Printable View
I've been looking all over the internet and cannot find any demesions of the Firman RFR1000 car. I was wondering what the wheel base was and front/rear track measurements? If anyone would be kind enough to share I'd appreciate it.
I'm just trying to compare to other cars, thanx
JP
Got it thanks.
JP
John Paul,
Front track 611/4 ins
Rear Track 55 ins
Wheel Base 99 ins
We have a lot of information posted on the car here:
http://www.firmanwestcars.com/RFR-F1000.shtml
I'll try and include this info into it.
Many Regards,
Thomas Copeland
Firman West Cars
Great thanks.
Funny that the RFR1000 and the VD DP04 look so similar and even the wheelbase, front & rear track are almost identical. Ben Cooper and Tom Beattie, DP04 owner have had a close look at the RFR and think they are so similar that parts may even be interchangable. It guess it makes sense since Firman was the main man at both VD and RFR. Do you know, were they designed by the same person? I wonder what are the main differences between them, maybe someone knows?
[FONT=Verdana]Their origins may be very close to each other and they make look very similar but those similarities are only superficial. There are some major differences. The Firman has the advantage of not only being a newer design but also of having CFD. I doubt if any of the late model VD designs has had any aero design optimization done. [/FONT]
Thanks Tom. What is CFD? Is Aero Design Optimization used for bodywork design only or overall chassis, A arms etc design as well? RFR's are beutifully designed to the eye (I'm sure technologically as well)
Didn't David Baldwin design both cars?
Based solely on looking at the aero design, I'd be very surprised if there was any CFD done on the RFR F1000 car.
Nathan
Wow, that sounds like a dis....I like you more and more Ulrich.Quote:
Originally Posted by nulrich
I always thought CFD stood for Check For Flying Debris
GH
Sorry, didn't mean it as a dis! And certainly not of the venerable David Baldwin.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghickman
Having recently spent a lot of time designing a similar car, it just doesn't look to me like the aero design was optimized using CFD. But maybe they took a different approach. In any case, what matters is how it performs on track.
Nathan
I was told by Ralph Firman that CFD was done on the Firman car. Not only that but it was conducted by one of the leading designers for a F1 team. Not sure I'm allowed to say any more about it than that.
We even say it on our website in the description on the car:
Complete aerodynamic package has been fully optimized with CFD airflow analysis (Computational Fluid Dynamics) and real world R&D.
http://www.firmanwestcars.com/RFR-F1000.shtml
Thomas Copeland
Firman West Cars
In my experience CFD = Can't Find Downforce ;)
Could be CFD = Check For "crazy" Drivers.
I might actually fit that description. Probably ticked off half the freeway on my way to work this morning. But I gotta a good excuse: I was running 10 minutes late (or was it 5?)
I love the way some of these threads go sideways...makes me laugh.
Our CFD consisted of coast down testing at 3AM on Prospect Avenue. If it coasted further we were headed in the right direction.
I've stepped up my coast down test program...tired of lookin' at Bellings Firman from behind! That is if I don't end up in jail.
GH
So the main difference is CFD?Is this a bodywork design thing only? what about the chassis and components are they much different? I'd guess since the same person designed them both they'd have a very similar design (well the newer would have any design improvements). That conclusion is based soley on looks and some similar measurements (probably way off).
Its usually easier to ask for forgiveness than permission....Quote:
Originally Posted by ghickman
Hi John paul,
I think when we are talking CFD most of the time we mean the entire aero package as a whole and how each element of that package operates in unison with each other. Not just body work but front wings, rear wings, diffuser. etc. They all gotta work in harmony with each other and the aero design has to have balance. That's where CFD helps. You can evaluate how this front wing design works with this rear wing design, how this rear wing works with this diffuser design, etc., all on a computer without the car turning a wheel on the track.
The subtle differences on the car might not be as visually noticable as you might think. But if I were to look for a starting point I might try at the diffuser and then work my way from there.
