Formula 1000

[Bill Bonow]

Seen at the PRI show... The Gloria F1000 car that was shown may be coming to the US. Something over 60 are already built and in use.

Frog,

The Formula Gloria is just a re-named Formula Arcoboleno, see here:

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...4&page=1&pp=25

Third post down

Bill

[Purple Frog]

The car we saw at PRI shown as Gloria has since been through some testing here in the US. It has been reported to be pretty damn impressive for a show car on hard compound tires. Testing was done on Baytos test track. I think the car is now in the Atlanta area. Only needs the FIA legal rollhoop to be changed to be SCCA legal.

The Gloria is the brainchild of the guy who founded Sparco and he obviously had some spare clank to invest into it's development. I have the 4 page color brochure here on my desk, need to find a working scanner...

www.gloriacars.com

It does look just like the Arcobaleno.

http://www.stratotech.ca/arco.html

I'm still impressed by the Weismann gearbox a few posts up.

http://www.weismann.net/rocket.html

[D.T. Benner]

Just what we need,more new cars to dilute Formula car racing. I looked at the Gloria car at PRI and was not impressed. Chassis design and fabrication was crude and body work was not thought out for replacement cost. If people would buy what is already available we could build classes like FC and have more cars to race against in the SAME class. SCCA will let anything (Homolagated) into club racing these days but classes like FM and FC are strong because of the numbers involved. A lot of these new cars would be good Track Day cars but anyone who wants to Race heads up should still buy a car that runs in a well attended group. Just my 2 cents.

[carnut169]

Hang on D.T....


What class is your car in?


While we are on the subject I believe racing is being out on the track wheel to wheel with like cars. Like cars don't have to share components, just performance. Was Jeremy Hill racing? You bet he was. Was it a standard FC? Not even close.

I've been in a group with faster and slower Continentals but raced FMs, FSCCA, even FAs.
I consider that to be true "Club Racing" mentality.

[D.T. Benner]

Well do as I say-not as I do! I run Formula "S" because 1-we have almost "0" FC entries around here,tho I hope that changes this season. AND 2-I never venture out of my local area (no$$$) or run Pro races (not as young/good as I ONCE was) so I may as well try to run down the slower Atlantics?

[formulasuper]

Well do as I say-not as I do! I run Formula "S" because 1-we have almost "0" FC entries around here,tho I hope that changes this season. AND 2-I never venture out of my local area (no$$$) or run Pro races (not as young/good as I ONCE was) so I may as well try to run down the slower Atlantics?

Now that's what Formula S is all about! This is going to be fun.

[Mark H]

That Gloria car looks out of proportion and homebuilt?
What do you mean" we have too many formula cars" with a few more classes everyone could have there own group!!
The FS is the way to go, it has the spirit of building your own car and racing it, kinda like DSR used to be before Radical and Storher came with a $60,000 car that you have to buy if you want to win.
If no one buys my Reynard the only way I can go much faster is with a MC engine in FS.

[Stan Clayton]

By now most of you have read or at least heard about Richard James' editorial in the Feb '06 SportsCar magazine in which he calls for using motorcycle engines to reinvigorate formula racing the way they have C and DSR. Richard doesn't work for SCCA, and his comments shouldn't be taken as official SCCA policy, but I think he has struck a live nerve. And while I haven't yet received my copy of the magazine, I certainly agree with the thrust of what I've heard about his comments.

As a member of the Club Racing Board (the old "Comp Board") with primary responsibility for formula and sports racing classes, I've recently worked to bring new cars into Formula Atlantic, tackled "the" hot topic in F500 (transfer cases) and stuck a stick into the sleepy world of S2000. So I guess I'm ready for a new challenge...

I have also taken the time to read every single post on this now 9-page thread, and I tip my hat to you for your thoughtful, and thought provoking, comments. The thread has drifted a bit off target in recent months, so I'd like to get it back on topic with a few comments and questions.

First, let me extend thanks and major kudos to Mike for building the www.formula1000.com website. The site is a strong statement of support for the idea and a much needed resource, and it certainly made it easier for me to wrap my arms around the concept.

