We were with them July 4th at WGI. It was fun, but then it was also when we were at the same weekend as Grand AM and ALMS. Its sometimes also fun to be the headliner and get the best schedule and the most track time of the weekend....
Printable View
We were with them July 4th at WGI. It was fun, but then it was also when we were at the same weekend as Grand AM and ALMS. Its sometimes also fun to be the headliner and get the best schedule and the most track time of the weekend....
Chris, Ask some of the guys who went to Trois Rivieres back in the 90's how much fun it was; this series needs to go back, especially since only a dozen Atlantic cars could be bothered this year. The show would be tremendous... !!Quote:
Originally Posted by Camadella
Montreal is great, but track time and schedule will always suck, and the cost of entry would make your eyes water....
I believe FBMW gets in only because of the obvious F1 connection, and F1600 got a highly subsidized one-off two years ago that's not likely to happen again soon.
I am not saying that these tube frame cars are as safe as they can be and are exactally oval ready but I do believe that as long as the U.S has 1 major open wheel series (IRL) and if they do ovals and road courses then so should every junior open wheel series. Otherwise the first time a driver gets on an oval will be in an Indy Lights car going 180-200MPH compared to a F2000 which will do 120-135MPH. Just my two cents from a driver that dreams of racing open wheel cars on ovals and road courses one day.
I don't know Jack Sh%t, but i did meet him once...
Two liter cars could be built that would be safer for ovals. The problem is that those cars would be at a disadvantage to current FC/SCCA/F2000 cars. Thus, the oval car would be a "spec" car for oval purposes only, or a series that specs that particular spec.
The beauty of the current two F200 pro series is that the cars easily cross-over to club rules and thus can be multi-purpose machines. (e.g. many F2000 pro cars will be running in this month's Runoffs.) The $64,000 question would be whether the current economy can support special purpose oval 2 liter cars.
I think it's more like the $128,000 question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Actually, it could easily be an $8-10000 question.
All that needs to be done is to specify reinforcement panels and crush structures of certain parameters to be fastened to the frame for ovals only. Depending on the car design and the special parts specifications, it need not be all that costly.
It is too bad that the series is not going to exist - it would have been the biggest boost for amateur formula car racing that we've seen in 30 years.
Has Anderson given up trying to make this happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
As far as I know, it is still happening. Look for an announcement officially toward the end of the month.
wonderful. :thumbsdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
Do they plan to run this with existing FC-spec cars? Are they going to try the new car route (it did work so well for Baytos).
Is the pool of drivers with the money really big enough to support all of these series?
I wouldn't want to do it in a car where I couldn't bring my knees to my chest.
Lots of personal opinions flying around here. :rolleyes: It's unfortunate that people can't choose to put those emotions aside and not air dirty laundry on the forums.
There are currently TWO pro F2000 series in the U.S. at the moment. They co-exist. A third that doesn't do what the other two do should have no problem running as a support series for American oval racing. Let the racers choose where to go and what tracks to race on. If you don't like the people running any of the Pro series, take your entries elsewhere.
Enough of the badgering and rock-throwing because of past personal conflicts.
Is this so you can kiss something goodbye as the wall comes hurtling at you?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Wren
John
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimW
Exellent! I forgot that he was behind the push.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
If people have the choice of running with the IRL, I thinks that you'll see guys coming out of the woodwork. The problem may lay in getting entries for the competing Pro series on dates where there is a conflict.
In that case, it will be the usual "survival of the fittest".
well said. Obviously there is still a large amount of support for the current F2000 Series, as is apparent on this forum, and the car counts will likely be strong again next year. Its a solid series that provides club racers and people looking for an entry level pro series a place to race with good track time at excellent tracks. That being said, most of the opinions expressed on this forum come from a certain demographic of the series that maybe doesn't represent everyone involved. I agree with Matt and JS in that i would welcome more events with IndyCar and if that meant a few ovals, it would probably be good experience looking towards the future. No doubt the F2000 Championship Series has a balancing act to do when it comes to appealing to both the club and master guys and the younger kids who are looking to move up. They do a good job with it but from my perspective there are things that would make the series more appealing to the younger talent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
What would these things be... more high profile events, a slightly more professional atmosphere, more recognition and rewards. Things that would be accomplished with an association with Indy Car. Obviously all of these things would make entry fees more expensive and from the masters and club guys perspective, probably wouldn't be worth it and they will continue to support the current series.
