velocity the entire lap there tends to be ultra close racing due to the importance of the draft. When the "big one" happens you now have cars (F2000) that were never designed to take the impact of terminal velocity hits into concrete walls, hitting them!. To put a F2000 car on any oval longer than 5/8 mile is insane!

Anybody remember the last USAC F2000 race at IRP? That was scarry!

[LenFC11]

i am not an engineer, but it's my understading that amongat those who understand why, this is pretty common knowledge a carbon tub is safer then a tube frame. driver protection in side impact i believe to be greaty increased. i'm sure someone with more knowledge can enlighted us.

i don't see how you can compare a dragster going in a straight line to a formula car going around an oval. nothing similar in any way.

whatever the case i personally like the fact we will be on road courses not oval

[Wren]

I still see crashes from the old F2000 series on ovals come up on those late night shows that are full of amateur shot video. Someone made a lot of money selling parts to those guys.

[S Lathrop]

I will try to speak to the issue of tube frames, ovals and safety. The first oval racing I did with formula cars was with FF and air cooled FSV in the late '70's. I have continued to work with formula cars on ovals ever since.

With the advent of carbon cars, the FIA started requiring crash testing because the early cars were not safe at all. Over the years, the carbon cars have advanced in safety while the tube frame cars have remained virtually unimproved. The only exception for tube frames in this country was the addition of a front crush boxes. This improvement was the result of testing that Adrian Reynard did on his F3 cars and he was so impressed with the effectiveness of even a minimal nose box that he urged the SCCA rules makers to adopt the same structure for FF and FC. That was in 1985.

In the UK there has been a lot of safety work done. We should be looking at that work for our cars.

If you look at the rules for Indy cars, you find that the cockpit sides are very thick laminates of Kevlar and not carbon. If we required tube frame cars to have side panels of .060 to .080 thick Kevlar (that is nearly 10 layers), we would achieve the same or better protection as most junior formula plastic cars.

In either case, tube frames or carbon cars, you must protect the driver's enclosure. A direct impact on the front bulkhead of a RT40 or a VD FC will have the same results for the driver. The worst injury of any driver I have ever worked with was in an RT40 when the steering rack compromised the front bulkhead.

Tube frames have proven to be way more durable than plastic or "ally can" cars. They are also way easier to repair. Once a carbon tub starts to delaminate, there is little that can be done to stop the process. Aluminum monocoques can be pulled apart and re-glued and re-rivited. Belly pans can be replaced on tube frame cars and broken bits can be fixed and improved.


I think there needs to be a series like FF and FC that runs on ovals. IRL needs a feeder series where drivers can build the necessary skills with rear engine formula cars before they get to FA or Indy Lights. Years ago, I really enjoyed the oval races I ran in FF and FSV. A lot of Indy car drivers came up through those classes.

I also think that Mike is correct in not taking this series to the ovals. In the early days, USAC would sanction the ovals and SCCA did the road courses. And there were 2 separate championships. Many drivers ran both series.

FF and FC teach one skill to young drivers that is almost totally lacking in the spec. series, and that is racing setups -- setups that give the absolute maximum performance at the given moment with the resources at hand. Oval setups are especially tricky.

Today at the pro levels, we have drivers who know little about setups and engineers who know less about driving. At the end of the day, it is the driver who has to make the setup work so he really should know what he needs to go fast. You can't learn this skill in cars going 190 mph or faster. It is best learned in FF and FC and the driver takes that knowledge with him to the faster cars.

[Rick Ross]

Steve,

How do you feel that the current generation of carbon tubs compares with our tube frame cars in terms of driver safety? I am referring to modern FIA approved tubs such as those found in F3, F2, GP2, FRenault, FBMW, etc. How would these cars compare to a current FC/FB type car in terms of safety? I have always been under the impression that the carbon tubs were significantly safer in all aspects......but perhaps I am mistaken.

I have always felt that one of the biggest concerns in tube frame cars was cockpit intrusion, but I do not have any data to back this up. And when I was racing tube framed cars, I was always concerned about side impact protection.

[provamo]

i like that ....feeder implies someone gets to eat!

nULRICH AND sLATHROP indicate a tube fram can be made crash SAFER with deformables, absorbables, and crushables et al.

let those that do not want to roll the dice stick to the road courses (more safer) only

in the long view i think what is essential is a SINGLE SUPPLIER SPEC CARBON FIBER small bore formula car SURVIVABILITY TUB that builders (home and professional) can outfit

[S Lathrop]

Steve,

I have always felt that one of the biggest concerns in tube frame cars was cockpit intrusion, but I do not have any data to back this up. And when I was racing tube framed cars, I was always concerned about side impact protection.

The last time I looked at the rules for Indy cars the cockpit sides had to be a single laminate of Kevlar 1/8 inch thick. That is roughly equivalent to 1/8 aluminum. We currently require .060 aluminum or 2 layers of Kevlar in the body sided for FF and FC. 2 layers of Kevlar is about .020 aluminum equivalent at best. Just making it .060" thick and vacuume bagged will make an enormous improvement. .060" thick cockpit panels supported by the tube frame inside, will be as good as the carbon tubs especially in multiple impact situations.

With the heavier side panels we might look at better anchoring systems. It could possibly require that fasteners be no less than 6 inches apart or more than 12 inches along the main frame rails.

In 1994 when I did the previous Citation, the rules required that the diagonal braces in the cockpit area be made of the same materials requires for roll bar bracing. I still have this heavy tube in my cars and it runs from the seat belt anchor point to the drivers elbow. The idea here is to improve the support to the side panels in the event of a side impact.