The draft rules package is a good start, but it looks like it has gotten out ahead of the mission statement a bit. Here's what I mean, I think one is setting one's sights too low by structuring the class as a place for old FCs to retire to. Cerainly converted FCs are natural seeds for the class and a good place to start from, but ten to forty-year old technology won't attract kids fresh from karts or FSAE, and outlawing modern technologies and safety developments seems too short-sighted to me. Motorcycle engines had always been in sports racers, but the excitement and the buzz didn't start until new cars and drivers started coming into the classes in larger numbers. Therefore, I think that is the way the rules in F1000 need to be structured in order for the idea to be successful. And frankly, you won't get much support from the Club for yet another round of micro-splitting of existing classes.

OTOH, if you can bring yourselves to build a forward looking set of rules then I will lend my support to help get the concept recognised at the Club. In the end, though, success will rely on the members getting cars out there in significant numbers.

Here are some specific issues in the rules that I think need addressing.

First, I cannot support another class that locks it members into using brakes from a British econobox that's 30 years out of production. Furthermore, for the price of a couple of rebuilt 30-year old LD-20s one can completely equip a racecar with new, far superior modern alloy calipers.

Second, I cannot support a new formula class which arbitrarily forbids the inherent superior safety of composite tubs. I'm not talking about 78" wide Atlantics, but I AM talking about permitting cars with far more impact and intrusion resistance compared to a 10-20 year old FC. Not only that, but modern tubs permit in-seat driver extraction and have far greater frontal impact protection than a tube frame with that sorry excuse for a footbox you guys run. Heck, if the guy who got T-boned at Sebring last weekend had been in an FC we'd be sending donations to his kids' education fund instead of well wishes for a speedy recovery! And again, we will not attract the new competitors we're looking for with archaic technology, so permitting composite tubs has to be in the plan.

The phrase "Ground effects are prohibited" has to go. I did my graduate work in aero and I'm here to tell you that any object moving in close proximity to the ground is operating in "ground effect". You can argue among yourselves about how much ground effects you would like to permit, but you may not attempt to violate the laws of physics by attempting to outlaw the effect entirely...

Besides, in another section you mandate the use of a front wing. What effect do you think it's running in down there 4" off the ground?

In general I like your proposed engine rules. However, if there is genuine interest in capping power as a cost savings measure, you need to plan on a Single Inlet Restrictor (SIR). Arguing over valve size and cam lift is a losing proposition, and the Club is moving away from nit-picking engine internals in favor of SIRs. Capping engine power with an SIR at, say, 190hp encourages tuning new engines without completely disenfranchising older ones. Or maybe allow another 100cc for older engines. In any case, SIRs are the coming wave in CSR, FA, GT and all new classes in SCCA, and F1000 is a logical place for it as well.

And speaking of another 100cc, there needs to be a provision to bring in the recently disenfranchised FCs at their original configuration. Frankly, any pre-93 FC is already at a disadvantage compared to a later VD with a modern suspension and engine package. No need to eliminate them.

Did you really mean to permit all-wheel steering?

I also think you need to reconsider your tire rules. The FC tire rules are fine for 140hp cars, but we're talking about adding another 50hp and lowering the weight nearly 200 lbs, so I think you're going to need to permit more tire. DSR finds that 7" & 9" work well with older engines, while the newer engines seem to do better with 8" and 10". I suggest permitting a bigger tire and wheel package.

Fuel injection generally comes with a 25 lbs weight penalty in SCCA, so I think you need to plan for that. With careful planning and execution 900 lbs is certainly doable, and I support that for a base weight.

Are we having fun yet?

Best Regards, Stan Clayton

[Roux]

Stan,

Thanks. A thought provoking post. I understand your comment about Carbon (or other) tubs being safer than FF/FC frames. I would like to read more about what it takes to get a tub that would be a good F1000 starting point for the home builder who wants to get into the game. I will Google and read into it, but I assume that someone has already looked into this. What does it take to get a tub made to some one off specs? Thousands? tens of thousands? hundreds of thou!!? I have nto frame of reference. (Pun intended.) While I am typing this I am wondering if there is a business opportunity to build 'generic' tubs that homebuilders could use to make into DSR/CSR F1000's (if they were legal) the same way Pegasus and Taylor offer 'generic' uprights, driveshafts etc.

Any links to tub suppliers, houses??

[Stan Clayton]

Roux, there are several "generic" tubs available. Here in the US you can buy a brand new Ralt RT-41 tub through Wolfden Products in Columbus, Ohio. I believe their list price for a new tub is $18,000. A new Tatuus or Dallara F3 tub will probably be a bit less. Now that there is an FIA certified test facility here in the US, my guess is that there may be opportunities for more.