The years when Dan ran the series were the years where the series had the highest car counts ever. Obviously he did something right. Hopefully this series happens and the drivers that would have looked at something like BMW in the past will find this to be the new stepping stone and realize how great the F2000 formula is. This would probably not even hurt the current series that bad and instead they could shift their focus even more so to the club and masters guys, who they seem to favor, and for good reason as they make up a large bulk of the series.
There is likely room for both of these series and if there isn't...too bad. It's a business like anything else and competition is what drives products to improve. The F2000 Championship Series has a strong product in place and with the association with USF1 they are even more solidly positioning themselves to be part of the open wheel ladder system. It's amazing to me how much complaining there is about something that doesn't even exist yet and that people have no idea what the details are. Maybe the series isn't for you but that doesn't mean it is a TRAVESTY! and the worst thing to ever happen!
Relatively affordable high profile series, proven management, filing a void, associated with IndyCar, taking a formula that everyone loves, increasing professionalism...doesn't sound like the worst thing ever.
Thanks to Mike, Bob, Al and Dan for putting their time, money and effort into racing series that probably wont make them rich and that they are likely doing for the love of the sport.
Chris
Chris,
Well said,accurate analysis. the issue is the difference between a race series that is "affordable" to different driver motivations and a full on "feeder series" that is a pass through to young guns to move up.
The problem right now is there is nowhere to move up to. The "investment" in a career above this level in open wheel in the USA is pointless.
The cost structure in all of racing has grown over the last 25 years at an equal or higher rate than government waste. All of racing is in for a rude awakening.
So after my mini Robin Miller rant if Dan gets it off the ground :thumbsup: hopefuls with $ will try,
the NE and MW guys will stay for the bang for buck in F2000 and here we go again.
I do like Pare's idea of attenuation stuctures that can be attached for ovals and removed for road racing. That could be a solution for "cross-overs", and integration of an existing base of cars. (some folks may just decide to keep them on when road racing. ;) )
Still not cheap, nor easy to police. Making a "spec" would solve the policing part if one chose to only implement one chassis make. Otherwise brand X may decide to implement crush zones 1/4" thick, giving them an aero advantage over brand Y that has built zones 3" thick.
I would think that scientific seat design and head bolsters would be a key ingredient. All good things that would filter down to all classes.
Easily upping the hp of 2 liter powerplants will compensate for the extra drag of attenuation devices. There is some thought that if the devices were designed correctly, there may not be that much more drag. :)
Obviously some think that running ovals would be a good thing, especially in the US where ovals are popular. I can see it being successful in terms of entries when one markets to the correct demographic. Ralf Firman sold a lot of Van Diemans in his day by focusing on the continent of South America.
A rising tide lifts all boats.
There is one thing that hasnt been mentioned thus far. At the moment any driver under 18 is barred from IRL race weekends. As long as Roger has Phillip Morris money, and since he is on the corporate BoD I dont see that changing anytime soon, younger drivers need not apply. It is the reason Victor couldnt run the Glen IRL weekend at 16 but was able to run the natty the next weekend. That rule also took Colin Braun out of the DP car when they raced with IRL at the Glen
I am not sure that rule is open for debate.
All that needs to be done, for, say, side panels, is specify a certain minimum thickness, length, width, and height, as well as the material. Not cheap by any means, but really not something that would break the banks of the serious runners. Proper sidepods, constructed as attenuators, should cost less that $5k if someone sets up to make multiple sets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
For head surrounds, really not a big deal at all to make them for just about all cars out there, and the same goes for the seats.
I was hesitant in responding to this but I can’t help myself. I am sure I will get lampooned by SCCA purists, but oh well, I have to rant just like all of you. There is some real good posts in this thread and in most I sense a similar level of frustration as I have, pertaining to lost opportunities due to “faulty regulation” or the “regulation for the sake of protecting the illusion of competitiveness for long ago obsolete equipment”.
