I think you may be over-estimating the interest in 1980's FC cars with bike motors stuck in.
It's 2006 now.
And you may be greatly under-estimating the cost.
Printable View
I think you may be over-estimating the interest in 1980's FC cars with bike motors stuck in.
It's 2006 now.
And you may be greatly under-estimating the cost.
Actually, it's pretty much only the manufacturers that truely understand all of the ramifications of a rule - ie - what can and cannot be done with available technology - and therefore how to word a rule that can actually get the limits that are desired. Leaving the rules writing to the amateurs has gotten us where we are now - lots of muddy rules that change their meaning according to who is reading them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ny_racer_xxx
R. You missed the point... Any manufacturer can give valuable input, they build the cars, they know what can and can't be done. The problem with getting a manufacturer involved, is that the rules get swayed and the costs go up...
Here's an example, Ground Effects in DSR...
Lee, I know at least a hand full of my racing buddies that would build FC/F1000 car tomorrow if it was a national class.... The biggest expense is building a structure to replace the Hewland.
Personally, I think it would be great if we could buy a brand new turn key chassis, but it sounds like the prices are out of control before anything is even built..
Chris R.
Sorry, but as a manufacturer who has had some input into a few class rules over the years, I and the other manufacturers who have been asked to come up with simple and cost effective rules have been the only ones who have done a satisfactory job. It truely is "amateur as rule maker" who has made costs escallate by not understanding that what they have written has a thousand ( usually expensive) ways around it.
Manufacturers have had nothing at all to do with ground effects in DSR - the rules have allowed it darned near forever. It was amateurs who attempted to write the flat bottom rules that are such a mess, not professional builders.
I may be wrong, but I have heard that a 'secret' committee is preparing the F1000 rules, certainly I am not on it. Nor did I ask to be, in fairness.
You can build a fun, fast open wheel racer starting with an old FC chassis and a junkyard bike engine. It would be very inexpensive I'm sure. But you can do the same thing in DSR. There are plenty of older DSR's that are really fast, fun, great bang-for-the-buck. But they and you won't be competitive against a new car.
If Stohr hadn't 'ruined' DSR, then Speads would be winning. OR Phoenix. Not a 15 year old car with a bike motor stuck in the back. See the situation?
We can argue this till the cows come home, but is it an unlimited type series that most successful or the closer to the spec type that is? Is it, and dare I say it... NASCAR that is most successful or is it F1? F1 almost went bust because of out of control spending. Like I said, I think new cars would be awesome, but there has to be a limit, and Lee stated that he wanted to see some sort of unlimited type class, and cost would be out of control. How can you screw up a flat bottom rule? The bottom needs to be flat! No holes, ducts, channels..
Lee, if you sold out to West Racing, then I would assume you signed a no contest clause? I guess then you looking for another venue to display your talents…
Chris R.
I don't want to argue til the cows come home either, but I don't think anyone has figured out how to make road racing cheap. You can't stop someone from spending more than you. F1 is not going bust, they have nearly unlimited budgets. Look at the new 'motorhomes' the teams rolled out this year. The FIA uses cost as an excuse to change the rules to provide a better show for the fans. The purpose of the F1 rules changes is to allow FIA the power to mix up the race results, so one team doesn't win all the time. Has nothing to do with saving the teams money. FIA is trying to introduce both an element of chance in the game (so talent and skill won't triumph every time) and to give themselves the ability to adjust the performance of the cars individually (sort of like success ballast).
But back to F1000 - I don't suggest no rules, the bike engine sets an engine cost that is reasonable considering the performance. Flat bottoms make downforce, even if you don't want to believe that. Even club fords have $5000 shocks today, what can you do about that ?
Regarding west, I didn't sell out - I'm lucky I still have the shirt on my back.
[SIZE=1] Sorry to hear about the West deal... I guess that's your opinion about F1, but the fact is equipment wins most of those races, Williams proved that. He could put a monkey in the car Villeneuve won a championship with...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] Your right there is no cheap racing period, but there is cost effective racing...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] Shock thing is easy; specify a spec shock or shocks, Penske's can get expensive.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]Have you looked at [/SIZE][SIZE=1]http://www.monoposto.co.uk/[/SIZE][SIZE=1] good example... I met someone from Spain and they have a similar series.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] Lee I do understand a little about aerodynamics, aircraft was my 1st love. SCCA specifies no more than 3/4 deviation front to back on a flat bottom F500 to cover that.. You could also put a kink or ripple in the bottom...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] I picked a F500 chassis to stuff a 600 in. I think those chassis are very simple and easy to work with. That platform is an excellent cost effective one, just a really goofy power plant. I'll keep you posted...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]Chris R[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT='Times New Roman']PS Good discussion...[/FONT][/SIZE]
We agree about Williams then ! Even Damon Hill won in that car.
