New Professional Series for F1000 in 2012

[Wren]

Writing the rules for a stock class for multiple engines is easy.. The problem is getting SCCA to enforce them. And bringing the engine to the advertised CR is legal in the FB rules. Just FYI.

It is a restricted class so point to the section of the engine rules that allows it. I know that it isn't stock, and that is the requirement in the GCR.

The suzuki factory service manual only allows for replacement of the head if it is outside a certain flatness (.004" I think). There is no provision for machining it down.

It also defeats the purpose of having a stock engine rule if everyone has to send their engine out for machining as soon as they get it.

Edit- Look at the rules for other restricted classes, FF specifically allows the CR to be raised to the maximum for the class. FB would need a similar allowance for it to be legal, so you can't do it.

[allof6]

Iam not going to debate it on jons post but lets just say I know what I know and you know what you think you know.

Have a nice day!

[DonArm]

There will not be a sealed engine rule. We want to make this Series attractive to as many engine manufacturers and supliers as possible.

Excellent, and thank you Jon, hopefully this will work out well for the class in general, with more exposure and growth, in ALL the series that are being run now.

[ASRF1000]

2012 Formula 1000 Championship Series Rules & Regulations are know posted on our website.

www.F1Kseries.com

[JohnPaul]

very interesting: FB and FB2(stock)

FB:
-Engine internals and compression ratio are open.
-Stock ECU and engine manufacturer’s factory kit racing ECU are allowed

[Wren]

My guess is that there are 15-20 east coast FBs. I'm surprised we have enough of them to already divide them into two groups, with one group spending up to $50k/year on motors.

It looks like they went out of their way to try to ban the Citation bodywork. It shouldn't be a big deal to integrate it into the sidepods like the Phoenix does though. Since most (all?) sidepods are multiple pieces, what exactly does this rule mean?

Goodyear Tires? Ugh.

[Keith Roberts]

I hope the Goodyear tire decision is not final yet.

[Wren]

I hope the Goodyear tire decision is not final yet.

It should make the second race of the weekend pretty entertaining.

Are they going to let people swap tires between each other to make a matched set?

[ASRF1000]

Wren & Keith,

Thank you for pointing out Goodyear. That should have been removed and I have corrected it on our rules.

Discussion is on-going with Tire manufacturers as to which it will be for the Series.

In regards to the 6 tire rule, this was done in Formula BMW (double race weekends) and it worked very well. It contains costs and strategy comes into play.

[jerry freeman]

[quote=Wren;293032]My guess is that there are 15-20 east coast FBs. I'm surprised we have enough of them to already divide them into two groups, with one group spending up to $50k/year on motors.


Just had to ask the question. Why did you go with different motor rules? Do you remember what happened to the pro FC series when they went to the zetec and how long it took to get that working again. And there were already tons of FC cars in the country.

Jerry

[Wren]

Just had to ask the question. Why did you go with different motor rules? Do you remember what happened to the pro FC series when they went to the zetec and how long it took to get that working again. And there were already tons of FC cars in the country.

Jerry

It will make the cars much faster. An FB with a DSR motor should be as fast as an FA in lap time and faster in a straight line. Seems like a great idea in a tube frame.

[Stan Clayton]

[An FB]...should be as fast as an FA in lap time and faster in a straight line. Seems like a great idea in a tube frame.

Pure FUD. All FA tubs are built to F3 crash specs, which the FE frame (yes, the Formula Enterprise tube frame) easily passed on its first try. Carbon tubs have two primary advantages over a modern tube frame.

1. They are stiffer at the same weight, and

2. They have superior point intrusion resistance in the area between the bars on tube frames, which is immaterial in the vast majority of collisions, which occur within approximately 30° of the centerline of the car.

Moreover, FIA crash testing occurs at a maximum of 12 meters per second, or about 27 mph, which is the racing car equivalent of the 5 mph bumper test for street cars. Since an FA or FB averages about 100 mph during races, that's kind of a moot point.