All the concern that shear structural paneling, modern materials, bonding and close rivets might give someone a competitive advantage because the constructer is producing a stronger, safer, stiffer chassis, has got to be the SCCAs historical trademark in hypocrisy. We are forced to design and construct cars that in “our opinion” are not the most safe and best cars we are capable of producing due to SCCA’s ludicrous attitude against safety in general. This same mentality is prevalent in the new FB construction regulations. They carry forward the same ludicrous mentality in limiting how safe we make the cars. It would be more logical to provide minimum standards as a baseline but letting us build the safest cars we are compelled to produce and allowing us to go above and beyond. It is this same mentality that provides issues with product liability costs because we are forced by SCCA to knowingly produce cars that are safety limited.
Now here I am reading how a great opportunity is dust in the wind because “the SCCA GCR constructed cars are not safe enough ?????? What a crock, all this while racers are complaining about not having new venues to race their cars in. In my opinion SCCA and its membership seems to spend more effort chasing away hundreds and hundreds of new enthusiasts and even many potential constructors, in order to pacify a few of existing enthusiasts refusing to move past 1970 and stuff like cast iron brake calipers, LOL.
This series could have been a kick in the pants if it could have happened, and would have been great to promote the small formula car venue. I am really disappointed and let down, this could have been fun.
Tube chassis are safe if built to a reasonable set of non safety limiting regulations and with proper fixed intrusion protection in cored composite or metallic chassis paneling, skinning, encapsulating, can yield a very safe, strong and robust survival cell if we were not limited by the exercise in stupidity that I feel the SCCA restrictions are. Use the tube frame current specs as a minimum, but loose all the “stuck on stupid BS” let us shear panel the cars and put as many rivets and as much glue on as we are compelled by our own intuitive insight and common sense.
Remove the 6” limitation on rivet spacing and bonding of paneling to the frame. Instead encourage structural enhancement.
Remove the ban on carbon fiber and Kevlar across the board. Carbon is a good thing to make race cars with, otherwise it would not be such a mainstay in material choice for the global race car industry. Otherwise I might be tempted to use the much more expensive alternatives like Vectran, Spectra, Dyneema etc….. just for the spectacle of reading the resulting commentary here in using these “legal materials”.
Instead of limiting chassis strength and stiffness, encourage it.
Instead of whining and bellyaching trying to get race car constructors to build cheaper, cheesier cars, put that same effort into earning more money yourself to pay for better cars for your known to be expensive sport. You should nickel and dime the fancy transporters, before or instead of the race cars. I am sure that none of you racers are willing to work for free or near nothing for your job, so why should constructors, parts producers and support companies be expected to work for near nothing or worse a negative cash flow? Let’s be fair and meet in the middle, based free market principals. Please discontinue the practice of mandating that new race cars be built cheesy and unsafe for the sake of cheap.
Enough of the rant, sorry but this could have been a lot of fun and an example of another missed opportunity. It is these types of opportunities that motivate new cars to be designed and offered for the market.
C Shaw
No one has said that the series is not happening. In fact it has been posted that it is happening and you should look for an announcement at the end of the month. One pro F2000 series chose not to be involved based on their previous experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
Please, use it. Anyone complaining about that would be like the people who complained about wheels that were perfectly legal.Quote:
Otherwise I might be tempted to use the much more expensive alternatives like Vectran, Spectra, Dyneema etc….. just for the spectacle of reading the resulting commentary here in using these “legal materials”.
That's exactly where we are. You can feel free to price your product wherever you want. No one expects car manufacturers to work for free and I doubt you will find a post on here that says that. The reality of the situation is that the SCCA is a very small market and the odds of paying your bills and being able to eat just by selling to club members are bad. Maybe you could try to build cars for ALMS or something if you want to make good money.Quote:
I am sure that none of you racers are willing to work for free or near nothing for your job, so why should constructors, parts producers and support companies be expected to work for near nothing or worse a negative cash flow? Let’s be fair and meet in the middle, based free market principals.
This has never been the practice. SCCA rules are fine for safety on SCCA approved tracks. SCCA could probably stand to take a second look at some of the things that have been allowed under alternate construction, but the general SCCA safety guidelines are fine.Quote:
Please discontinue the practice of mandating that new race cars be built cheesy and unsafe for the sake of cheap.
Am I to understand that there is still really an active effort by IRL to bring in a F2000 series venue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
If so, I am very interested in knowing a lot more about who, what and where, because I am very much interested in this venue. Maybe I read too fast, I was under the impression that it was a dead deal. Pro racing venues provide more justification for investment than do club racing hobby venues, from a business perspective.