Stan

[preform resources]

Stan,do you know who is building the pro Mazda tubs?
Dave Craddock

[Stan Clayton]

Hey Dave,

The pro mazda tubs are made by Elan, but I don't know if they'll sell just a tub.

Stan

[RobLav]

Thanks for the comments Stan. It's probably about time to start a new thread wrt F1000 rules.
A few of us went back and forth quite a while ago about the proposed rules. I am generally more in favor of opening them up along what you say. I converted my RF96 to Suzuki Hayabusa power, which is obviously over the 1000cc limit, but it would not take too much work to put a GSXR-1000 engine in its place. Here's my thinking:

- 1000 cc max engine with inlet restrictor (size?)
- max 8" and 10" rims (allow up to 15" diameter)
- any non-carbon brakes
- specify max width (?)
- specify max length (?)
- any tub (I've been eyeballing that new DB4 tub on racecars.com)
- specify max wing sizes
- any number of gears
- (two wheel steering - lol)

I'd prefer fewer rules, like the sports racer concept.

Overall, I'd prefer SCCA delineate formula classes by power restrictions via inlet diameter or fuel restriction, and keep the rest of the rules pretty much more open than they currently are. Our formula cars classes have been stagnate in technology over the past 10 years or so, and it is time to move forward.

[carnut169]

Stan-
Thanks for your support- I believe we will see more and more bike-powered cars hitting the track as we build/ develop them and pave the way for those who are waiting to see how its all going to work. It would have been much easier for me to build had I been able to look at this post for ideas... or had the F1000 site(s) been in existance.

On to your rules:

Why restrict the inlet?
How about only allowing unmodified 1000cc motors? Seems people dump tons of money building hot motors (that don't last as long) when stock they put out about 150 rear wheel hp... I just don't see the need to restrict them any further, but do agree that the older 1100cc cars should be included.

All of the newer 1000cc motors have fuel injection- and are available for less than $2,000 all day long (w/ the trans)- I don't see the need to add weight to those cars. Since there are very few F1000s at this point you would be adding weight to almost all of the cars to benefit just a few.
If you want to add a weight penalty allow stock Busa motors and add weight to those cars.


I like the 8 & 10" wheel option. Its really not faster, but its not slower eithor and they sure do look cool. As an added benefit they may last longer. My large set did not seem to wear at all during the ARRC weekend.

You forgot to mention the other F1000 (FS) site-

http://p104.ezboard.com/bformulas


I agree 100% about the brakes and the tub. 900lbs w/ driver? I'm cool w/ that.

I like open aero but understand why Mike wrote the rule... anyone following XSR can see what a mess the aero rule is over there. Whatever we decide, the rule should be very clear and easy to understand. 1" above this for a % of that... no thanks.
If you want to incourage close racing at a minimal cost- keep FC rules. If you want to encourage engineering and development at the expense of equality then open areo up. It is really pretty simple.

[IDSRacing]

Watching the F1000 thing from afar I have a few comments. Firstly, F1000 is a great concept and it surprises me it hasnt taken off even quicker than it is.The fact that its in its infancy allows a great opportunity, namely to get the vision/mission statment agreed upon. With that in place it becomes a hell of a lot easier to decide on the rules. Without such a clear statement, it'll be tough!

Stan has offered some guidance as to a class vision that would appeal to SCCA, i.e. something unique and different with forward looking rules. While that will appeal to the SCCA I think it will also bring more competitors if the scope of the class is inviting for non-FC cars as well, e.g. homebuilts, Gloria, jedi, etc.

I tend to disagree with carbon tubs being allowed at this juncture, mainly because they are not widely available. My fear is that someone like Swift or Elan could come along and dominate the market to the detriment of the smaller manufacturers like citation, stohr, phoenix, etc. and the homebuilders. So for now, if the 1 person with a carbon tub is alienated thats probably ok if 9 others with spaceframes can race. That ratio may change over time and need to be revisited of course.

Again, this goes back to the mission statement - what type of car, where does it fit in the class structure, where does it fit in terms of cost to build and operate, etc. Get that right and the rules part will fall out of it

Ian

[Eric Cruz]

.... My large set did not seem to wear at all during the ARRC weekend....

I had always heard Sean had a large set, but now we know they are quite durable as well...