There may be valid reasons to argue about the pro-FB rules, but this isn't one of them, IMO.

[nulrich]

I absolutely agree with Stan that there is no reason you can't make a steel tube frame car as safe as a carbon tub car in any crash scenario, especially if you add side penetration resistance. I also don't doubt that the FE frame is fairly stout.

However, a tube frame built to the minimum standards in the GCR for FB (and FC and FF) is about five to seven times less strong in a rollover accident than the minimum FIA standards, and those are not as stringent as current F3 standards. I believe the Citation, as well as some other cars, are built to the more stringent "alternative rollover structure" criteria, not the minimum GCR standard, and should do quite well. There are cars out there, primarily those with a single roll hoop and the minimum GCR-required bracing, that are considerably less safe.

Not arguing whether they are safe enough, but you can build a tube frame car that meets the GCR minimum standards that is an order of magnitude less safe than a carbon tub FA car.

Nathan

[ASRF1000]

All valid points with one exception. We will not be running tracks like Road America where top end speed is a consideration. But rather tracks like Lime Rock. Mid-Ohio, Trois-Rivieres, etc. The point is to have a true professional Series that stands just above the club level of racing. The only difference is the engine, not the entire car.

Remember, this is a Professional Series, not a club event. Areas of this Series are going to be more advanced.

However, because we want club racing eligible cars in the Series, we have included a FB class that will have it's own bonus Prize fund, yet will still be able to compete for the overall prize purse. Who's to say that a great driver in an FB car can't claim some of the overall prize money?

The point of the new engine rule is not top end, its getting from turn A to turn B quicker and should put on a great show for the spectators. Safety is always a concern, but on these tracks the top end will not be as fast as the current FB club class on long straights such as the back and front straights at Road America, because we won't be competing on such tracks. Will they be quicker (lap times)? No doubt.

Policing stock engines is nearly impossible. Even if you went to sealing the engines, that would dictate one engine supplier. I want teams to have their own options on who they want to do their engine work. And even if we had gone to a sealed engine, its still nearly impossible to have two engines of different manufacturers have the exact same performance. Any engine builder will tell you so. The open engine rule promotes innovation by the teams and engine builders. Is there an added cost? Yes, but there is also a huge added Bonus if you win.

In regards to the bodywork rules, this was not placed to disclude anyone, merely a clarification of what will be allowed and what will not. As long as it is part of the sidepod (molded into the sidepod) it is part of the bodywork in the dimensions rule.

In regards to having enough cars to have two divisions. We have already had numerous inquiries from teams and drivers looking to come into the Series. The response has been very well received. Even if there were only 15 cars out there and 8 went to the new rules and 7 stayed in the FB division....that's still 15 cars competing.

My question is this, where in North America can you spend this type of budget, race in high-profile spectator events for great prize money (cash, not a scholorship), have live webcasts, and drive cars that are clearly more advanced than other junior level open-wheel series?

I welcome everyone's opinion. 2012 should be an excellent year for F1000. Thank you.

[Mike Devins]

It looks like they went out of their way to try to ban the Citation bodywork. It shouldn't be a big deal to integrate it into the sidepods like the Phoenix does though. Since most (all?) sidepods are multiple pieces, what exactly does this rule mean?

OK, so I find humor is the smallest things, the car a lead of the pack in the banner photo on the F1k web site by Jay Bonvouloir is clearly not legal. Maybe we could have do his Clark photoshop magic.

[Dave Gomberg]

Of course, this series is free to set its own rules, but anything you do that prevents the "Pro" cars from also competing in SCCA Nationals is counterproductive for both your series and Club Racing. If you think that unlimited engines will make that big a difference in the success/popularity of the Pro Series compared to running the Club rules, I think you should reconsider that opinion.

Dave

[ASRF1000]

Please take time and read the rules. There is a prominent place for club spec cars in the Series.

The only thing stopping a F1000 car from competing in Nationals is the change to a stock engine.

But thank you for your opinion.