Still, I think the F1 teams all have similar budgets. It's just that Ferrari did a better job for a few years.
A spec shock doesn't really save money - a good shock engineer can massage almost anything to work like a expensive Ohlins, but it will cost you. Sealed shocks probably won't work in this class, who will monitor it ?
F500 have flat bottoms, but what is this big rear diffuser ? Ground effects ?
http://www.f500.org/albums/2005runof...n_Offs_pic.jpg
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, Very well put ! You hit on some key issues.
It is very difficult, I don't have the answer right now to your equation, not sure if I can.
'The aim is the best driver wins' - is that possible with car racing? with an automobile involved ? The best athlete wins in sports where there is only a stick or ball involved. Well, maybe not, since drugs are now everywhere in modern sport.
You hit on a key issue with that statement - we like cars, and want to see a competition between drivers too. Getting the balance is the challenge. I don't think anyone here wants to see a one make F1000 series. Wouldn't that be the first step towards making sure the best driver wins ? Of course there is a lot you can do to the car in a spec car series, including the temptation to cheat; since everyone else is doing it anyway, right ?
'create disencentives to make your car faster ???" In a competitive sport like this, how do you create disencentives to improve your car ?
The only thing that comes to mind is a claimer rule - that has never been popular with roadracers. I don't know anywhere that is popular.
Limit investment to $25K ? Would anyone really want a low tech, crude car that you would have to sell for $25K? You could always buy a higher tech, faster used car in some other class for that money. You could get the trickest shifter Kart. Would anyone want a $25K road race car? There is nothing on the market now in that price range, is there?
Later,
Richard,
I recall That Steve had taken section times on some of the DSRs, FCs and FFs at the runoffs. I think it was in 02 or 03. If you or anyone has access to that data I would like to see a comparison between the front running cars in each class to see who had the "best" section times around some of the corners. If I recall correctly, people might be surprised at how close those section times really are.
I'll have to ask him - I don't recall that he ever got section times from anyone other than LaRue from off of his data system (Weitzenhof doesn't use a computer) and possibly from the DSR that we helped sort a bit 3 years ago, but I could be wrong.
[quote=Lee Stohr]Limit investment to $25K ? Would anyone really want a low tech, crude car that you would have to sell for $25K?
It is very obvious that we are approaching this from completely different points of reference here. Low tech and crude? $25K will buy a lot of car - and hardly low tech and crude. Lee, your attitude is a perfect example of why the originally purposed rules for F1000 need to be sent, as is, to the FAC. Seems too many people have forgotten that this is club racing - remember? $5 trophies, mostly non-spectator events, and rarely are there any big name sponsors involved (those that find them, I applaud your efforts).
I guess when the pond gets too big for the fish, he has to find a smaller pond....
Wish I had more time to write - but I have a chassis that needs my attention.
Loren
Spec Racer Fords are over $30K new, and I don't think many people consider them "high tech":)
Duane, Turn 1 at MidOhio we are doing 108mph in the DSR now, about 100 in the FF I think.
[SIZE=1] Lee, that diffuser on that F500 car is a Novakar and it also has a "sports car" nose. Jay Novak, that I'm sure you know is an engineer for Ford racing, and is the designer. That car always finishes behind the QRE/KBS car of Mike Quadrini, the builder of that car. Mike's cars, don’t have a sports car nose or diffusers.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] Simple is better![/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] I think we're talking apples and oranges here, and I don't think you can build any type of new formula car that uses all the latest go fast technology for $25k. I think you can build a new car using the latest engineering technology that is somewhat less sophisticated but yet still fast for $25k or less. What if you looked at a late 80's early 90's FC Van Diemen Reynard? What it cost to build something along those lines from scratch? Take off a Hewland and Mag wheels to start.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] Lee, you make a $100 shock work like an Ohlins!!! You can't get a Fox, Kayaba, or a Showa to work like an Ohlins. I built motorcycle shocks in another life also... You tune them better than off the shelf for sure, but there's only so much you can get from cheep materials and poor tolerances.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]Chris R.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]PS Lee, I'm glad it's not just the two of us in here...:skull: [/SIZE]
Lee,
On your new gen, everyone I spoke with has said your car was flying around the corners. This is the first year with the new aero package? What was Mark's speed around turn 1 the first year he won DSR?