A lot of what I posted is just a rant, as I stated but non the less it is my opinion and I felt like
sharing it. Alternate construction is allowed only to a very limited degree, but watching the measuring of rivet spacing making sure they are not too close, in tech seems real dumb, to me that is. Like cast iron calipers are also dumb but they are not a safety issue unless they hit you in the head, LOL
C Shaw
why not just call the IRL @ 317.492.6526 to see if there is an interest in F2000 ?
It's a lot harder than that. None of the current cars have reasonable front or rear impact structures. Further, I don't believe any of them have nose mounting structures sufficient to pass even a cursory knock-off test (oblique impact from the side of the nose).Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
Unless the "safety" improvements are just lipstick, at the minimum, someone would have to design, engineer, and test: (1) new nose mounts and associated structure; (2) new nose and/or internal nose crush structure; (3) new rear crush structure; (4) new side panels; (5) new sidepods and crush structure; (6) new driver's head surround and structure/bodywork to support it (current designs don't go high enough to provide any support).
I'm not sure anyone would make the kind of engineering and tooling investment required for the few sales the new series will generate, especially when much of it would need to be duplicated for each chassis manufacturer.
I think it's all academic, though. Roger Bailey told me the IRL wants a spec chassis. Not hard to figure out which one, either. Just think about past associations of the principals, which monocoques have run safely on ovals in this country, and what chassis could easily take a 2.0 liter engine. Just to be clear, I don't have any inside information, I'm just speculating! ;)
I think there is a place for a development series that runs on ovals. Not every young driver has the talent to aspire to racing outside of the US, so it might be a good place to develop the skills necessary to race at the highest level in this country.
Hard to imagine a budget of less than $250k/year to run a series like this competitively, so an additional $100k+ for a car isn't a huge problem for those with funding.
Nathan
Your speculation is simply not true, Nathan. Two years ago the current FE chassis and nose handily passed the FIA Formula 3 quasi-static chassis tests and frontal and oblique nose impact tests. It's not rocket science.Quote:
Originally Posted by nulrich
I agree, Stan, it's not rocket science, just engineering. And tooling. Which costs time and money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
I'm not sure which "speculation" you are referencing, but: (1) F3 cars don't run on ovals; (2) FE is not a current FC/F2000 chassis as far as I know.
Nathan
Quote:
Originally Posted by nulrich
I would imagine that from their perspective they would base it on a modern design, which means new cars, not existing cars. I am wondering though if the "SPEC car theme is loosing its appeal, I hope so). I hope there is a desire for variety by the fans because at least from my perspective it is boring watching all the same cars and I really hate what Spec racing has done to the industry. It is near impossible for fresh constructors to get into it because the monopolistic business model that seems to be so prevalent these days. Any rate, I don't think that FC cars have the look and sex appeal to tantalize race spectators and fans, so my gut would tell me it would gravitate more to a F2K Indy lights type venue or more of an Atlantic type car.
There has been rumors of talks between ALMS and IRL for a long time and keep in mind, that Elan developed a replacement car for Champ Car and I am sure that the Panoz organization would like to see some return on that investment. So along with Dallara I think it possible that Elan could be a player if this is all for real.
If there is a viable interest in a formula 2000 series then I hope it will be open to all constructors interested so the series could be interesting from a car perspective also. What they need is a very streamlined economical homologation and certification process. One that the FRENCH have nothing to do with. Simply haul the test samples to Indy and do it all under one roof without all the FIA BS RED TAPE. If they did that, cars would come. Testing these cars structures is not complex at all, and the process could be standardized and be made available to many constructors.
As a constructor it seems nice to dream about getting a monopoly contract but I believe that it (spec car racing) has destroyed the appeal of racing in America for those that actually design, build and work on race cars. It has also lead to less than lackluster enthusiasm by race fans that are fans of the machinery as much or more than some "manufactured for the media" drivers.
F1 is cool because of all the variations in equipment and that is why I watch. Indy car racing was really cool when there was many different race car makes on the track at the same time. That appeal all died with the introduction of Spec Racing.