[RussMcB]

Of course, this series is free to set its own rules, but anything you do that prevents the "Pro" cars from also competing in SCCA Nationals is counterproductive for both your series and Club Racing. If you think that unlimited engines will make that big a difference in the success/popularity of the Pro Series compared to running the Club rules, I think you should reconsider that opinion.

Dave

I was thinking similarly, if you modified the engine, you'd pretty much limit yourself to racing only 5 weekends per year. Granted, they'd be high profile and exciting.

[billwald]

Streets of St. Petersburg a possibility? I live 5 miles away! Great venue, track, and exposure!

[cooleyjb]

Of course, this series is free to set its own rules, but anything you do that prevents the "Pro" cars from also competing in SCCA Nationals is counterproductive for both your series and Club Racing. If you think that unlimited engines will make that big a difference in the success/popularity of the Pro Series compared to running the Club rules, I think you should reconsider that opinion.

Dave

+1

For a real world example see:

USF2000
F2000 Championship series.

One has a huge end of season winners package, bigger payouts for individual races, etc. Rule package is not identical to the club package for the main 'group'

One has a none of those but mimics the club racing package.

Guess who gets 25-30 per weekend and guess who gets 13-15.

[Jnovak]

+1

For a real world example see:

USF2000
F2000 Championship series.

One has a huge end of season winners package, bigger payouts for individual races, etc. Rule package is not identical to the club package for the main 'group'

One has a none of those but mimics the club racing package.

Guess who gets 25-30 per weekend and guess who gets 13-15.

Gee this is a hard one.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Stan Clayton]

For a real world example see:

USF2000
F2000 Championship series.

One has a huge end of season winners package, bigger payouts for individual races, etc. Rule package is not identical to the club package for the main 'group'

One has a none of those but mimics the club racing package.

Guess who gets 25-30 per weekend and guess who gets 13-15.

I'm not taking a position wrt to the pro-FB engine rules, but your example is a case of apples and oranges.

One of those series has been in business for several years more than the other, and has a commensurate "head start".

One of those series has an open chassis rule. An open engine rule. An open aero rule, and every car in it is Club-legal.

The other has a spec chassis. A spec engine. A spec aero package, and is not currently Club-legal.

So one series is doing better than the other. Well...duh!

[cooleyjb]

I'm not taking a position wrt to the pro-FB engine rules, but your example is a case of apples and oranges.

One of those series has been in business for several years more than the other, and has a commensurate "head start".

One of those series has an open chassis rule. An open engine rule. An open aero rule, and every car in it is Club-legal.

The other has a spec chassis. A spec engine. A spec aero package, and is not currently Club-legal.

So one series is doing better than the other. Well...duh!

I think you're sorta making my point here if you want an example of where zero years of business but still a good turnout we can use the F1600 series.

And FWIW, the series that is all 'spec' also has a 'club' class with rules that mimic the SCCA club rules with a few safety additions that pulls about 3 people per race it seems.

The point is that making a pro-series and hoping that club racers will populate it I'd do everything I could to make it the same rules as the club series unless there was some serious underlying reason like safety and there are some pretty good examples where big prizes don't fill out a field. Lets be honest in any series there are maybe 5-7 people at most who are genuinely going to have a shot at the grand prize. You have to make it worth it for the next 20 drivers to show up to make it a great series. Rand and company have done that.

[Wren]

I agree with Joe. The Cooper series didn't do itself any favors by moving away from club spec. The gold cup was not exactly a raging success for them either.

[Stan Clayton]

I think you're sorta making my point here if you want an example of where zero years of business but still a good turnout we can use the F1600 series.

And FWIW, the series that is all 'spec' also has a 'club' class with rules that mimic the SCCA club rules with a few safety additions that pulls about 3 people per race it seems.

The point is that making a pro-series and hoping that club racers will populate it I'd do everything I could to make it the same rules as the club series unless there was some serious underlying reason like safety and there are some pretty good examples where big prizes don't fill out a field. Lets be honest in any series there are maybe 5-7 people at most who are genuinely going to have a shot at the grand prize. You have to make it worth it for the next 20 drivers to show up to make it a great series. Rand and company have done that.