Duane, I think we were about FF speeds in 2002/2003 in turn 1. Slightly under 100mph.
I still say - how can you expect a better car than a Spec Racer Ford for less money?
Lee,
Thanks for the response. I know you're busy building those rockets.
"Speed costs - how fast do you want to go?"
"Race only that in which you can afford to win"
These two have served me well in 28 yrs of racing.
Almost ANYTHING would be better than one of those turds!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stohr
I'd race a pickup before a SRF!!! Lee first off cut the expense of the Hewland as discussed, and the price of a really expensive outdated Pinto engine. Then consider the fact that SRF's hold their value because nothing has changed on them in what, 20 or 30 years??? There's also no competitive pricing because nobody else can build one... It's kind of like buying a $20k or $30k Harley, it's nowhere near the performance or technology of a rice rocket, but people stand in line to buy them. The SRF is an instant vintage racer...
I think the SRF is a bad example, the F500's are a better one. $20-$25k turn key for a F500. The Rotax is more expensive than a R1 crate motor. What about OMS? Don't they build a reasonably priced bike powered Formula car?
[FONT='Times New Roman']Chris R.[/FONT]
I wouldn't go so far as to say a SRF is an instant vintage racer. That's kind of an insult to vintage race cars, don't you think ?
I think the SRF is a good example, because far from being overpriced, some people feel it has been subsized by the club.
I don't know anything about the OMS, you should find out what they really cost to put on the track here in the US.
Karts are always cheaper than full sized cars, that's not a fair comparison.
Remember the Hewland is replaced in F1000 with a Quiafe and chain adjuster mechanism.
Lee I still think the SRF is a bad example, it may be subsidized but there's still only one vendor that supplies the car, so there's no competitive pricing at all. Yah, sorry all you vintage racers!!!
I know the Quaife diff aint cheep, but you got one set of gears instead of a set for each 1st through 4th or 5th, and aluminum sprockets are cheaper than gear sets. I just looked at Hewland's site. Their gearboxes start at $4000 Brit Pounds which is about $7500 USD and go well over $20K Pounds... Do you think a Quaife chain drive unit is more than that? I think it's 1/2 of that or so... How much cheaper do you think a crate R1 is than a "new" SRF Ford engine?
There's no comparison....
Chris R.
F1000 is shaping up - I hear the proposed rules will probably be a FF2000 type car with a bike engine. If that is what it is, Stohr Cars may have to offer a design of our own !
Let me guess, FF2000 use carbon tubs? Makes no sense to use a cost effective powerplant, and a way too expensive chassis....
Chris R.
I don't think carbon tubs, or even carbon reinforced steel tube frames, will be allowed.
What do you think about aluminum tubs ?
As the proposal stands tube frame and aluminum tubs would be ok. Even structural aluminum (any metal) will be allowed. No carbon fiber of any type will be permitted.
Also, stock bore & stroke 1000cc w/ sir
1000lbs w/ driver
8 & 10" wheels
FC aero
Any metal calipers
FWIW-
Figure a max of about $7,000 for the driveline.
I paid $2500 for a NEW 04 GSXR 1000, $3500 for the new Quaffe diff and another couple hundred for your chain and sprockets.
Remember that you do get to sell the Pinto $2000- $6000ish and the gearbox $1500- $3500ish plus your gearsets, bellhousing, etc.
I did not read through this whole thread mainly because I'm just too damn lazy but am interested in where the proposal sits. Are you done hammering it out? I know you've been busy with the move, reproducing and whatnot, but if it has not been submitted yet, then quit dicking around Sean ;)
The proposal has been submitted to the F/SRAC for consideration. Eventually they will send it up to the CRB for consideration. If it makes it past the CRB, the proposal may be at the BoD in time for consideration for the 2007 season.