There is a request before the CRB to allow stressed panels in the area of the foot box. Currently you can have the floor and front of the foot box stress bearing panels. The request is to allow side panels for the first 14" from the front bulkhead. This would be a good addition.

Another idea is to adopt the current English FF idea of a bulkhead that extends the frame forward of the brake master cylinders. This is how all the newest carbon tubs are built. They have 2 forward bulkheads. In England they require that all cars use a standardized front crush structure.

All of the ideas I have described can be adapted to our current cars at minimum costs. Many cars are close to these specs already. Even if you add these requirements to new cars, you will not elevate the costs even close to the cost of doing carbon tubs.

[Stan Clayton]

I have always felt that one of the biggest concerns in tube frame cars was cockpit intrusion, but I do not have any data to back this up. And when I was racing tube framed cars, I was always concerned about side impact protection.

I doubt you would get any argument that cockpit intrusion in tube frame cars is their greatest weakness compared to tub cars. The current-spec (last several years) FE chassis with the spec FE front crushbox handily passes current Formula 3 quasi-static and front impact tests, but even the most cursory glance at the frame shows gaping holes compared to the isotropic nature of a tub. That's why the Club has a minimum standard for side impact structures in tube frame formula cars. Even so, as Steve and others have pointed out, to attain the same degree of penetration resistance of the optional aluminum spec, one needs considerably more kevlar layers than is currently required.

[Dennis McCarthy]

I'm not advocating tube frame cars on ovals.

That being said, most of the carbon or Kevlar "safety panels" I've seen so far have been on the inside of the tube frame next to the driver.


The standard method of fastening is generally a few sheet metal screws or a few aluminum pop rivets.

They are great for aiding in the construction of a bead seat but if you get a penetrating whack in the side of the chassis the "safety panel" will be the first thing coming to visit you.....

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to have the extra protection molded in the regular side panels of the car or at the least have any extra "safety panels" fastened securely on the outside of the tube frame?

[RobLav]

I really hesitate to get into another rules discussion... as part of the F1000 rules committee, I tried to allow body fasteners less than 6" apart.

We don't have to rules mandate it, especially for older cars, but it should be allowed.

[Stan Clayton]

Dennis, are you sure that you are not looking at the "interior panels"? The rules clearly state that aluminum anti-intrusion panels must be fastened to the "outside of the main frame tubes", or kevlar must be "incorporated into the body", which I have never seen mounted inside the frame tubes. Stan

[S Lathrop]

The drawing for FC rules in the GCR shows a crush structure on the sides of the car. But there is no description of or requirement for a crush structure in the rules.

Just for discussion; how about a crush structure on the sides as shown in the drawings that can be added to the existing body. Say the structure can extend to a maximum of 2 inches beyond the maximum body width limit and cover the distance from the dash hoop to the radiator.

You are not required to have the crush structure but you can add one to the outside of your body. For the Citations and the VDs this extra width might actually reduce drag if properly done. If we can include the radiator as part of the crush structure, there is another possible gain in lower cooling drag. All this might be sufficient inducement to get current cars updated.

As a background point, the rules makers felt that the side mounted radiators made very good crush structures and that is why there is no requirement for separate structures.

A side benefit to safety structures is that they minimize damage to critical and expensive components, the frame especially. Since I have been adding nose boxes to the front of my cars, I have not had to replace a front bulkhead and the few repairs I have done were minor.

Bad wrecks are not confined to ovals. Witness Sonoma.

[Dennis McCarthy]

Stan ,

You can call them interior panels.

All of the "panels" if you will, that I've seen are next to the driver.
When you ask what they are for I've always been told side impact protection.

[Dave Gomberg]

The drawing for FC rules in the GCR shows a crush structure on the sides of the car. But there is no description of or requirement for a crush structure in the rules...

Not so. GCR 9.4.5.G

Dave

G. Front Impact Attenuation
1. All formula cars registered or homologated with SCCA as of
1/1/1986 must have a front impact attenuation device meeting
at least one of the following criteria:
A. An FIA-approved front impact attenuation structure.
B. A metallic structure, securely attached to the front bulkhead,
with a minimum cross section of 200 sq cm (31 sq
in.), 40 cm (15.75 in.) forward of the clutch and brake
pedals (not depressed), constructed of a minimum of 18
gauge 6061-T4 or equivalent aluminum.
C. A non-metallic composite structure, securely attached to
the front bulkhead or incorporated into the nose piece,
with a minimum cross section of 200 sq cm (31 sq. in.),
40 cm (15.75 in.) forward of the clutch and brake pedals
(not depressed), constructed of a minimum of 6 mm stabilized
(e.g. honeycomb) material with inner and outer reinforcements
of a minimum of two 5-ounce laminates of
fiberglass, carbon, or kevlar material.
2. Formula Vee and other formula cars using the VW sedan
H-beam front suspension must satisfy the requirements of
section 9.1.1.C.3.A.10., or use any of the structures listed in
section 9.4.5.G.1.
3. Formula Mazda cars may use the spec front wing support as
a front crush structure, or any of the structures listed in G.1
above.
4. Radiators may be incorporated in impact attenuation structures.
5. Composite impact attenuation structures may incorporate
carbon and/or kevlar regardless of any class restrictions on
materials.
6. Rear impact attenuation structures are strongly recommended
for all formula cars, and may incorporate the materials and/or
construction techniques listed above for front impact attenuation
structures.
7. Pre-1986 formula cars and all sports racers are strongly urged
to use front and rear impact attenuation structures, and may
incorporate the materials and/or construction techniques for
front impact attenuation structures listed above.