Now don't go moving the goal posts, Joe...

My point was simple...the relative success of the two F2000 series is far more complex than just whether they were club legal. Besides, starting this year IIRC they have dropped the club-spec cars and everyone has to run the DP-08 Mazda, right? In the pro-FB series it is merely the engine prep level that's not club legal...not the entire engine, as with the Mazda. Converting from one to the other is no more than a routine engine swap.

Wren, up above (or maybe in another thread recently) you made the point that the current club FB engine rules are unenforceable (which I and just about everyone else agrees is correct). How do you reconcile that with wanting the pro series to use the club rules?

[cooleyjb]

Now don't go moving the goal posts, Joe...

My point was simple...the relative success of the two F2000 series is far more complex than just whether they were club legal. Besides, starting this year IIRC they have dropped the club-spec cars and everyone has to run the DP-08 Mazda, right? In the pro-FB series it is merely the engine prep level that's not club legal...not the entire engine, as with the Mazda. Converting from one to the other is no more than a routine engine swap.

Wren, up above (or maybe in another thread recently) you made the point that the current club FB engine rules are unenforceable (which I and just about everyone else agrees is correct). How do you reconcile that with wanting the pro series to use the club rules?

They have the 'championship cars' still although only a few people are running it and I believe one runs both series. Also others have mentioned bodywork issues with some cars (citations).


As for moving the goal posts. Not my intention but probably due to more of a lack of followup info in my first post. The point was that the succesful 'pro' stuff right now seems to be based on cars that can bounce back and forth into club spec.

[Alex Pate]

An engine swap on one of our firmans would take me by myself roughly 3 hours. Knock an hour off if I have the help of a confident individual. Plus do you really want to put miles on your pro series engine at a club event?

[Purple Frog]

First off... a pro series can be successful with only 12 cars. It just depends on the criteria defined by the owners of the series and their entrants. Of course, usually 12 entrants will pay more to run at "Big" events than if that same tariff was split up amoung 30 entrants. So defining "success" is in the eyes of the beholder, not in the eyes of Apexspeeders.

If a race promoter is funded behind the scenes by Big Daddy Warbucks, does it matter to the entrants if "Big Daddy" needs a tax write off?

Second, Swapping MC engines back and forth is not a big heartburn. IMHO a "pro" team should be able to do it in less than 2 hours. I can picture guys with DSR motors, and FB motors in their trailers. In fact, based on the history of the past couple of years, i can imagine easily guys with extra "bullets" already in their trailer. So, give that issue a break. A tech guy with a "whistler" can quickly determine that the engine is 1000 cc, and away you go. Tech for open 1K engines is far simplier than opening up "club" motors to determine legality. Cuts the cost to the series to have an easy tech situation. Only thing easier would be a fixed restrictor size. I lost that battle when we tried to get it in the FB rules with SCCA.

Thirdly, Standing starts with MC engines in cars a that are lot heavier than cycles... Interesting. Maybe Taylor or WRD will be one of the series sponsors? Has anybody with an FB ever tried a serious launch? I have my doubts, but I will consider test data.

5 years of hanging out one step behind Rand, of course I have my doubts about the advertised $50K cost per year for an entrant. I have talked to guys such as "8 Ball" about what he was paying to top notch DSR motors, and their lifespan. $$$ You can stay for less at Mobil 5 Star resorts. Pro teams are not usually "one man bands", they have data guys, shock guys, wrenches, truckies, etc. Lots of cost to get everyone and the cars to an event, fed, clothed, and paid. Watching Rand write checks, I sort of know what it cost to rent tracks on "BIG" weekends, cost of staff, housing, food, tech tools, insurance, media, paper, T&S, etc., etc. But as I said above, if there is a Mr. Warbucks" behind the scenes... WTH

2012 is a wee bit off. Be calm folks. Time will tell.