Computational Fluid Dynamics if I am not mistaken.
The front of the RFR and VD/Elan DP04 cars are pretty similar, but the real big difference is in the engine mounting area, even more so behind the engine and diferential mounting/rear frame area.
I'm not positive that the DP04 is a zero droop front suspension as is the RFR.
Your car is going to be fast here in Pacific for sure.. its going to be one interesting race with everyone.
All your new bits and bobs on your car.. and your secret fast new motor that we are all waiting for.. I am really interested in seeing how well the BMW engine stacks up against all of us suzuki's :) !!!!
Oops did I let the cat out of the bag.
Team Firman West has one new big unveiling as well at this event..
Can't say more than this: I know another TOP west coast driver getting his "BMW" together...... things should be getting pretty interesting soon enough....Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicholas Belling
Here's another question: is the DP04 the same chassis as the FE? (obviously roll bar forward)
(apologies for this thread hijack)
If the BMW engine proves to be a significant increase in performance,
I sure hope the inlet restrictor is considered, and fast. Otherwise it could be a blow to the class.
Actually, it's probably too late. It wouldn't be fair to anyone who has gone to the trouble and expense to install a BMW. I remember a while back discussions about choosing a cap (like, fr'instance, what a 2009 GSXR put out) and keeping engine HP at or below that. I think that would have been a smart move for the class. It's probably too late.
Look at all the current, fast, championship contenders. There choice will be to keep racing with an underpowered car (with less chance of doing well), or spend a lot of money to be one of the few who can win. There are many very good chassis and drivers currently in FB, but their skills and chassis cannot make up for a significant lack of HP (especially if the higher HP engine is in one of those good chassis, piloted by a good driver).
I'm looking forward to the CFB class. :-).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnPaul
Yes, the main chassis is identical to the FE car.
NO TO SIR'S!!!! Sorry Russ :)
So, should I interpret that as you are OK with the front runners always needing to update engines to have a shot at championships? What other class is like that? (and I don't mean tiny increments of improvements that all classes see).Quote:
Originally Posted by Brands
I just think the class would be MUCH better if no one had more than, say, 190 HP.
And slow creep is fine. That doesn't affect all racers as much. Big jumps are bad.
Maybe it's just my low budget POV that makes it seem like such an obvious problem. Maybe if you can afford a top, new chassis, spending the money on frequent engine upgrades isn't a big deal. Just seems like it's going to eliminate a lot of racers' chances of competing.
It might be a little early to re-start the SIR discussion. Let's see whether the BMW engine makes it to the grid and more importantly to the top of the podium.
Hasty Horn
I seriously think that the BMW will be much more readily available than most people think. The cost is really close to Jap bikes and I've read that they were willing to even lose money in order to capture a huge piece of th pie. Their plan is to sell as many bikes as Suzuki sells and based on the reviews and it's performance I can tell you that every liter bike rider out there wants one. So even though the cost right now are inflated due to only a hand full of BMW on the market (plus you need to wait for people to start cracking them up, which has already started) and the intial set up & R/D needed to fit the BMW into a car, they should be around the same out of pocket costs as the Suzuki's in the near future.Quote:
Originally Posted by RussMcB
Ahh, and another point: I've been riding bikes long enough to know that all the other manufacturers will be stepping up the hp to match the BMW so either way the future is going to be in engines with higher HP output, in my humble opinion.
One more thing: what is a CFB class?
CFB is referencing a potential future class called Club Formula B, similar in concept to CFF/FF and CFC/FC.