Stan
Mike B. / F1000 committee-
Richard has posted an objectively verifiable flat bottom rule draft for F1000 to replace the mumbo jumbo currently in the GCR. it mechanizes in a verifiable manner the plus one / minus zero "vision" (certainly not what the rule as currently written states) that some in the community have been attempting to arrive at. it's an objectively verifiable flat bottom rule, it's NOT a cure for all that ails the current aerodynamic rules as written.
as a minimum, I think Richard deserves an answer on the draft!! if the objectively verifiable flat bottom rule draft needs constructive change(s) to achieve its intent I'm sure it/they could be worked out. if there are now people that believe other parts of the aerodynamics rules package needs improvement then someone needs to complile a list and get knowledgeable people assigned to post objectively verifiable drafts. to argue an objectively verifiable flat bottom rule is unacceptable because it doesn't solve all the GCR's problems make NO SENSE.
what has been submitted to the F/SRAC for consideration; or is it a secret??
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
Art,
The current FC wording is, in essence, two sentences. Hardly what I would call mumbo jumbo and it hasn't been challenged since I've been racing FC. However, that is just my opinion and what has been submitted is much more detailed.
The wording is fairly close to some of the wording that Richard Pare posted somewhere in this discussion. It may need a bit of work but I think it will please those that found the original rule to be problematic.
I don't think it's a secret but I'm not really clear at which point the proposal will be published for public comment. I think it's better to wait until at least the F/SRAC gets a look at it in case there are some fundamental changes that we (the F1000 committee) overlooked.
Stay tuned!
Art (and all interested observers):
The F1000 ad hoc committee submitted its proposal to the F/SRAC late last week. It is now in the hands of the F/SRAC members (after a bit of massaging by me with Mike's concurrence). The members will comment on it/discuss it. Additional changes may be made as a part of that process. At some point (sooner than later, I hope) we will reach a consensus on a recommendation to the CRB. If the recommendation is to proceed, the CRB, if it agrees, will put the proposal out in Fastrack for member comment. Because the F1000 ad hoc has now turned it over to us, it is not fair to them for you (or others) to demand details because they may change. (They've given birth to this baby, but we get to raise it - that's the way the process works.) Upon publication in Fastrack, everyone who wishes to comment may do so. The F/SRAC and the CRB will consider those comments and make adjustments to the proposal as, and if, necessary.
Dave
Mike / Dave-
thanks for your replys. unfortunately I'm even more nervous now about the secrecy; secret F1000 ad hoc committee membership, secret proposal, and people talking about being ready for 2007 sure sounds like a secret "done deal"!!!
beware of white knights arriving at the eleventh hour crying 'the sky is falling, the sky is falling and I just happen to have a FIA "plank" to save the day'............. it's my sense the dated 2-liter cars envisioned by most as being the cornerstone of early grids will be absolute junk raised in the air to make room for "planks". their frames don't have the torsional stiffness to raise wheel rates to run the cars at the same heights with respect to the track AND their suspension geometry will be even worse with the car raised in the air.......
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
Art:
Does your paronoia know no bounds? When the proposal is published, it will include the names of all the participants in the F1000 ad hoc. The members of the F/SRAC and the CRB are listed on the SCCA web site. There are no secret agendas. The F1000 guys have said repeatedly what their objectives are. The fact that there are multiple ways of achieving those objectives shouldn't be a surprise to anyone (they had their own differences to resolve). If the ones they chose happen to be somewhat different than yours (and I don't know that they are), that doesn't make them untrustworthy knaves. Give it a rest and let the process continue. You'll get a chance to have your say (and there won't be any black helicopters chasing you afterwards).
Dave
To add to Dave's comment:
I put out a PUBLIC request for committee volunteers on TWO spearate occasions, frankly because the response to the first request was underwhelming. Now that we've actually accomplished what we set out to do, people come out of the woodwork and second-guess our efforts. You were all welcome to join the "super-secret committee" at the beginning but I guess it's easier to sit back and criticize.
The proceedings of the committee were somewhat secret because we wouldn't have gotten anything accomplished if they were published here. A 3000+ member committee would be a bit unweildy, don't you think? Geez, look at the never-ending discussion on one topic, after the fact!
Finally, who said anything about a plank?
there is a difference between constructive concern and paranoia
secret agneda(s)?
"untrustworthy knaves" is a concept/term/phrase I'm unfamiliar with
second guess something that's secret ??
criticize something that's secret ??
