I wonder why...

[Christopher Crowe]

I wonder why we haven't seen an F-1000 car taking full advantage of the aero freedom. I mean, if I understand it right, you could nearly take a tube-frame D/SR car, remove a bit of fiberglass to make it "open-wheel" -- and you'd have one very efficient aero-car.

That is: Wide front body work surrounding the front wing (that stays at reg width)... nearly fully shrouded front wheels and tires (open at the top only and observing the body-width specs behind the back of the front wheel body work going to the outer edge of the tire in front) -- same in back (reversed) etc. And most importantly, a huuuge floor with an up-turned (reverse shovel) lip at the front (ahead of the rear of the front tire) -- to really pack some air under the car.

It seems you could make one very unusal looking beast that would minimize tire/wheel turbulence and generate huge amounts of underside negative pressure.

Is the only reason that no one's made "The Armadillo" (or whatever it'd be called) an aesthtically based decision? Are we more "stylists" than we are real edge-of-the-rules race car builders?

It seems it could all be pushed so much farther... Am I missing something?

Chris

[TTMRacing]

The maximum width of the front wing will not allow you to shroud the front tires. The max floor width wouldn't do it either and because of the shadow box rule (25mm), you wouldn't be able to have a significant shovel lip on the front of the floor.

[R. Pare]

It's really more to do with budgets, time, and in some cases, business philosophy - most of the cars are evolutions of FCs, and while the designers are all well aware of the potential within the rules, their first objective is to get cars out there and running, with exploiting the rules awaiting the $$ and time to play in those areas - note the cars out there that were made to "look cool" to help promote sales, even when their performance is not quite there yet.

The second is normal, sensible, caution - if someone comes out with something that is radically different than what the rules writers expect - even though they were warned about the possibilities when the rules package was hashed together - AND kicks everyone's butt, most likely there would be a ruckus raised, putting that design in jeopardy with a rules re-write. This is "amateur" racing, after all, and no one is getting paid big $$ to push the envelope!

Give it time - as the class matures, we'll start seeing the envelope push a lot farther.

[VehDyn]

We haven't seen the ultimate aero package because we haven't seen a Radon FB yet.

[Wren]

The maximum width of the front wing will not allow you to shroud the front tires. The max floor width wouldn't do it either and because of the shadow box rule (25mm), you wouldn't be able to have a significant shovel lip on the front of the floor.

There is not restriction on bodywork width ahead of the rear of the front tire other than the 185cm overall width rule. That bodywork would not be considered a wing due to the long standing definition of a wing.

The 25 mm rule only applies between the front of the rear tire and the rear of the front tire. One of the reasons for not having a big scoop forward of the rear of the front tire is because of the interaction with the sidepods.

Fairing the rear tire to 150cm is fine in the club, but not ok in the pro series rules.

I couldn't guess why anyone hasn't done a little bit more, but some of the cars are pretty close to what is described in the OP, other than the front tire fairings. Probably because people are evolving slowly and the new forward facing gap rule is going to make things a little bit harder. Either way, it is not going to make the slow cars fast enough to catch the front of the pack.

[TTMRacing]

F1000 dimensions

DIMENSION MEASUREMENT cm
A Maximum rear overhang from rear wheel axis 80
B Maximum front overhang from front wheel axis 100
C Maximum height measured from the ground 90
D Exhaust height measured from the ground 20-60
E Maximum height of any aerodynamic device Rim
height
H Maximum width of entire car 185 (wheel track)
I Maximum rear aerofoil width (includes endplates) 95
J Maximum width of body and lower surface of the
car behind the front wheels and in front of the rear
wheels
150
K Maximum width of any bodywork in front of the
front wheel center line (includes wing and endplates)
135
L Minimum cockpit bodywork opening 45
M Minimum cockpit parallel opening length 30
N Minimum cockpit overall opening length 60
O Maximum exhaust length from rear wheel axis 80
P Minimum wheelbase 200
Q Minimum track 120
R Maximum width of any bodywork rear of the rear
wheel centerline (includes diffuser and rear airfoil)
must be no wider than the inside of the rear tires
95

Front wheel track is much more than 135 cm Now you could make a car with minimum track to fit within the bodywork, but it wouldn't corner very well.

[Ananth K]

I wonder why we haven't seen an F-1000 car taking full advantage of the aero freedom. I mean, if I understand it right, you could nearly take a tube-frame D/SR car, remove a bit of fiberglass to make it "open-wheel" -- and you'd have one very efficient aero-car.

That is: Wide front body work surrounding the front wing (that stays at reg width)... nearly fully shrouded front wheels and tires (open at the top only and observing the body-width specs behind the back of the front wheel body work going to the outer edge of the tire in front) -- same in back (reversed) etc. And most importantly, a huuuge floor with an up-turned (reverse shovel) lip at the front (ahead of the rear of the front tire) -- to really pack some air under the car.