Paul
Good point. My only worry is that *IF* the BMW is as much of a leap forward as some people say (and we don't know that yet), it could make all current engines obsolete. Imagine everyone that is running for a championship now (Brandon, Niki, Coop, etc., etc. ) needing to update if they want to maintain their current competitiveness.Quote:
Originally Posted by HastyHorn
Uh...you must have misunderstood him. That's just not how it works. "Leading designers for F1 teams," in the unlikely event they have time to work on a club racing car, don't do CFD. They have teams of specialists that do the solid modeling, the meshing, and the CFD runs. It's pretty unusual that one aerodynamicist does the whole thing, and it's very time consuming. A proper aero development using CFD on a brand new formula car would require at least 1000 man hours. We spent quite a bit more than that on our car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
I've seen the RFR F1000 car in person, and I'm certain no qualified F1 designer had significant influence on the design, at least not the design that is being produced. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it...maybe some pressure plots or flow visualization images?
And, of course, CFD is only one part of a comprehensive aero development program, you should also spend time in the wind tunnel, straight line testing, and track development.
Of course, all that doesn't matter if the car works. How does it compare to the other F1000 cars out there, especially at fast tracks?
Nathan
[FONT=Verdana]I respectfully disagree: what about the difference in HP between the 06 and 07/08 GSXR? I don't think that anyone that bought an 06 engine were too happy when the 07 came out but it didn't mean that the progress of developing a faster car stopped, people that could went out and bought (and i'm sure begged, borrowed and stole) an 07 and life went on, and people im sure still use 06's. I think that is just what will happen here, plus I doubt the Suzuki will be far behind in catching up to BMW, watch the HP that comes out of next years liter bikes, it'll be insane. So what do you do? ban all new engines and run 5 year old engines in a few years? Plus not to mention this isn't exactly golf were talkin about, this is racing and at least speaking for myself the faster the better![/FONT]Quote:
Originally Posted by RussMcB
[FONT=Verdana]I mean if there is a safety issue with HP being too much for the car to handle, that’s a different story but to not allow a technically legal FB engine would be almost sad and certainly not fun. just my 2 cents.[/FONT]
JohnPaul, I think you are helping make my point. I don't think it's a good thing for a club racing class to require a front runner to replace a perfectly good engine (type) every 2-4 years. Can you think of any other class in SCCA like that? We're talking amatuer hobbists here. Imagine how much more affordabale, competitive and attractive FB will be if the non-millionaires have a chance to be competitive. Do you have any idea how much (of the family budget) it takes to redo a car to accept a new style engine? It's a waste of money for no great benefit (IMO).
I'm surprised the front runners aren't more concerned or vocal about rapidly escalating HP. For me, it just means more seconds off the pole, but for them, it means the guys with the wallets will have a HUGE advantage (which is true in all racing, but rules can help reduce that in areas).
I was conveying what was told to me by Ralph Firman. I asked him about CFD on the car and that is the answer I got. I did not misunderstand him. Ralph has a lot of contacts in the UK and it is reasonable to think that he can get any number of F1 designers to assist him in doing CFD on his car. The car has had CFD done on it. I'm 100% certain of that. I also know how much CFD has been done on it.
One aspect that I know where the Firman is quite good is in mechanical grip. That is one reason I would have like to have seen more F1000 cars at Buttonwillow because we could definitely have shown that.
We still have some ways to go in dialling in our aerodynamics. We have only competed in three race weekends to date. At two of those tracks we set new qualifying and race records. At Thunderhill we ran too much wing on the car and found out we we at least 4 mph slower on the straights. At Portland we had a mechanical failure during qualfying. Most of our pre-season testing was in perfecting systems on the car mainly the F1 style paddle shifter and dry sump for the 2009/10 Suzuki. That dry sump should also work for the 2011/13 engine as well.
I'm certainly interested in seeing how our 2009 Suzuki matches up aganist the BMW. I highly doubt it result in any kind of blow-out (more likely a blow-up?). It might be very interesting to see if the BMW is any better than the older Suzuki's are when it comes to keeping from blowing itself up. If history is any judge......
The SCCA might introduce restrictors but if they did it would probably be done more in the interest of safety than performance equality. These cars are going way too fast for a tube frame car (or at least they are beginning to reach the limit in what is safe and sane) . I just hope they don't wait until some disaster occurs before they act.