I'm looking to do nothing more than review a draft set of rules in the privacy of my own home to determine the probability of an objectively verifiable set of rules emerging from the CRB. I can't imagine why that makes anyone nervous................. given the likely restrictions on frame technology and a 1000cc motorcylce engine with stock bore & stroke with a SIR, it's my sense that the vast majority of the quest for differentiating performance in the marketplace will be driven into the relm of integrated designs optimized for aerodynamics (both grip and drag) since the engines will have very little torque. no one in their right mind could possibly contemplate a small run of cars with an aerodynamics rules package even remotely related to what the club has today. the rules aren't objectively verifiable so that means the rules mean whatever the "Big Dog" on the street this week says they mean ........................................
while it's unlikely we'll agree on everything, it remains my hope that we can at least disagree agreeably
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
ps: I worry more about the competance of the oversight committee members than the "black helicopters" !!!
All I will add to the above comments is that we have spent many hours discussing how to write rules that will maintain the philosophy of the class (low cost, high performance), lots of conference calls, letters, etc. All of this was done on our time and our nickel- and we have all had slightly differing opinions on various things for which we worked out compromises.
Hard to spend all that time and effort then get the secret committee/ secret proposal/ etc. comments like we are trying to pull one over on everyone.
I think Mike B deserves a lot of credit for putting this together, writting up the rules, and really making this happen. As Dave said the final draft will be published and ready for everyone's comments soon... hopefully we will have a F1000 class in 2007. When we do, its because of the efforts of Mike & the committee.
Although I don't currently have a Continental, or a formula car for that matter just yet, I am interested in jumping into the ranks as soon as I can. That may be this year or next. The F1000 concept is intriguing.
Now, to my point. I appreciate all the effort by the Ad Hoc committee for using their free time to hash out the first proposal. It may not end up exactly what is run on the track, but that is ok. You have to start somewhere. Great work and thanks. The ball is rolling and may just start to really pick up speed.
Thanks.
Ken Tandy
When the time comes Art, we can all voice our issues with the CRB.
Sean, I think you summed it up for all the masses, low cost, big fun!!! There's no need to get crazy and build a high-tech, big buck chassis..
Chris R.
Actually, waiting to change things that are technically incorrect or that will lead to unwanted scenarios after it is in the hands of the CRB is usually too late to ensure that proper corrections are made. You'd be much wiser to get it critiqued now rather than wait until then.
Off the subject a bit but has anybody seen the IMSA Lites cars? I saw the West racing version of them at Lime Rock this past weekend. Flat bottom, steel tube frame, ZX10 motors. Very nice
Chris R.
If I had $65k under my hat, I'd buy one of these:
http://www.ducati.com/od/ducatinorth...2?newsId=12602
Maybe it makes sense to limit engines with more than 2 cylinders in a non-inline configuration to production years prior to 2006? Just to keep things as inexpensive as possible! :)
Lee StohrQuote:
The latest Sports Car magazine has the breakdown of most popular SCCA Classes.
Spec Racer Ford and FV are tops. Then comes FC and FA, very closely matched.
Formula Ford is down the list, and F500 is way down.
So the most expensive class, Formula Atlantic, is more popular than the 'cheaper' classes like FF and F5.
Tells me that people want to run FA, and if a bike engined formula car matched FA performance at lower cost, there you'd have a big market. I think that might make business sense for a manufacturer. An entry level car just doesn't.
I don't get it, aren't Spec Racer Ford and FV entry level classes.
So why does and entry level car not make sense? not enough $$$,$$$$
Lee.
Well for me it's not quite the "cheap" that does it for me in F1000, I have a kart and a Vee for that. It's what Economaki has been saying for a long time. Racing used to be, like most things, build your own. Now it's becoming how much money can you give me/us/them? Money. Isn't that banking, not racing?Quote:
Originally Posted by carnut169
Let's face it, club cars aren't Formula One. But they may as well be, depending on who you ask.
This smacks to me of used car salesmanship, i'm afraid, or the dreaded digital camera salesperson of today. All equipment, zero technique.
The minimum technology to get the biggest bang for the buck, say I. Cost / power for a Pinto. Cost / power for a mike motor. Durability. Parts. Hmmm...
Not rocket science. Common sense.
'Course, common sense never made anybody any profit.