And as usual. YMMV

[Wren]

Wren, up above (or maybe in another thread recently) you made the point that the current club FB engine rules are unenforceable (which I and just about everyone else agrees is correct). How do you reconcile that with wanting the pro series to use the club rules?

Stan, you are correct. It was me and it was in this thread. Let me offer a bit more clarification. I think the rules are unenforceable because the neccesary information is not documented, so the rules largely exist on the honor system.

I believe I did offer a solution and I will offer another.

1. Seal the motors and spec them as 07-09 suzukis. I think that excludes only the Philly motorsports car, and while unfortunate, it is neccesary to avoid engine of the year heartburn and cheating. An alternative to this is to hire George Dean and appoint him supreme ruler of all that is pro series engines. His word is final on whether or not something is stock. I chose George because he is unquestionably honest and he knows these motors and our applications better than anyone. This would be similar to what Rands series does now with their sealed zetecs.

2. This is not my idea, I take no credit for it but I think it is a good idea. Put a rev limiter on everyone and restrict them to 12k rpm.

If a race promoter is funded behind the scenes by Big Daddy Warbucks, does it matter to the entrants if "Big Daddy" needs a tax write off?

Second, Swapping MC engines back and forth is not a big heartburn. IMHO a "pro" team should be able to do it in less than 2 hours. I can picture guys with DSR motors, and FB motors in their trailers. In fact, based on the history of the past couple of years, i can imagine easily guys with extra "bullets" already in their trailer. So, give that issue a break. A tech guy with a "whistler" can quickly determine that the engine is 1000 cc, and away you go. Tech for open 1K engines is far simplier than opening up "club" motors to determine legality. Cuts the cost to the series to have an easy tech situation. Only thing easier would be a fixed restrictor size. I lost that battle when we tried to get it in the FB rules with SCCA.

Thirdly, Standing starts with MC engines in cars a that are lot heavier than cycles... Interesting. Maybe Taylor or WRD will be one of the series sponsors? Has anybody with an FB ever tried a serious launch? I have my doubts, but I will consider test data.

5 years of hanging out one step behind Rand, of course I have my doubts about the advertised $50K cost per year for an entrant. I have talked to guys such as "8 Ball" about what he was paying to top notch DSR motors, and their lifespan. $$$ You can stay for less at Mobil 5 Star resorts. Pro teams are not usually "one man bands", they have data guys, shock guys, wrenches, truckies, etc. Lots of cost to get everyone and the cars to an event, fed, clothed, and paid. Watching Rand write checks, I sort of know what it cost to rent tracks on "BIG" weekends, cost of staff, housing, food, tech tools, insurance, media, paper, T&S, etc., etc. But as I said above, if there is a Mr. Warbucks" behind the scenes... WTH

2012 is a wee bit off. Be calm folks. Time will tell.

And as usual. YMMV

Mike, you are correct that swapping the motors back and forth is not the biggest part of the problem. We have one in the trailer ready to go, already bolted to a pan with the dry sump pump in there. The biggest deal is the crazy cost of competitive racing with built motorcycle engines.

[Jnovak]

Another and simpler answer IMHO is to use inlet restrictors on every single engine. The easy solution is to use an IIR (individual inlet restrictor) between the throttle body & the cylinder head.

once a definition of a size is determined it will keep HP to an quite specific upper level. Pick an HP target and the appropriate restrictor size & every engine will be very close. This method is used in several classes including FC (Zetec), FF (Honda), GT Lites & the new Mazda engine for S2 & probably soon to be Mazda for FC..

It works very well & keeps engine development costs down & the engines live longer because upper RPM range will be limited.

It works.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[JEREMY HILL]

if you want to compete in club and pro you will need four motors, two built and two stock.... regards, jeremy hill

[jerry freeman]

If you want to run club and pro and supposedly all you have to do is swap motors,
what happens to the setup that people talk so much about being crutial to going fast?

Doesn't more torque and HP not change the corner entry and exit? Wouldn't that make you change the shocks, springs, ride height, etc., etc. Or is all that just BS?