.
Russ, I agree with you about keeping the class affordable but these are MC engines, how long do you expect them to really last for someone racing a full season and beating the crap out of them? I've read a ton on this forum about competitive guys (and guys just out there having fun) going through motors fairly often because they blow out or get worn out or whatever. I'm just saying that it's pretty unlikely a competitive racer that is really pushing these high reving egines is going to be running the same engine for 2 or more years, possible but unlikely, and if that is the case they'll need to buy an new engine and the newer engines are pushing out more HP at around the same cost then I just don't see how you can do anything (or want to) to stop that natural progression of people wanting them (just like the GSXR from 06 to 07)
You need to be a millionaire or spend a ton of money to switch out a stock MC engines when needed, that is why I was drawn to this class (and I'm sure alot of other peopl also). Think about this: if you blow out your motor you'll need to spend the money on a new engine anyway, why not the latest and fastest, and lets say you just want to switch to the latest and greatest, you can alway sell the engine you have and spend a few bucks more (there isn't going to me a huge difference) Agian, once the newer engines are sorted and fitted to cars cost's should be about the same.
I just don't think 1) It's a huge expense that will handicap the "non-millionaires" and 2) People will eventually need to switch out engines and when theydo it'll be a stock "top engine of the moment" and everyone will be on a level playing field and the class will be the baddest class dollar for dollar (although it probably is already).
I just had a conversation with someone I kart with, he race IMSA lights and I think he said he's into his car for $100k, it pushes 220 hp and weights (I think) 1200-1400lbs, that's crazy!!!! and the maintianence has to be ridiculous. Imagine in a few year when the Liter engines are pushing out over 200 hp!!! at half the price (or less) of a IMSA lights car.....people are going to flock to the FB class (as they are) or be really pissed~!
Either way, this is the class of the future= super fast and super cheap (compared to most other cars)
JohnPaul,
I know that you are relatively new to this forum, but the words "fast" and "cheap" should never be used together in a sentence, especially with the word "super" thrown in ;). I like the FB cars a lot, but I have never viewed FB as an inexpensive class. Just read the rules and you will see why. If you want "cheap" then you need to look elsewhere.
[FONT=Verdana]Rick, I'm new to SCCA but I've been involved with all types of racing my entire life (and have many disabilities from it to remind me everyday).I've been doing (as many people here know) a ton of research and been on this and other forums and websites way too much just so I can learn as much as possible and narrow down what I felt was the best class to get into for me[/FONT][FONT=Verdana] and I can tell you that when I see that my nephew's Rotax engine on his go kart cost the same (or more) and my DD2 Rotax for my kart cost WAY more than a top of the line engine for an FB car, I think Damn this is [FONT=Verdana]SUPER CHEAP[/FONT]. You don't have to be a pro racer to figure that out, just some math skills (or calculator as I prefer) and when I say cheap, I don't mean POS cheap, I mean compared to other way more expensive cars that aren't turning that much faster times cheap. Come on, dollar for dollar and performance wise you have to admit it is way more affordable than most and you are getting way more bang for your buck. Someone told me he was doing Matt Mladin Super bike times at Road A, that’s Fast as Sh*t, that's serious performance for a relatively inexpensive car. There are 5 or more used Top quality cars on this forum right now you can get from the low to high $20k's that'll get you on the podium (if you can drive). Don't get me wrong, $25k isn't exactly chump change but isn't break the bank money either. And maintenance is as affordable as any class gets. FB is a real winner. Bottom line: cheap and fast is all relative and for me the FB class is right where I want to be both cost and speed wise.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]I hope this post doesn't come off douchy as i'm writing it light heartily and really love these types of discussions. [/FONT]
I suppose I'd have a much different perspective if I was researching, considering joining FB, instead of someone who already owns a car and has significant investment of time, money, spares, familiarity, sweat, etc.