[SIZE=3]
[/SIZE]Perhaps the problem is the way this class creating is done, it follows a business flow chart not a driver driven flow chart. Old FC cars converted to F1000 is a great cheap idea, then somebody says lets build cars and you can forget the whole !@#$ing cheap great idea
Suddenly the manufacturers start to tell us what we need and want. Then to get a competitive advantage the manufacturers start taking liberty of the interpretative gaps in the rules and the nuclear arms race begins.
These rules should be written with a mission statement of intent. Because long after the class flourishes with several marquees, at higher prices, you will have tunnels on that beast. I’ve seen it happen. Big holes in the rules mean big things change in the future. Let’s not rush a good idea into the same old half cocked ideas created by SCCA. Before we throw the idea to the smart people and let them figure it out, why couldn’t we the drivers try to “construct the rules” not deconstruct our intellect
Dipping my coveralls in Borax and putting them on in 3, 2, 1.
Lee :santa:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Lee
Mike's post sounds a lot like a "statement of intent" to me ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
Dave
while I'm sure this will be received at least as warmly as previous requests for just insight; public diversity of view point in the end is better for everyone. here's the letter I forwarded to the CRB regards the current form of the draft F1000 rules:
From: Art Smith
Date: July 08, 2006
To: CRB@SCCA.org
Subject: draft F1000 - NO vote urged
Sirs:
This letter is written to urge you NOT approve H.1. Formula 1000 Preparation rules as submitted; there are significant problems with the draft that make it problematic in its current form. The draft rules are weakest defining the rules for what are sure to be those intersection of technology that offer the largest differential performance. The most significant of the problems are identified, an explanation is included as to why each is a problem, and language is included that could be used (remove & replace with) to improve the draft to something that could be approved. Existing bad rules should not be reused for a class for the future.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Chassis
...............................
"It is not permitted to construct any suspension member in the form of an airfoil or to
incorporate a spoiler in the construction of any suspension member"
The draft rule as written is NOT objectively verifiable and therefore unuseable. "form of an airfoil" and "spoiler" are undefined. Creating an environment that encourages unsuspecting competitors to crush/egg round tubing in a vise to reduce aerodynamic drag is NOT in the interest of safety!
Recommend: Delete and Replace with: All suspension members shall be round within 0.020 inches.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Bodywork and Airfoils
............................. "(Airfoils are a requirement for this class.)" .............................
The draft rule as written is NOT objectively verifiable and therefore unuseable. Why parenthesis?? What are the maximum and minimum number of required airfoils? What are the maximum and minimum sizes (span & chord) of required arifoils? What is the maximum and minimum camber in the required arifoils? and so on...................
Recommend: Delete
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Bodywork and Airfoils
"The entrant shall designate a flat rectangular reference area with minimum dimensions of 12 inches by 12 inches. This reference area islocated on the lower surface of the chassis (the surface licked by the airstream) between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire. The center of the reference area must be no more than three (3) inches from the longitudenal centerline of the vehicle.
For the full width of the body, between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire, no point on the lower surface of the chassis (the surface licked by the airstream) shall be more than 2.54cm (1 inch) above the plane determined by the reference area designated by the entrant and on a line perpendicular to that reference plane. No point on the lower surface of the chassis may be below the plane determined by the reference surface on a line perdendicular to that plane. Compliance with these requirements shall be accomplished by placing a straight edge on the reference surface designated by the entrant and verifing that the requirements are met. No venturi tunnels are permitted between the rear of the front tireand the front of the rear tire. No part of the body or suspended part of the car shall extend more than 1cm below the plane determined by the reference surface. A maximum of four (4) one (1) inch by four (4) inch rub blocks are allowed anywhere on the lower surface of the chassis." ............
The draft rule as written is NOT objectively verifiable and therefore unuseable. "Venturi tunnel" is not defined. The shape of the bottom surface of the car licked by the airstream is already specified by these rules. Any further attempted restrictions on the shape or orientation of the bottom surface of the car licked by the airstream between the wheels effectively voids the non-inclusion of the troublesome word "horizontal"! The draft rules already preclude anything below the entrant designated reference area that might otherwise be used as the sides for tunnels.