As a constructor and in my opinion, the secret to making these high technology construction techniques viable and affordable for many smaller constructors and home builders, is in simplifying the structural validation certification process. It is all in the apparatus for testing and making it available in a streamlined methodology. The labs that FIA uses are all suffering from acute academia and think they have to charge rates as if everyone is a government contract with endlessly deep pockets. It is all made out to be more complicated than it should be. Also it needs to be void of the mandated wining and dining, air fares and so forth for every tom dick and harry involved with a series, FIA, marketing firm and so forth to attend a validation test. It cost more flying everyone from around the world to around the world than it does for to actually set up and test a car. That needs to be fixed in America for the good of formula car racing and sports car racing.
Sorry ranting again. I will pursue this to determine viability for myself.
C Shaw
Nathan, in the portion of your previous post which I quoted you speculated about the quality, or lack thereof, of suitable impact structures on current club cars. The FE chassis is virtually identical to a late model VD FC chassis in most respects. In fact, it IS a late model VD FC chassis with very minor tweaking. Therefore, it is germane to offer it up as a counter example to the claim one often hears that tube frame chassis are not up to modern safety standards.
Moreover, the car was not "engineered" to pass the tests. It evolved to its current status due to competitive pressures, and it turns out, happened to handily pass the tests. The FC version of the front attenuator, on the other hand, could not pass its initial tests, so VD (post-RF by this time) simply kept building a more robust front crush box until it did pass the tests. Little or no proper engineering was involved.
Also, bear in mind that the carbon Ralts, Reynards and Swifts (008 thru 016) all ran ovals, and all except the 016 were designed to F3 crash specs, so I would have to differ with you on that point, as well. Champcar had the 016 designed to somewhat higher than F3 specs since its minimum weight fell outside the F3 window, but the same concept applies.
Gee, really? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
I don't mean to come across as sarcastic, but ever since Indy Lights broke the mold with a spec chassis, practically every organization since has wanted to emulate that cash cow (present F2000 series excepted, of course). You independent builders; Shaw, Ulrich, Piper, etc., need not apply.
How many crashes has SCCA formula cars had at tracks like Gateway? Tracks that have the big speedway sections of tracks? Hitting the wall is a concern but what is worse is the tendency for a bunch of cars to get stacked up in a mob and those high speeds. Intrusion protection is vital and also floors that stay attached to the bottom of the tub.
Stan, I agree than most likely we may not need to apply
Also Nathan said that, not I
The importance of intrusion protection and floors that stay attached has been recognized by the SCCA. That is why you are free to use as much kevlar as you would like to in the sides of the car, the SCCA specs a minimum amount, I know that several manufacturers go well beyond that. Attachment every six inches is entire adequate for intrusion protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
There are no rules about how often a floor may be attached. This car is entirely legal:
http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-...05037_6447.jpg
http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-...05040_7285.jpg
I'm also interested in what you have seen on current SCCA cars that is "cheesy."
Not a thing wrong with that specific floor Wren. But I have cringed at some of the stuff I have been asked to work on that was scary to say the least.
Why limit the number of rivets and spacing at all in the upper sections, what is wrong with shear panels and encapsulation of the sides of the tub?
Hi Stan. I think we are in agreement. I thought I was clear in this context, but I didn't mean to imply that NO current SCCA car has good crash protection. I was talking only about the current FC/F2000 cars, the ones with which I am familiar and which teams might want to run on ovals in a new F2000 pro series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
Also, I stated earlier in this thread (way up top ;) ) that I thought a steel tube frame car could be made safe on smaller ovals. It is a lot easier with a carbon monocoque, of course.
The FIA F3 standards would be a good start, but I'd like to see a bit more protection for oval tracks, especially in certain areas. Of course, nose crush structure is only one small part of the entire safety package. You can take the Elan approach of just beefing up the structure until it passes or you can actually engineer the impact structure and test it to confirm your design. I think the second approach is much more efficient, but in either case it ain't cheap.
I also agree that series that use spec cars aren't very interesting, nor do they necessarily decrease the cost. But along with sanctioning bodies, maybe less knowledgeable fans like them?
Nathan
Stan,Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
Are you trying to say that an aluminum crush box held on by four little tiny blocks, each of which is held in place with a single 5mm diameter bolt in single shear (and with a large bending moment arm at that, since the block is fairly deep) can possibly withstand a real oblique impact, and "Handily" pass the FIA crash tests? I don't think so.
