The Intent of FF FC Rules
For the past couple of weeks I have been trying to capture what was the intent of the FF / FC rules makers back in 1986. Being that it was almost 25 years ago, one must turn back layers of memory to think what the world was like in 1986. The advent of the ADF and it’s predessor the now famous DB1 had shaken the FF world. In the previous decade FF chassis were changing and re-changing every year, some designs not even surviving a year.
I have spoken with and emailed dozens of folks that I would consider highly esteemed, and dedicated to the sport of small bore formula car racing. And I must thank them for their time and patience and contributions to my understanding. To name a few, in fear of leaving some out; John LaRue, Steve Lathrop, Richard Pare, Dave Weitzenhof, Mark Defer, Paul Rieffle, Tim Minor, Eric Langbien, Kevin Firlein, Bob Wright, Mike Rand, Jon Baytos, Keith Averill, Phil Creighton, Brad Baytos, Gib Gibson, and others have all added to my limited knowledge.
My intent was to write a 25 word “mission statement” of what was intended when the meeting occurred in 1986 (or was it 1985 to create rules for 1986?). I have not found that to be as easy as I originally thought. Many that I talked to are sure what was intended, but have a hard time saying it in a few concise words. It seems no one has tried to explain it in one place on Apexspeed or elsewhere, so here is my attempt.
I do feel there were some basic tenets to the rules as written in 1986:
Tubular Steel Construction
In 1986, the least expensive way to build a safe light chassis with reasonable stiffness was welded steel tubes. “Tubs”, whether of aluminum bonded/riveted construction, or composites were much more expensive to manufacture and maintain 25 years ago. Thus also the 6” minimum spacing rule for attaching panels to the tube chassis. Much of the rule package is specifically trying to insure a safe strong “driver cell.”
Steel tube bulkheads with reinforcement
This was intended purely for safety. It was to insure that builders did not scrimp on safety for weight savings.
Front bulkhead placement and minimum width
This too was intended to insure safety in the footbox area.
Flat Bottom
Although the language became very convoluted to say the least, it was intended to keep the bottom of the car flat and fairly parallel to the ground. This was to prevent the creation of ‘ground effects’ designs, and/or the use of the floor or sidepod floors as tunnels. Remember it was 1986, tunnels had revolutionized the racing world by then. It was the intent to not allow these aero bits into a relatively simple low level small bore formula class. A few years later even IMSA made these changes in defining the new WSC class to replace what had become the impossibly expensive GTP class. It was thought to be a way to keep costs down.
Exclusion of Expensive Materials
The people drafting these rules were trying to control costs, pure and simple. Carbon Fiber, Titanium, etc. were relatively expensive materials when compared to steel tubing, and fiberglass in 1986.
That is a summary of what I have found. YMMV
Going forward one of the biggest questions would be, “Are these tenets still applicable 25 years later?”
Some are saying that construction materials and techniques have advanced in two and a half decades to the point that some of the tenets in place to save costs are actually hindering that effort. Others are saying that some of the tenets actually are preventing the design of safer cars.
Do the FF and FC rules really need to be "joined at the hip"? FC and FB aren't tied together, even though they are closer in concept. The FF is non-aero, lower HP, than the obviously aero FC class. I think it's time to separate them and lower the confusion.
I write this seriously as an attempt at rational peaceful dialog.
So… flame away.not.
Let's keep it civil.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Quickshoe
indycar crash safety 