Recommend: Remove and replace
The entrant shall designate on the lower surface of the car (surface licked by the airstream) a flat reference surface with minimum dimensions of 12 inches by 12 inches. The entrant designated reference surface shall be located between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire. The center of the entrant designated reference surface shall be no more than three (3) inches from the longitudental centerline of the vehicle.
For the full width of the body, between the rear of the front tire and the front of the rear tire, no point on the lower surface of the chassis (the surface licked by the airstream) shall be more than 2.54cm (1 inch) above the plane defined by the reference area designated by the entrant when measured normal to the that same plane. With the exception of a maximum of four rub blocks, no point on the lower surface of the chassis (licked by the airstream) may be below the plane defined by the reference area designated by the entrant. A maximum of four (4) one (1) inch by four (4) inch rub blocks protuding a maximum of 1cm below the plane defined by the reference area designated by the entrant are allowed anywhere on the lower surface of the chassis.
Compliance with the 2.54cm (1 inch) deviation rules shall be verified by placing a straight edge on the reference surface designated by the entrant and measuring perdendicular from it.
A car without a designated reference surface, or a car with a designated reference surface with curvature or damage that will not support non-rocking contact by the straightedge, or a car with with a reference surface not meeting the minimum size or central location requirements, or a car with one or more points on the lowersurface of the chassis (the surface licked by the airstream) more than 2.54cm (1 inch) above the plane defined by the reference area designated by the entrant when measured normal to the that same plane, or a car with more than four (4) protruding rub blocks, or a car with one or more protruding rub blocks larger than one (1) by four (4) inches, or a car with one or more rub blocks that protrude greater than 1cm from the plane defined by the reference area designated by the entrant, or a car with anything other than suspension (excluding the four allowed rub blocks) lower than the plane defined by the reference area designated by the entrant shall be reported as non-compliant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Bodywork and Airfoils
............. "Moveable aerodynamic devices, including aerodynamic skirts, are prohibited." ......
The draft rule as written is NOT objectively verifiable and therefore unuseable. Moveable,
aerodynamic devices, and aerodynamic skirts are not defined. The draft rules already preclude anything below the entrant designated reference area that might otherwise be used as "aerodynamic skirts".
Recommend: Wings, slats, flaps, and other highlift aerodynamic devices shall not be capable of being moved relative to the chassis while under way. Aeroelastic effects are specificly excluded from the provisons of this rule.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Engine
2. "Bore, stroke, compression ratio and maximum camshaft lift must remain stock. The
competitor ..........."
The draft rule as written is BAD policy in my view. The Club's public rationale for moving to single inlet restrictors (SIR) has been to enable a less involved and invasive verification of engine compliance. I'm unaware of any accurate technique for measuring compression ratio that does not involve removal of the head(s). Measuring camshaft(s) lift as a minimum requires removal of the cam cover(s)/valve cover(s). Bore and stroke on the other hand can be measured through a sparkplug hole(s). The unneccessary restriction of compression ratio and valve lift also means that a special configuration of engines will be required for F1000. Controlling only bore and stroke allows a common pool of engines to be shared between F1000 and DSR potentially reducing the unit cost to both.
Recommend: Bore and stroke must remain stock.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Engine
8. "Radiator and water pump are unrestricted. The radiator, if ................................"
see approved change for FC/S2000 effective 11/01/2006
Recommend: The cooling system is unrestricted. The radiator, if ..................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Single Inlet Restrictors
1. "The intent of this rule is to have a sealed system from the Restrictor to the intake Ports of the Cylinder Head. ..........................."
Intent, goals, vision, and objectives have NO place in a rulebook, they are not objectively verifiable! Their inclusion only serves as a rationale/inspiration for every well intentioned tech inspector and
steward to created their individual rules and policy wherever F1000's are raced.
Recommend: DELETE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Engine
3. "The Restrictor must be round in shape. The maximum ID of the Restrictor shall be 23.0 mm. The Restrictor's maximum ID must be maintained for a minimum length of 3mm. Restrictor mounting .............."
Given no mandated standard interface for Restrictors there is NO opportunity to use standardized measurment equipment to measure the length of the Restrictor's ID. It's my sense that objectively AND accurately measuring the distance between two unidentified tangent points on the inside diameter is NOT doable.
Recommend: DELETE "The Restrictor's maximum ID must be maintained for a minimum length of 3mm."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N. Minimum Weight
"Minimum weight of chain-driven vehicles is 1000lbs with driver. Add 25 lbs. for fuel injected engines.