I upgraded from an '05 Kawasaki engine to an '07. It took quite a while, significant effort and expense. Engine mounts, computer, harness, exhaust, dry sump and a lot of other things were different. I had amassed a bunch of '05 spares. I've been selling them off while working to build up a new spares cache. Some stuff, like the header for the '05, is pretty much useless now. Bought or built a custom header lately?
Just sayin' :-).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussMcB
So if I'm understanding correctly you think the FB class progression should end because you spent time, money and effort on outfitting your motor to your car? if the class was limited like you'd prefer: to say an 07 GSXR (that is already sorted and kit readily available) you probably would have saved alot or time/money etc, right? But then you would not have been able to use the engine you really wanted right? that proves my point. And yes I've spend a ton of money time and effort on bikes and other things for them to be out dated the next year....sucks but it's called the real world and things progress with or without you.
And you can be an FB researcher, an FB driver or a FB farmer or fisherman, makes no difference....can you tell me that you'll be able to run or get a 2007 ZX in 2021? (10 years from now) I completely understand your point but it's not realistic, and who would want that anyway? They may run older designs in other classes but those are car engines that are older designs not necessarily old engines. With what you propose everyone would have to run old engines because
no one is going to make 07 spec engines, or FB specific M/C engines that only produce say 180 hp in 10 years from now. How long have you been messing with liter bike engines? I've been for a very long time and I can feel a big difference in a stock motor after 1 maybe 2 years tops and that's in a bike half the weight of an FB car, and I don't care what you do to them to freshen them up they are never as strong (or good) as a newer motor. If someone is in the class long enough they'll need a new engine anyway so I'm not really sure how this can even be a discussion (but I'm only a researcher) Maybe in 2021 they can change the name to FB classics or something.
Maybe it's me but I love the newest state of the art technology that makes any sport progress and get better, screw the old (unless it's stil the best, then its not old it's a classic !) I just think that to have a real good class you need both talent and the right (newest in some cases) equipment.
and yes I've got a ton useless spares from 15 years ago, want to trade? Just sayin....
Of course not. I must not have used the right words to explain what I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnPaul
Right. But to be clear, I'm not talking about a specific engine, I'm talking about a cap HP.Quote:
if the class was limited like you'd prefer: to say an 07 GSXR (that is already sorted and kit readily available) you probably would have saved alot or time/money etc, right?
No, not at all. Use any engine you want (within the framework of the original rules)Quote:
But then you would not have been able to use the engine you really wanted right?
That may be true, but does it have to be that way? Wouldn't it be better to try to improve that bad situation?Quote:
And yes I've spend a ton of money time and effort on bikes and other things for them to be out dated the next year....sucks but it's called the real world and things progress with or without you.
I'm not really sure why you are asking, but:Quote:
can you tell me that you'll be able to run or get a 2007 ZX in 2021? (10 years from now)
Could I run one? Sure Why not? Is there a valid reason not to allow it?
Could I get one? It could be tough. No different than many other engines used in sports car racing.
Would I run a 2007 engine in 2021? There is about a zero chance of that happening (unless my FB is eligible for vintage racing by then :-).
Actually, I don't think you completely understood. It sounds like you think I said everyone would have to run an old engine. Not sure where you got that.Quote:
I completely understand your point but it's not realistic
About 4 years, and I've been racing in SCCA for 25+. My argument isn't related to a 1 liter bike motor. It would be the same for a class powered by anything that increases HP significantly and frequently. I'm worried that the ever increasing HP will keep the class from being as good as it can be for amateur racers. I don't think the founding fathers intended it to be some kind of showcase for the latest technology or the engine-of-the-year class.Quote:
How long have you been messing with liter bike engines?
I'm going to try and refrain from posting again in this thread. I've shared my thoughts. It's unlikely I'll change your mind or vice versa.
I'm going to try and refrain from posting again in this thread. I've shared my thoughts. It's unlikely I'll change your mind or vice versa.[/quote]
I agree!