Perhaps you need to read the article posted by Richard Pare a while back that discusses a team of five engineers at the Cranfield University in the UK trying to make a suitable (i.e., FIA legal) crush for a Formula Ford in 2007. If you haven't, I'd be happy to send it to you.
Based on the test data presented in that article, and the amount of real crush structure and additional tubing that needed to be added to make the car meet the MINIMUM requirements, I don't think that there's any possibly way that a current V-D car comes even close, and in my opinion, the front crush structure that we have is largely decoration.
I for one would not want to be driving my car into a solid barrier at terminal velocity, or anywhere close to it.
Cheers,
Chris C.
Yep...sorry about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
You guys have touched on why a healthy club racing environment is so essential to maintaining a healthy market for us independents. "Corporate" racing has an entirely different set of priorities, which we are now generally frozen out of.
My appreciation to Mike and Bob for keeping their series open to all comers! :thumbsup:
(Pacific series, too!)
Camadella:
The Cranefield study was done in order to provide a spec nosebox and structure for Brit FFs at a specified price, to a very specific decelleration curve, and to a design that anybody could back date on to their existing cars. The price restriction alone made it more difficult than necessary, and as a result, required a LOT for "real" engineering to be done.
You also would not want to drive that design nose box into a solid barrier at terminal velocity - remember, the test are specified at something like only 27 mph. At 100+ it won't do much!
As a result of that academic work, and a lot of work done elsewhere, the rest of us now have some real data to back up our years of real world experience with continually updating our nose box designs as we learn, so making the mods necessary to get a tube frame FC car - even a VD ;) - to pass handily really isn't that tough a job.
While the "4 little tiny blocks and 4 5mm bolts" sounds and looks on the surface to be way inadequate, and very well may be if the construction on whatever car you are describing is as bad as you state, you'd be surprised what is used to hold F1 noses on. Yep. 4 little 5mm studs!
No, as Stan stated, making these cars safe for ovals isn't rocket science, and it needn't be prohibitivly expensive. Where the extra expense comes in is have to get everything to perform to a specific decelleration level, and that takes usually quite a few iterations of a design crashed and either verified or rejected with sled tests.
Unfortunately, an organization the stature of the IRL will insist (or rather, their insurers will insist) on some very specific safety standards, and the costs of revamping current designs to pass those tests will most likely be out of reach for the majority of small manufacturers.
Yes, I think we are in general agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by nulrich
Having been through the whole "spec pro series" thing with Atlantics, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that at the semi-pro level (Atlantics, Pro Mazda, etc.) spec cars are invariably MORE expensive than non-spec cars, for the simple expedient that the series owners view the cars and their replacement parts as a profit center. That raises prices by about 50% in my experience.Quote:
I also agree that series that use spec cars aren't very interesting, nor do they necessarily decrease the cost. But along with sanctioning bodies, maybe less knowledgeable fans like them?
Don't take me wrong, though. Businesses have to make a profit to stay in business. That said, when you also have to compete on price as well as performance that keeps prices at or near their natural minimum. Case in point: in '97 a new non-spec Ralt cost $90k. In '98 a new Swift 008a (advertised by Vicki as a "Ralt RT-42"...cheaper and better than a Ralt RT-41) cost $130k, and parts were 50% to several hundred percent more expensive than Ralt parts.
Oh, and the 008 was a pathetic dog compared to an RT-41. ;)
No, I'm not trying to tell you anything of the sort. I said that the chassis passed handily (IIRC it passed on its first try). The nose took considerable effort from its FC incarnation to pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Camadella
And Swift is the ONLY race car manufacturer that seemed to think that mounting the whole ass end of the car in rubber bushings was a good idea! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
After re-reading the previous page, and in particular C.Shaw's comments in post #69, I'd like to add a couple of comments.
First: your car is NOT safe to race...even if it has passed current FIA F3 quasi-static and crash testing.
I say that because it is important to bear in mind that the safety standards which have been adopted by the Club (largely from FIA) only cover specific minimum standards. Standards which any race car with a running engine can easily exceed.
For instance, the FIA F3 front crash test is (IIRC) designed to decelerate a car hitting a solid, unmovable barrier at no more than 30 G's at 12 meters per second. That's about 26 mph. Go faster than that and the standard unravels. At more than 26 mph the nose collapses flat and damage to the tub/frame and your feet and lower legs starts, and it gets nothing but worse from there.