You mean somewhat like this?
Attachment 29215

[Christopher Crowe]

-- and Richard, yeah -- that fear of going too far and causing a rule-change (like the Radon-kinda-really-almost-monocoque attachments for space frame) is probably the biggest reason for the conservatism. And, of course, something purely aesthetic probably contributes to this as well. Man, it really seems you could make an UGLY but efficient car under the current club rules. Half formula car, half sports racer. Swan nor duck...

Wren, could you take this a little further: "One of the reasons for not having a big scoop forward of the rear of the front tire is because of the interaction with the sidepods."

Couldn't a WIDE inverted shovel (just avoiding contact with the tires in full turn) get near enough to the mandated behind-the-rear-of-the-front-tire sidepod width to make this make sense? I mean, the disparity between the "shovel" and side-pod outer edge would be pretty minimal -- or, again, am I missing something?

Another question. There is no "shadow rule" in Formula B is there (now that the wide floors have been judged to be body-work post the 2010 Runoffs)?

Last question. The Wren-Dixon Citation (as configured for the last two Runoffs) could not run in the Pro series?

Again thanks, guys.

[nulrich]

We haven't seen the ultimate aero package because we haven't seen a Radon FB yet.

And you won't! There is a restriction on composites in any structural application in the FB rules (which is now contradicted by the new allowance for composite cockpit protection panels, but that's a different discussion).

I think most people see the potential, but it would require some significant CFD resources to exploit it. And I agree with Richard, the market is just too small to justify such an expenditure, which is why most cars are converted FC designs.

Nathan

[TTMRacing]

[QUOTE=Another question. There is no "shadow rule" in Formula B is there (now that the wide floors have been judged to be body-work post the 2010 Runoffs)?[/QUOTE]

From the 2012 PRR:

5.10.12.5: The entrant shall designate a flat rectangular reference area
with minimum dimensions of 30cm by 30cm. This reference area is
located on the lower surface of the car (the surface licked by the air
stream) 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 75mm from the
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. Between the rear of the front tire
and the front of the rear tire, no point on the lower surface of the car
(the surface licked by the air stream) shall be more than 25mm 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 car may be below the plane determined by the reference surface on a line perpendicular to that reference plane, except
as specifically permitted herein. Compliance with these requirements
shall be accomplished by placing a straight edge on the reference surface designated by the entrant and verifying that the requirements are
met. A maximum of four (4) rub blocks of maximum dimension 75mm
by 125mm are allowed anywhere on the lower surface of the chassis,
and may extend below the reference plane.

The key here is "Lower surface of the car" which means any surface licked by the airstream as seen from underneath the car in a 90 degree angle from the reference plane....hence shadow box rule.

[Wren]

-- and Richard, yeah -- that fear of going too far and causing a rule-change (like the Radon-kinda-really-almost-monocoque attachments for space frame) is probably the biggest reason for the conservatism. And, of course, something purely aesthetic probably contributes to this as well. Man, it really seems you could make an UGLY but efficient car under the current club rules. Half formula car, half sports racer. Swan nor duck...

Wren, could you take this a little further: "One of the reasons for not having a big scoop forward of the rear of the front tire is because of the interaction with the sidepods."

Couldn't a WIDE inverted shovel (just avoiding contact with the tires in full turn) get near enough to the mandated behind-the-rear-of-the-front-tire sidepod width to make this make sense? I mean, the disparity between the "shovel" and side-pod outer edge would be pretty minimal -- or, again, am I missing something?

We are already seeing forward facing inlets for the floor in the class, it just is not making it's way to forward of the rear tire. Those have been around for several years. The problem with anything too high is that it will shadow out the sidepod and prevent/disturb airflow into the sidepod. If you choose to make the sidepod higher to avoid this, the you are going to be adding frontal area to the car and that just makes it much harder to see a benefit.

Last question. The Wren-Dixon Citation (as configured for the last two Runoffs) could not run in the Pro series?

I am unaware of anything that would prevent Brandon's car from competing.

F1000 dimensions

DIMENSION MEASUREMENT cm
A Maximum rear overhang from rear wheel axis 80
B Maximum front overhang from front wheel axis 100
C Maximum height measured from the ground 90
D Exhaust height measured from the ground 20-60
E Maximum height of any aerodynamic device Rim
height
H Maximum width of entire car 185 (wheel track)
I Maximum rear aerofoil width (includes endplates) 95
J Maximum width of body and lower surface of the
car behind the front wheels and in front of the rear
wheels
150
K Maximum width of any bodywork in front of the
front wheel center line (includes wing and endplates)
135
L Minimum cockpit bodywork opening 45
M Minimum cockpit parallel opening length 30
N Minimum cockpit overall opening length 60
O Maximum exhaust length from rear wheel axis 80
P Minimum wheelbase 200
Q Minimum track 120
R Maximum width of any bodywork rear of the rear
wheel centerline (includes diffuser and rear airfoil)
must be no wider than the inside of the rear tires
95

Front wheel track is much more than 135 cm Now you could make a car with minimum track to fit within the bodywork, but it wouldn't corner very well.