Seems to me just swapping motors is a load of crap. But what the hell do I know.

Jerry

[R. Pare]

Sorry to change the subject, but there needs to be some clarification on the bodywork rule:

Just what exactly does "original mold structure of the side pods" mean? Who and what defines what the "original structure" is?

If the "original structure" - ie, the very first mold produced - has been modified, is it now illegal?

If the "original structure" has been modified with an add-on, but that add-on is molded as integral to the "original structure", is it now legal or illegal?

If that add-on is permanently bonded to the "original mold structure", is it or is it not bodywork? (by the SCCA rules, they definitely are).

If "kickers" just ahead of the rear tires such as are shown in the photo on the front page of the Phoenix web site are added, are they or are they not bodywork? (by the SCCA rules, they definitely are).

If a skin cover over the sidepod undertray is added as part of the sidepod, is it considered bodywork or not? (by the SCCA rules, they definitely are).

Are the sidepod undertrays considered to be bodywork or not? (by the SCCA rules, they definitely are).


Back on the engine rules : Your $50k cost claim just went out the window with the unlimited motor addition.

[ASRF1000]

ANSWERS

If the "original structure" - ie, the very first mold produced - has been modified, is it now illegal? ORIGINAL DOES NOT MEAN FIRST PRODUCED IT REFERS TO RIGHT OFF THE MOLD, NOT BOLTED ON

If the "original structure" has been modified with an add-on, but that add-on is molded as integral to the "original structure", is it now legal or illegal? IF THE ADDITION IS A PIECE MOLDED INTO THE SIDE POD IT IS LEGAL

If that add-on is permanently bonded to the "original mold structure", is it or is it not bodywork? (by the SCCA rules, they definitely are). IF THE ADDITION IS PERMANENTLY BONDED TO THE SIDE POD IT IS LEGAL

If "kickers" just ahead of the rear tires such as are shown in the photo on the front page of the Phoenix web site are added, are they or are they not bodywork? (by the SCCA rules, they definitely are). IF BY KICKERS YOU MEAN THE FLAPS THAT DIRECT THE AIR OVER THE REAR TIRES, THEY ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE BODYWORK

If a skin cover over the sidepod undertray is added as part of the sidepod, is it considered bodywork or not? (by the SCCA rules, they definitely are). NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "SKIN COVER"

Are the sidepod undertrays considered to be bodywork or not? (by the SCCA rules, they definitely are). UNDERTRAY IS NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE BODYWORK EXCEPT FOR THE OVERALL WIDTH RULE OF 150 CM


Back on the engine rules : Your $50k cost claim just went out the window with the unlimited motor addition. $50K COST RULE APPLIES TO THE CLASS B STRUCTURE. EVEN WITH THE OPEN ENGINE RULE COSTS SHOULD BE WELL UNDER $80K AND THERE IS NOT A SERIES WITH THIS TYPE OF PRIZE MONEY AND EXPOSURE THAT YOU CAN RUN IN NORTH AMERICA FOR THAT TYPE OF BUDGET.

[R. Pare]

ANSWERS
If "kickers" just ahead of the rear tires such as are shown in the photo on the front page of the Phoenix web site are added, are they or are they not bodywork? (by the SCCA rules, they definitely are). IF BY KICKERS YOU MEAN THE FLAPS THAT DIRECT THE AIR OVER THE REAR TIRES, THEY ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE BODYWORK

So, even if they are not attached to the sidepod skins themselves ( by either permanent bonding, or as an item separate to the sidepod skin) they are legal? But if they are simply bolted to the sidepod skin they are not legal?

If a skin cover over the sidepod undertray is added as part of the sidepod, is it considered bodywork or not? (by the SCCA rules, they definitely are). NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "SKIN COVER"

A "skin cover" is simply a horizontal sheet of 'glass that covers the top of the sidepod undretray. It may or may not be bonded directly to the sidepod skin.