Building a "safe" car for ovals is not possible. You can increase the standard, but you cannot build a safe car for the speeds that even a 140 hp FC can routine achieve on an oval.
That is not to say that you cannot mitigate the danger, but let's not fool ourselves. You cannot build a "safe" racing car.
Second: the "no stressed panels" standard for FF, FB and FC were chosen for performance reasons, NOT safety reasons.
The most prominent safety shortcoming of a tube frame is anti-intrusion, since any frame's anti-intrusion properties are by definition non-isotropic. If folks seriously want a safety upgrade to those classes, then you need to support higher standards, but there is no need to go to stressed panels with their performance advantage. Steve Lathrop, Richard Pare and others have advocated increasing the kevlar requirement to 8 or 10 layers to duplicate the thickness of aluminum anti-intrusion panels. Do that while retaining the 6" spacing and you will have anti-intrusion protection comparable to the best F3 tub cars without the performance advantage that comes from stressed panels.
Mr. Shaw:Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
No one is forcing you do do or not do anything, EXCEPT to adhere to the contstruction rules for the class you are building to.
ALL cars are built to a minimum safety specification. even FV. If you do not want to exceed those minimums because you think you cannot build a competitive car, that's your choice. If you DO want to build a competitive car, yet exceed the minimum safety standards by a humongous margin, that also is your choice.
Whether or not you can exceed those standards to a degree that satisfies you, and still make a buck, is limited only by your talent.
AND, whether or not your customers can still afford it. ;)
We are definitely in more agreement that I though - very well said, Stan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
Cheers,
Chris C.
In the mid '70s we started racing FFs and air cooled FSVs on ovals. I participated in those early races as a driver, chassis builder and race engineer. The first oval championship was won with a tube frame Zink Z11 built in my shop.
We have decades of active oval racing experience with FF, FSV and FC to review and see what the facts about safety really are. Add to that the years of Atlantics and you have a good picture of what to expect.
Since the '70s we have advanced the safety of the basic tube frame chassis in FC to where it is way better than some of the early monocoque FSVs. As Richard has pointed out, the cost to raise the level of protection to a higher standard is not great. I think that if we review the experience of FCs on ovals, we will find that they are safe and that we can enhance that safety with very cost effective steps.
The walls out side the kink at Elkhart or the guard rail at trun one at Mid Ohio are way more formibable that all the ovals we are likely to see with FCs. In a typical oval impact (if there is a typical impact), the wall is struck at an oblique angle so the actual impact force with the wall is quite low. Typically a car is traveling parallel to the wall prior to any event that will lead to a wall impact. Also the cars are closer to the wall so that impacts at high angles are less likely. This is not true for road courses.
My experience with crash damage on ovals verses road courses is that there is not much if any difference. Road courses you abuse the car on almost every lap by hitting curbs and the likes. Ovals you go for many races with nothing then you might have the big one. Often though the damage is little more that a typical road course wreck.
This is my point. Regulating a car to have a reduced level of performance in a crash is the same thing as regulating a car to be less safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
Or if by performance you mean competitive advantage, this mentality also holds no water because by his own admission, Lee Stohr has stated over and over the fact that his cars have won championship after championship regardless of the fact that he employs a bit more flex strategy than his competing builders choose to and forum goers are regularly dissing him over his design choice. So using Lee's undisputed success as an example, his cars could be said to have a competitive advantage maybe due to some flex. ?????? Kudos, Lee and Wayne !!!! By the way, I don't see a compromise on rivet spacing on their "Stressed" tub side panels of their sports cars, Oh yes and they are also firmly glued in place as well, Right Lee?
So what is SCCA trying to limit, Crash performance or competitive performance? Looks like crash performance to me.
By the way I am very familiar with FIA requirements and testing procedures as well as putting the squeeze on a tub till it goes "Crunch", pushing the nose off sideways, using a cone shaped penetrator to determine sharp object intrusion as well as myriad of other testing procedures, both destructive and non destructive.