The draft rules do NOT require chain drive; therefore there is no minimum weight provided for non-chain drive vehicles.
Recommend: Minimum weight for F1000 vehicles with driver is 1000lbs. Add .........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F1000 Specifications
The text says nothing of value, and the table & figure need updating to be F1000 specific.
Recommend: Delete text and remove and replace both the table and figure with the updated versions supplied.
Arthur E. Smith
artesmith@earthlink.net
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
Art,
Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts on paper and submitting a letter to the CRB. I have a couple comments on your recommendations:
Have you looked at a formula car in the last 10-15 years? This would make every single one illegal. The last time I saw an unsuspecting competitor willingly crush his suspension in a vise was, um, never.Quote:
Recommend: Delete and Replace with: All suspension members shall be round within 0.020 inches.
I'll direct you to your own sketch to find the maximum span of the wings. Is there some reason we need to define the chord, camber, or quantity of the wings? Is there some cost savings in making a wing with a 1" camber vs a 2" camber?Quote:
D. Bodywork and Airfoils
What are the maximum and minimum number of required airfoils? What are the maximum and minimum sizes (span & chord) of required arifoils? What is the maximum and minimum camber in the required arifoils? and so on...................
I agree with this change.Quote:
Recommend: Wings, slats, flaps, and other highlift aerodynamic devices shall not be capable of being moved relative to the chassis while under way. Aeroelastic effects are specificly excluded from the provisons of this rule.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by a special configuration? In my simple mind, the only configuration this allows is one with stock CR and valve lift. As it says in the philosophy, the goal is a stock or near stock engine which in and of itself precludes the sharing of engines between F1000 and DSR (a good thing.)Quote:
E. Engine
The unneccessary restriction of compression ratio and valve lift also means that a special configuration of engines will be required for F1000. Controlling only bore and stroke allows a common pool of engines to be shared between F1000 and DSR potentially reducing the unit cost to both.
Agree (again!)Quote:
1. "The intent of this rule is to have a sealed system from the Restrictor to the intake Ports of the Cylinder Head. ..........................."
Intent, goals, vision, and objectives have NO place in a rulebook, they are not objectively verifiable! Their inclusion only serves as a rationale/inspiration for every well intentioned tech inspector and
steward to created their individual rules and policy wherever F1000's are raced.
Recommend: DELETE
Agree. That's three for those keeping score.Quote:
N. Minimum Weight
"Minimum weight of chain-driven vehicles is 1000lbs with driver. Add 25 lbs. for fuel injected engines.
The draft rules do NOT require chain drive; therefore there is no minimum weight provided for non-chain drive vehicles.
Recommend: Minimum weight for F1000 vehicles with driver is 1000lbs. Add .........
In admittedly small text just below the chart are the words "All above dimensions in cm."Quote:
F1000 Specifications
The text says nothing of value, and the table & figure need updating to be F1000 specific.
Recommend: Delete text and remove and replace both the table and figure with the updated versions supplied.
As I said, thank you for submitting your thoughts to the CRB. I hope other people have done the same, regardless of whether they agree with the draft or not. It IS exceedingly frustrating that all these suggestions (some really good) are posted AFTER the draft has been submitted. On two separate occassions I asked for volunteers to participate in the top secret F1000 committee and everyone that volunteered was accepted. In fact, the four or five of us had to recruit additional members to diversify the group. Now there is no shortage of people that second and third-guess our efforts. Unbelievable.
Finally, I hope everyone now realizes that the rules in Fastrack are a DRAFT, not the final product. This is the period when you should be sending your comments to the CRB, not just posting them here. Thanks to those that have done so.
I also hope that everyone now realizes that with most all rule change submissions, the F1000 proposal was edited not only for length but for content. Some little things were changed just for clarity but major things like the engine rules were revised, primarily because the SIR may not do all we hoped it would. Additional rules may be needed to keep the engines stock. I don't like it either but I really wouldn't like an open engine rule, either.
I've put my faith in the F/SRAC to do the right thing and submit a rules package that adheres to the committee's philosophy for F1000. I also wrote a letter, too.;)
The problem is, Mike, that the feedback to the CRB that will form the basis of their vote in the August meeting, will be based on what was published in Fastrack, NOT what the final proposal is!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B