Are the sidepod undertrays considered to be bodywork or not? (by the SCCA rules, they definitely are). UNDERTRAY IS NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE BODYWORK EXCEPT FOR THE OVERALL WIDTH RULE OF 150 CM

So, basicly, SCCA legal cars may or may not be legal in your series?

Back on the engine rules : Your $50k cost claim just went out the window with the unlimited motor addition. $50K COST RULE APPLIES TO THE CLASS B STRUCTURE. EVEN WITH THE OPEN ENGINE RULE COSTS SHOULD BE WELL UNDER $80K AND THERE IS NOT A SERIES WITH THIS TYPE OF PRIZE MONEY AND EXPOSURE THAT YOU CAN RUN IN NORTH AMERICA FOR THAT TYPE OF BUDGET.

Your initial claim at the end of the 3rd paragraph on the Home page, as well as on the News page makes no reference to that pertaining to the B spec only.

[ASRF1000]

If in doubt about whether or not something is legal, the fact is to submit it to the Series in writing with diagrams for approval prior to running it. Its as simple as that.

We welcome innovation. That's something auto racing in North America was built on and something that spec series have unfortunately gotten away from. Let's see ingenuity.

SCCA club cars are legal in F1000 as long as they also meet the Series rules.

A skin cover (as you specify) if it is continuosly connected to the sidepod would be considered part of the bodywork.

As far as the $50K budget is concerned, it is possible to run the series for under that amount, period. Its each competitors choice upon which level to run. You can certainly spend alot more if you choose to do so.

[R. Pare]

As to the bodywork rule, I'm simply trying to sort out what it means up front so that everybody is on the same page from the get-go. So far, the rule and a couple of your answers don't jive with each other.

The rule states :

I. The width of the entire lower surface of the car between the rear of the front tires and the front of the rear tires shall not exceed the maximum width of the bodywork by more than 50mm and shall not exceed 150cm.

Bodywork under rule (3.I) is determined as the side pods. Side pods are to be considered those areas permanently molded and incorporated into the original mold structure of the side pods and attached to the main body section. Any pieces attached separately are not considered bodywork under this rule.

You stated (in response to the question about the Phoenix kickers that are attached separately or bolted on) that they would be legal.

You also stated : "ORIGINAL DOES NOT MEAN FIRST PRODUCED IT REFERS TO RIGHT OFF THE MOLD, NOT BOLTED ON"

You can't have it both ways. The kickers are NOT "right off the mold" - they are a separately molded piece attached in some manner to the sidepod (and possibly also the sidepod undertray - hard to tell in the picture).

The same question would apply to any other pieces that are molded separately from the sidepod skin, yet attached in some manner to the sidepod skin, and from what you have answered so far. it seems that if they are bonded to the sidepod skin, they are legal, but if they are bolted rather than bonded, they are not legal. Is that correct?

Or are you simply trying to declare that anything that is attached solely to the undertray and not to the sidepod skin will not be considered to be bodywork?

[ASRF1000]

Or are you simply trying to declare that anything that is attached solely to the undertray and not to the sidepod skin will not be considered to be bodywork?

I think that is a fair assessment. Yes.

Thank you for pointing out the need for further clarity. We have made a revision in this section of the Rules (see new rules pdf in our website).

[R. Pare]

Thank you for getting that sorted. As it was originally written, it didn't make much sense.

The other question still remains - if a separately molded component is bolted to the sidepod skin (regardless of whether or not it is also bolted to the undertray), rather than bonded, is or isn't it legal? Your earlier posts seemed to indicate that it would not be, but it is not addressed in the rule itself.

[ASRF1000]

If it is securely fastened (bolted, bonded, rivited, etc.) to the sidepod, it is legal. For example exhaust chimineys are typically riveted on to the side pods. These are considered bodywork.

Rear flaps that are bolted on to the sidepods (for easy replacement if hit) are considered bodywork.

Barge boards (if bolted onto the sidepods) are considered bodywork.

Any items that are directly attached to the undertray, but not attached to the sidepods are not considered bodywork in Rule 3.I

I hope this provides the clarity you're looking for.

Best,