There are ways to stop it that don't require eliminating new motors.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnPaul
Sure, it's just the thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to make it all work. It is far from simple to put a new motor in a chassis that isn't currently set up for it. It will put a bigger and bigger gap between the big money guys and the low budget guys.Quote:
You need to be a millionaire or spend a ton of money to switch out a stock MC engines when needed, that is why I was drawn to this class (and I'm sure alot of other peopl also). Think about this: if you blow out your motor you'll need to spend the money on a new engine anyway, why not the latest and fastest, and lets say you just want to switch to the latest and greatest, you can alway sell the engine you have and spend a few bucks more (there isn't going to me a huge difference) Agian, once the newer engines are sorted and fitted to cars cost's should be about the same.
I've got a pretty good idea what it would take to do it in our car and it would be a pretty big expense and eat up a huge amount of time..Quote:
I just don't think 1) It's a huge expense that will handicap the "non-millionaires" and 2) People will eventually need to switch out engines and when theydo it'll be a stock "top engine of the moment" and everyone will be on a level playing field and the class will be the baddest class dollar for dollar (although it probably is already).
SCCA racing is a zero sum game. I can basically guarantee you that if people are always worrying about what engine is going to be fastest and whether they are going to have to spend thousands of dollars and their entire off season constantly putting in new motors, it will not be good for FB. People will look at FC guys leaving their zetecs in for years at a time and running in 20 car fields and never think about running an FB.Quote:
people are going to flock to the FB class (as they are) or be really pissed~!
Either way, this is the class of the future= super fast and super cheap (compared to most other cars)
The cars are not going to be the expensive part. Running them will be much more expensive, just like every other class. Throwing in another huge time and money sink is not going to help at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnPaul
That is not what Russ is proposing. That reality will not fly in club racing. There are other good classes for racing in that won't make people do it. We have the ability to do it and if it gets too bad, expect to see a WTB thread for an LD-200.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnPaul
First off, it took me about 30 seconds to find plenty of 10 year old engines. But, that is not what Russ is proposing, he is just talking about the rules currently in the GCR. I'm not in favor of IIR right now, but that is mostly because I don't think the CRB has done anything competent in the last 5 years. This class has potential and those guys could screw up anything.Quote:
And you can be an FB researcher, an FB driver or a FB farmer or fisherman, makes no difference....can you tell me that you'll be able to run or get a 2007 ZX in 2021? (10 years from now) I completely understand your point but it's not realistic, and who would want that anyway? They may run older designs in other classes but those are car engines that are older designs not necessarily old engines. With what you propose everyone would have to run old engines because
no one is going to make 07 spec engines, or FB specific M/C engines that only produce say 180 hp in 10 years from now. How long have you been messing with liter bike engines?
Russ has been around club racing and FB for a long time. You would do well to listen to whatever he has to say.
[FONT=Verdana]I respect Russ, I've read his Build thread and I know he is a very smart knowledgeable person and am not taking anything away from him. I'm not trying to say that I don't agree with anything he has to say, I'm just playing devils advocate and making some points that I believe make sense. [/FONT]Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
[FONT=Verdana]I believe that both sides of any argument should be made both in favor and against in order to get the "whole" story. I'm like the defense attorney for new engines![/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]I may not have as much "time" or "experience" in cars but I do in bike engines and that is the only thing I'm talking about. The 10 year old engines you found in 30 seconds would make a great paper weight's but not a competitive engine in any sort of racing (unless it was an "old engine" class, but I doubt most cars would finish a weekend). [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Bottom line is that I don't agree with restrictions on HP as long as the engine still falls within the rules unless it is a safety issue.[/FONT]
Although, I'd be in favor of a HP limit if for instance it was at 200hp (atleast at the HP of the most powerful engine available) and you can modify any engine up to the HP. This way anyone with a newer or older engine can be on equal ground. But this may also be unrealistic.