Underbody Aero

[Mike B]

This one may be a no-brainer, but there is still some question in my mind.
Once again, Stan made a great point in an earlier post that this new class should be a place for the newest technology. However, as I've said, this was originally conceived as a class for what is essentially a 1000cc motorcycle engine-powered FC. Given the discussion of combining classes, it's conceivable that F1000 could be absorbed into FC in the future and keeping the FC diffuser rule might make that transition easier.
Thoughts?

[RobLav]

Mike, I can't vote on this poll because neither is what I would like to see - which is flat bottom to the firewall then free after that. But given the limited poll options, I'd vote for free bottom aero. Under the current "max FC width" rule, my car is now illegal (I need 100 cm). And if we go to FC underbody aero rules, my car is really illegal, and that I won't change because of the structure I fabricated. I angled the underbody floor upwards aft of the firewall to meet the lower Hayabusa engine mounts.

[RobLav]

Well - I voted anyway - for the free aero.

[Craig]

I voted for FC rules, but would change to a solution like Rob may be suggesting: FC rules up to the firewall, free underbody behind it within the width of the car. Mike, can you clarify; when you say free, do you mean the whole car?

Craig

[Mike B]

Free means almost anything goes, front to back. I'm a bit surprised that this poll is as close as it is. Maybe the original premise of FC with a MC engine is more legit than I thought...

Rob, while it would negate the benefit of your structure, it would be fairly easy for you to build a false floor to comply with the FC rules, no?

[Stan Clayton]

Mike, I too am surprised at the outcome of the poll, but why do you conclude "Maybe the original premise of FC with a MC engine is more legit than I thought..."?

In this FC-centric forum, I would argue that the results imply surprisingly strong support for an experimentalist approach to the undertray aero rather than support for a purely FC-style rule.

Stan Clayton

[Mike B]

When the results are 50/50, I guess you can infer either way. This board has sections for FF, FSCCA, and FA, in addition to FC so there are people other than FC owners represented. I agree that it's FC-centric but that only reflects the real-world car counts to a degree. There probably aren't that many FA owners that participated because there aren't that many FA owners (relatively speaking.) I think that's probably due to the significantly higher average cost involved, what with carbon tubs, full tunnels, and all . My inference is that the potential F1000 owners are familiar with the FC rule and know that it works.


My conclusion takes into account both the strong vote against carbon tubs and the indifference to allowing full tunnels. That leaves a tube-framed car with a flat bottom/diffuser and a motorcycle engine, kinda like the original premise of F1000! My only doubt to that premise's legitimacy came recently when the specter of carbon tubs, 2 stroke engines, 600cc turboed bike engines, and full tunnels was raised by various parties that have their own idea of what a new formula car could/should look like. These informal polls have told me that the original F1000 group is on the right path.

Let's face it, we'll never get a consensus on everything. We just need to come up with a philosphy that most people can live with that will provide decent car counts. That philosophy will drive what the rules, and the cars, look like.

[RobLav]

The results indicate precisely why I recommended a compromise in aero rules - For the bottom to be (relatively) flat forward of the firewall / roll hoop and free aft of that. I'm also a proponent of allowing up to 130cm in body width (and that includes wing widths).

As you know, I prefer the rules to be relatively open, and allow the market to see where it goes. Tube rames are OK, but I'd like to get rid of that silly FC rule, where it says any panel attached to the frame must have rivets / screws / etc at least 6 inches apart. We should allow tube frame stiffening panels in aluminum, Kevlar, S-glass, or even carbon.

The rules compromise must provide opportunity for CFC type cars to convert at reasonable cost as well as provide enough incentive for new manufacturers. We also need to allow vintage aluminum monocoque tubs up to a certain year of manufacture. But repair / replacement of those tubs must conform to original specifications (Ralt, Tui, etc).

Sean is waiting for these rules to be more permanent before he can continue his intended modifications. And my car will continue to sit in its present state until that happens. With all the interest level up (Lathrop, Pare, Stohr, Baytos, Clayton, Gomberg, etc), we need to press now.

[Stan Clayton]

When the results are 50/50, I guess you can infer either way. This board has sections for FF, FSCCA, and FA, in addition to FC so there are people other than FC owners represented. I agree that it's FC-centric but that only reflects the real-world car counts to a degree. There probably aren't that many FA owners that participated because there aren't that many FA owners (relatively speaking.)

Actually, this is not quite true. In 2005 there were about 110 Atlantics active in National racing versus about 100 Continentals. Yep...big shock!

That said, I was referring to "this forum", meaning the F1000 forum as being FC-centric, not ApexSpeed as a whole.

Let's face it, we'll never get a consensus on everything. We just need to come up with a philosphy that most people can live with that will provide decent car counts. That philosophy will drive what the rules, and the cars, look like.

Agreed.

[R. Pare]

Actually, this is not quite true. In 2005 there were about 110 Atlantics active in National racing versus about 100 Continentals. Yep...big shock!

Was that number for FA including all of the FSCCA cars, Zetek FC's, and everything else they are allowing in these days? Or just the Ralt and Swift "true" Altantics?

[Stan Clayton]

Richard, that number reflects all 2005-legal Atlantics. Stan

[R. Pare]

I don't count anything but the Swifts and Ralts as real FA's!

[Stan Clayton]

I'm not touching that with a 10' pole...

[R. Pare]

What about a 4 foot Italian?

[VehDyn]

Just out of curiosity.... does anyone have enough information to do the math (back of a napkin) on what somehting like a Ralt Rt41 would weigh in with a powertrain transplant to a MC based engine/transmission? Just killing time on a Friday...

Ken

[Stan Clayton]

My RT-41 weighs 1060 lbs without pilot, radio, data acquisition, fuel, etc. Using the same net 150-isk lbs savings as for the Pinto/LD-200, that puts a Ralt a little over 900 lbs, dry.

VERY back of the napkin...