Titanium brake rotors

[JerryH]

I have read every word of discussion regarding the F1000 rules package. Everyone seems to be coming to a consensus (finally!). My hats off to those who have taken on the task of debating the issues, writting the rules and listening to all the comments. Keeping the rules very near FC seems the only logical thing to do - more cars immediately available and easier for mfg like Steve to produce new ones at a reasonable cost (no new tooling). Given that, Steve and Richard (and others) are correct when they say we need to keep the performance within the structural and safety design limits of existing chassis designs. Exceed the designed G-loads and things start to break - followed by a crash. Exceed the top speed range and survivablity becomes an issue - unless we up the cost with carbon tubs (and maybe other totally new designs). The club doesn't need another FA type car - either in performance or cost - those who can afford them are racing them now. It does need less costly entry and mid level formula classes that are still exciting to own, drive, and watch - if formula classes are to survive at all.

Since cost containment is one of the stated goals of the class, one item seems to have been overlooked. Brake rotors should be limited to ferrous only. Simply not allowing carbon disc is not enough. Titanium rotors are available (even vented) at great cost. The S2000 guys found that out the hard way when the rules package (probably through a publishing error at first) was allowed to differ from the original FC/FF wording (ferrous only). There is a significant weight savings (several pounds per wheel) and it is rotating (think flywheel) weight as well as unsprung - both having a big performance advantage. One team I know of was spending upwards of $800 PER ROTOR!

I support the use of a SIR on unmodified, stock engines as the only real way to equalize different engines. The size of the SIR may need adjusting however. I feel the power should be limiited to 160 or so - to prevent exceeding those chassis disign limits I referred to earlier. The engines should have been manufactured for street use on bikes that were actually sold in stores (maybe some minimum number should be specified). The suggestion to use engines 2 years old or older may have some merrit, to prevent having to frequently update each time the mfg comes out with new killer versions.

To get the converted cars out to race we should allow the 6 and 8 inch wheels. Our 97 VD looked as good on them as our Zetech did on 8 and 10's. If you want to argue wheel size, I have experience on really big ones way back on my two-seater Can-AM car and F-5000 car - very skinny ones on my FV - and on the continental and zetech already mentioned. The important thing is to get as many cars out to race as possible with a rules package that keeps things as equal as possible - if we want formula car classes to survive.

Thanks again to all involved - this is probably the future of grass roots open wheel racing.

Jerry

[Dave Gomberg]

I have read every word of discussion regarding the F1000 rules package. ...
Since cost containment is one of the stated goals of the class, one item seems to have been overlooked. Brake rotors should be limited to ferrous only. ...
Jerry

You may have read all the discussion, but did you read the proposed rules? Doesn't look like it.

Dave

[JerryH]

oops! looks like that issue is addressed - don't know how I missed that - I'll blame it on a senile moment!

Overall a very good set of rules!

[Daryl DeArman]

The suggestion to use engines 2 years old or older may have some merrit, to prevent having to frequently update each time the mfg comes out with new killer versions.

Having raced in a series using bike motors before with very liberal engine rules I can tell you that the engine age rule doesn't affect anything other than the age of the donor bike and the likely larger supply of them (good thing)

If a current year model is allowed than you will have a limited supply of crashed donors or people paying top dollar for a great condition/new bike just for the motor.

With a rolling 2 year (or in my case it was 4 years) you still had a new/better model engine available every year. This year you can use an '04, next year an '05, the year after an '06... If there is an advantage to the newer model motor it will be the motor of the year class.

So it depends on what you are trying to prevent....

Do you want everyone to have a reasonable opportunity to buy the same motor?

or

Do you want to prevent the motor of the year?

Perhaps every 5 years you specify a new older than "xxxx" to at least allow a decent supply of bikes to be available. A larger knowledge base of what is good/bad about the motors and you would only "theoretically" need to change motors every 5 years. in 2007--motors 2005 or older, 2012; motors 2010 or older--etc.

[Sean Maisey]

We were very concerned about combating the "Motor of the year" problem when we drafted the rules. The SIR concept and limited internal modifications were intended to more or less freeze peak HP at todays level, minimizing the advantages of changing motors every year.

In these cars changing motors is potentially very costly. Even if you replace Suzuki with newer Suzuki, you potentially have different mounting points, sprocket location, ECU, exhaust, oil, fuel systems wiring loom, airbox etc...

We wanted to make it as attractive as possible to run the same engine for many seasons...

Sean

[Daryl DeArman]

Sean,

I didn't mean to sound as if I was discounting your efforts. I was stating that in my experience a rolling motor age rule doesn't solve the motor of the year concerns.

Hopefully the SIR will help in that regard...how you are going to get enough data on all the possible engines to determine the proper SIR size for each engine that becomes eligible every year...I don't know. I am a numbers cruncher guy and that is a challenge I wouldn't look forward to.

Thanks to all those involved in facing that challenge.