You are quoting the pro rules, not the club rules.

I think that one of the reasons that you don't see the cars taking full advantage of these rules is that the people who would do it would rather that the rules did not allow it. John, to his credit, is listening to those people. Someone should write some letters to work to get the club rules to look like the pro rules.

I am personally against changing the bodywork rules for club racing because I already think that the FB cars are ugly and we should not miss any opportunity to make them look dumber.

From the 2012 PRR:

5.10.12.5: The entrant shall designate a flat rectangular reference area
with minimum dimensions of 30cm by 30cm. This reference area is
located on the lower surface of the car (the surface licked by the air
stream) 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 75mm from the
longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. Between the rear of the front tire
and the front of the rear tire, no point on the lower surface of the car
(the surface licked by the air stream) shall be more than 25mm 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 car may be below the plane determined by the reference surface on a line perpendicular to that reference plane, except
as specifically permitted herein. Compliance with these requirements
shall be accomplished by placing a straight edge on the reference surface designated by the entrant and verifying that the requirements are
met. A maximum of four (4) rub blocks of maximum dimension 75mm
by 125mm are allowed anywhere on the lower surface of the chassis,
and may extend below the reference plane.

The key here is "Lower surface of the car" which means any surface licked by the airstream as seen from underneath the car in a 90 degree angle from the reference plane....hence shadow box rule.

My opinion is that it is a grey area for club FB. FB rules grew from FF/FC rules, which allow primarily vertical surfaces to not be shadowed. The standard examples would be the bubble on the side of car for shifter clearance or the body sides of a DB-1/DB-6. I personally do not think the FB rules were written to exclude cars that would be legal in FF/FC.

John has made it clear that the F1kCS will use a shadow rule and he has made it clear with plenty of notice. I find that very reasonable as well.

[R. Pare]

[/COLOR]
I am unaware of anything that would prevent Brandon's car from competing.

I haven't seen Brandons car since the 2010 Runons. Has he "skinned' the sidepod bottoms yet? If not, according to Jon's original remarks in the very first Pro F1000 thread, the small kickers in front of the rear tires that are attached solely to the sidepod bottom would not be legal.

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...t=45234&page=2

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.

I guess the question then becomes: If they are not considered "bodywork", then what will/are they considered to be?

Also, if the "bumps" are molded directly into and are an original part of the sidepod bottom, what will they be considered to be?

[Wren]

I haven't seen Brandons car since the 2010 Runons. Has he "skinned' the sidepod bottoms yet? If not, according to Jon's original remarks in the very first Pro F1000 thread, the small kickers in front of the rear tires that are attached solely to the sidepod bottom would not be legal.

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...t=45234&page=2



I guess the question then becomes: If they are not considered "bodywork", then what will/are they considered to be?

Also, if the "bumps" are molded directly into and are an original part of the sidepod bottom, what will they be considered to be?

Brandon's car now addresses the area that you had mentioned. It would pass any interpretation of the shadow rule as it was raced at the 2011 runoffs.

John changed that rule about bodywork pretty quickly. Brandon's car would be legal now.

[Christopher Crowe]

Brandon's car now addresses the area that you had mentioned. It would pass any interpretation of the shadow rule as it was raced at the 2011 runoffs.

John changed that rule about bodywork pretty quickly. Brandon's car would be legal now.

I assume this means you have skinned (skun?) the top side of the floor that reaches out to (and supports) the kicker. Correct?

Chris

[Wren]

Brandon's car now addresses the area that you had mentioned. It would pass any interpretation of the shadow rule as it was raced at the 2011 runoffs.

John changed that rule about bodywork pretty quickly. Brandon's car would be legal now.

I assume this means you have skinned (skun?) the top side of the floor that reaches out to (and supports) the kicker. Correct?

Chris

No, it is another part of the car that Richard and I are talking about.

The floor out to the rear tire fairings is as raced in the 2010 runoffs and as run by Jeremy Hill and Novak and maybe some others that I am forgetting

[glenn cooper]

I was!

That car kicked it, straight outta the box in typical Novak fashion!

You mean somewhat like this?
Attachment 29215

[Jnovak]

No, it is another part of the car that Richard and I are talking about.

The floor out to the rear tire fairings is as raced in the 2010 runoffs and as run by Jeremy Hill and Novak and maybe some others that I am forgetting

Our Novak version of the Piper actually has a separate top for the side pod floors that extend all the way to the outside surface. I did this as I was concerned that the "powers" in the club might issue a "rules clarification" as has been done in the past.

I have actually played with a design/model of a car similar to our F600. As everyone says it is being conservative with the $$$ that keeps me from building it. Otherwise it would already be built. Anyone out there want to try something new? I am sure it would work.

BTW: we spent quite a bit of time testing the F600 last season and have really sorted the car out. We put over 500 laps on the car with 4 different drivers and had zero problems with the car.

Thanks ... Jay Novak