The safety of my clients come first and it would be malpractice on my part to knowingly accept and blindly agree, without a fight, to produce a product that in my heart and soul, I know it is not up to the task at hand due the the fact that SCCA regulations prohibit me from doing so. I am therefore obligated to put up the best fight I can, regardless of outcome, for the safety of my clients, and to the limit the TORT exposure as well. Get the hint? How much liability is SCCA and its insurance company willing to accept on this matter. Safe cars are a great benefit even in cases when wild animals and big birds walk out onto the race track and the armco fence is calling out in a haunting voice, "HERE I AM, COME TO ME RACE CAR FLIPPING THROUGH THE AIR, .....COME AND ROLL ON TOP OF ME"
Potential TORT exposure issues? > Yes, you bet, and SCCA is making it easy to redirect that exposure to them
Bob, I am completely interested in this expansion of your series if you can somehow make it happen and even on the oval would be a hoot too. But I hope you make allowances to competitors to upgrade there chassis safety if they do not see the need to use their car in SCCA Club FC. I just hope they "IRL" does not just use you to get the interest up only to throw you out on you ear with a spec car later on.
C Shaw
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
What, precisely, about the SCCA rules and regulations do you feel prevents you from building what you consider to be a car with adequate safety performance?
Cheers,
Rennie
One small step in allowing a measure of greater protection via stressed panels is now (I think) in front of the BoD. It will allow the footbox area from the front bulkhead back X inches to have stressed panels attached to the sides. This is in response to a couple of recent Swift crashes where the footbox area collapsed in a crash, much more than it should have relative to more modern and stout footbox constructions.
Another peeve of mine is allowing the floorpan to only be bolted in place. Even though bolting on 6" or less than centers satisfies the requirements (except in FB, where there is no requirement), it really needs to be upgraded to a better standard. The requirements for all floor pans should state that they be bonded and rivited as the minimum fastening method - the integrity of the floorpan attachment is critical in helping spread and absorb crash loads correctly.
The option to provide better encapsulation of the frame, unlimited number and spacing of fasteners and bonding of panels to frame, option to employ energy absorbing cored composites, the use of other globally accepted FRP matrix over the tube frame including and not limited to carbon fiber, ballistics syntactic foam and so forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rennie Clayton
CSHAW, would you by any chance be Corey Shaw of IPS fame? If so, I know a lot of people who are still looking for their Mustang parts!
You are not restricted in the thickness of the body envelope encapsulating the frame, including adding as many layers of non-Carbon Fiber and unobtainium core material to your hearts content.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
The 6" fastener spacing restriction and prohibition on panel bonding in no way inhibits your ability to produce a safer car. It does place the onus on you to be a bit more creative as an engineer, however.
You may employ energy absorbing cored composites already, today. The fact that people do not, well... I guess we're back to needing to employ a bit more creativity in the design department, but that's not a sin.
The only restricted FRP material in today's rules is Carbon Fiber, which simply forces you to use other engineering materials as a substitute. Other materials will suffice, they will just be heavier. And no, heavier does not automatically equate to unsafe.
I'm sorry, but you simply haven't demonstrated anything in the SCCA rules which prevents you from building a car which performs to your desired safety performance.
Cheers,
Rennie
Matt, I am not in that business any more but in special cases parts can be produced as required without major problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt King
There is NOTHING in the rules that state that you can ONLY build to the minimum standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
There is NOTHING other than your own limitations preventing you from using a bit of inginuity and decent engineering to meet the letter of the rules AND build in the level of crash protection that you desire.
There is NOTHING, other than the unlimited use and spacing of fasteners and bonding, that will prevent you from using every one of those technologies you listed, and using them very effectively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSHAW
If you really want to believe, in a highly developed class, that a flexible car is going to be able to compete with an otherwise identical car that is 2-3X stiffer, well, not much can be said.
Rennie, I am living within those restrictions as are you, but I wish we were not so restricted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rennie Clayton
In point of fact, as long a CF is not part of the actual bodywork - the outer skins licked by the air stream - its use as a second layer between the bodywork and the frame rails, as well as for panels inside the framerails, is perfectly legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rennie Clayton
You could also build inner and outer honeycome cored carbon/kevlar/unobtanium skins and bond them to each other in the spaces between the frame rails, and as long as you do not fasten them to the frame on 6" or closer centers, still be perfectly legal.
All it takes is a bit of imagination, and a real need to do.
And the customers that are willing to pay the $$ for it.