Eric

[Brands]

Hi

If I may i'd just like to add to this thread. I'm seriously thinking about building an F1000 car over the next year from an FC car. From my perspective I would like F1000 to be a true 'club racing' formula and therefore restricted to space frame chassis. They are cheaper to build and are easier to repair and modify and home. I'm originally from the UK where I raced a wide variety of open wheel cars. The last car I raced was a Jedi in the UK's National Formula Honda Championship. With half a shoe string budget I ended up the season second in the Champioship. Whilst I'm not a big fan of spec classes the Formula Honda Jedi was the best car I've raced. Weighing in at just 375kg they where pretty quick, super reliable and very easy to work on which is so important for weekend racers.

I suppose my point is that I would rather see a series aimed purely at club racers rather than a 'stepping stone' formula for up and coming drivers which tend to be more expensive to run in. Formula Honda was just such a series and continues to be one of the best championships in the UK and is now re-named Formula Jedi (www.formulajedi.com). I like the idea of standard engines and more open aero regs but that's just where my interest lies.

Thanks
Ben

[John LaRue]

I would venture to say that carbon brakes are much less of an expense than carbon tubs. If we are proposing that carbon or composite tubs are necessary because "we will not attract the new competitors we're looking for with archaic technology, so permitting composite tubs has to be in the plan" then I do not see the disconnect with carbon brakes. If there is one there should be the other.

Based on what I can see here I believe a carbon brake package could be done for less than 1k and would be 2x or better on wear.

[Stan Clayton]

John,

Your sarcasm is misplaced. I have taken the position that the clear safety benefits of composite tubs makes their inclusion warranted, though not required. If you feel that including composite tubs is not warranted, please present factual arguments to support your position.

Ultimately, the final decision will fall to the BoD and the CRB, and will be based on a balance of safety, performance, cost, and a host of other germain factors. Emotional outbursts will not be among them.

Stan

[John LaRue]

Stan,

There was no sarcasim or emotion involved in my comment, so please don't get too defensive. Obvoiusly you are a strong believer in the carbon/composite tub and I am not here to poopoo your ideas. It is my understanding they are far better and safer than the tube frame and from that perspective I would much rather have my butt strapped into a good composite tub.

My point was directed at the "exclusion" of the carbon brakes rather than the "inclusion" of the carbon composite tub in your rule proposal. From that perspective the added cost of the brakes is quite minimal compared to the tub. As with the carbon composite tub being safer and stronger, similar safety attributes come with the carbon brakes.

Essentially it looked to me as though the carbon brakes were being excluded because of a "perceived" cost issue yet that issue was being ignored when considering the tub. Perhaps I am wrong?

Cheers,

John

[B17overhead]

Personally, I will only ever run a 2-stroke but I am interested in a fast class 2-stroke class that doesn't require expensive bodywork like a DSR or CSR.


While what I describe below is Sololl and is separate from SCCA road events, you may find it interesting:

I am also part of an SCCA rules advisory committee and in SCCA Solo ll, a rule update for B-Modified may be considered for also allowing open wheeled equivalents of DSR to DSR engine rules with a single weight for all.

This should make sense from the standpoint of allowing access to fair competition among members with different approaches. (SCCA core values)

F1000=DSR@1020# would be consistent with the "cross-overs" already in place in B-modified Sololl.

An example of another cross-over is CSR=FA@1180# with 4V equivalent motors and CSR=FA@1110# at 2V equivalent motors. We also currently allow big motored Atlantics and ASR in B-modified with up to 3L. ASR3L=FA3L@1285#. (All weights with driver)

The wing size and flat bottom rules in B-mod are still separate for closed vs open wheeled.



So, I'm curious, are 2-strokes and automotive based motors (like DSR) also being considered for your F1000, or is this just a bike-only motor class?

My opinion is that you will get perhaps another 5% to 15% more participants by allowing 2-strokes and 2V auto-based motors in F1000.

This certainly will allow more varied, and in some cases, easier conversions of old FF, FC, Supervee and even Atlantics.


Chuck Voboril

[Mike B]

Chuck,

The current rules proposal can be found here:
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15727

There is no provision for 2-stroke or automotive engines to prevent this from being the open-wheel version of DSR. I know it's a lot of reading, but I suggest going through all the previous posts in the rules discussion thread to understand how we arrived at that decision.

[carnut169]

Just as an update for anyone building one of these...

I gave in. You cannot run the stock suspension as there is just not enough room for the sprocket which forces you to run excessive axle angles which burns up tripods about every 20 mins on the track!

I had Pat Prince extend the aft leg 2.5" on both sides and moved the that bracket back. We also installed a idler sprocket to get the chain off the forward leg and to adjust tension.