stroker wrote: .........with relatively low power (sub 500hp),.........
We are truly blessed to live in a time where 500hp can be considered low power 
stroker wrote: .........with relatively low power (sub 500hp),.........
We are truly blessed to live in a time where 500hp can be considered low power
I would love to see the cars look like modern versions of the early 60's Lotus's, no wings narrower tires, v8, but with the drivers safety capsule. Build around the safety capsule and let 'er rip.
I like the idea of a "spec" carbon tub. Only one chassis having to pass FIA crash-testing, instead of several, could hold costs down.
Engine-wise, any current mass-produced stock-block, from any manufacturer. Limited to 6 liters. No forced induction.
Brakes, iron rotors and a max of 6 piston calipers.
Aero is free, other than nothing adjustable while the car is in motion.
Overall, make a lot of rules "open", but have a budget-cap for your season...
Want to spend money at the wind-tunnel? Fine. But this will affect how much you have left to spend on your engine and brake packages.
So basically it's going to be like Shelby CAN-AM? While I loved the way those cars looked, they were not all that great as race cars due to their spec nature.
I say go old fashioned mean horsepower, ala original Can-Am. 420 c.i. min. 1000 hp avg. BIG tires! Grunt!
Iusedtobefast wrote: I would love to see the cars look like modern versions of the early 60's Lotus's, no wings narrower tires, v8, but with the drivers safety capsule. Build around the safety capsule and let 'er rip.
Nice idea, but have you seen how small and exposed those cars were. I've thought about this before and the best bet would be a 9/8 size car to make it a bit bigger. That would allow moving from 13" - 15" tires and keeping the proportions similar. Still very little side or head protection for the driver even if you had a real tub. Look at cars from that era without bodywork on. You had to have very very little imagination to drive one at 10/10ths I think. That's part of why we all love them though.
grafmiata wrote: I like the idea of a "spec" carbon tub. Only one chassis having to pass FIA crash-testing, instead of several, could hold costs down. Engine-wise, any current mass-produced stock-block, from any manufacturer. Limited to 6 liters. No forced induction. Brakes, iron rotors and a max of 6 piston calipers. Aero is free, other than nothing adjustable while the car is in motion. Overall, make a lot of rules "open", but have a budget-cap for your season... Want to spend money at the wind-tunnel? Fine. But this will affect how much you have left to spend on your engine and brake packages.
I sort of agree except making the aero free. Truly free aero mean ground effect, skirts, massive wings, blown diffusers and a car that no human body can keep up with. Now free within the realm of a flat bottom, exhaust exiting at the rear. Limited single element wings and smaller flat end plates. That's a different matter and I'm on board with it.
Good point on the aero, Adrian. Was just kinda typing, and not really thinking.
Rule book coming after my next meeting courtesy of the FIA (Fantastically Imaginative Autogeeks)
who is gonna sanction that series?
fasted58 wrote: who is gonna sanction that series?
TIM!!!!!!!!!
Engine
1. Approved 6L max. Sealed normally aspirated engines only from approved manufacturers. – Could be LSx or similar or NASCAR type engines built by specified suppliers only. Cap engine replacement cost at say $30k anyone can come and build engines but they must be ‘stock’ block or approved alternate.
2. Maximum inlet restrictor. Standard part supplied by FIA (or whoever run's the show). This can effectively let you pick your power. Size it to cap power at say 500/600 or whatever hp.
3. Fuel, 98 Ron unleaded. Samples checked by SillyCCA, NASA whoever at every event. Quantity unrestricted. No in race refueling.
Electronics.
1. Spec ECU and wiring loom. Teams can do their own calibration, but it’s not able to accommodate ABS, traction control, launch control etc. Let the driver’s use their brain feet interface.
2. Telemetry free.
Gearboxes.
1. Spec unit Semi-automatic, max 6 gears (plus reverse) but the driver must select each gear. No pre-programmed up or down shift schedules.
2. No CVT's or torque converters
Tub
1. Spec unit made by (Dallara, Radical, a resurgent Lola or whoever). To meet the latest F1 safety standards for crash, impact protection, head protection etc. Will have standard semi or non-stressed engine trans mounts that approved engine builders can build engine mounts to meet.
2. Tub min life 5 years before redesign. Older tubs can continue after 5 years.
Aerodynamics
1. Flat floor with a minimum ground clearance measured statically when the car is riding on those solid pit/transport wheels.
2. From the center line of the car moving outwards the bodywork may only shape out or down, with the exception of the front and rear wing. This will eliminate winglets, barge boards etc. No part of the body may project below the flat floor. There is a max and min stated radius for the transition between the body and the flat floor. To allow for a raised nose there could also be a max and min radius for that, the important thing is little aero devise can start protruding from it. Some sort of exception is also needed for trailing edges and inlets/openings. These could be specified as a max/min radius with a max number of degrees of arc and limits on distance from the edge of panels.
3 Front and rear wing to have a maximum surface area, not just a plan area. Max of two elements per wing structure (front and rear). You can use the tub outer skin or add bodywork over it.
4. End plate max area and must be completely flat.
5. There would have to be some carefully written wording for the mounting structures to prevent teams from using wing mounts as a method of circumnavigating rules 2 & 3.
6. Exhausts must exit at rear of vehicle beyond the end of the defuser. The only thing behind the exhaust can be the rain light and rear crash. Exhaust exist must be circular and pointing straight back, not angled or pointing at anything to create an aero effect.
7. These are still open wheel cars so a min area around the wheels must be completely clear of bodywork, not semi enclosed wheels.
Brakes
1. Spec iron rotors, calipers, pads etc. to mate with uprights (see Tub and suspension sections)
2. No brake or pad changes during the race.
Wheels tires.
1. Max wheel size, 15”, probably the same as current Indy car 15”
2. Minimum weight for wheels to keep cost down, no magnesium, no carbon etc.
3. Tires free, although you’ll probably end up using Indy car tires as I doubt someone will want to come and make tires specially.
4. Max 2 pit stops per race unless it rains. No stupid 3-4 stop races like in F1, but with free tires there are going to be some soft sticky ones. (I was stunned at how soft current Indy car tires are when at the Detroit GP the other weekend. They make Hoosier Autocross tires feel like lumps of old wood)
Suspension.
1. Mounts will be built on spec tub and all tubs will come with standard metal wishbones, metal bodied shocks, bars and alloy carriers/uprights with spec driveshaft’s, hubs etc. You can change that stuff if you really want, but you can’t alter the pick-ups or spec brakes in any way, and any replacements must weigh the same or more than the stock pieces.
2. Metallic coil springs are the only allowed spring medium. Anti-roll or stabilizer bars are excluded from this, but they must not have any effective bump/rebound rate except in roll.
2. Specify a maximum effective mechanical wheel rate of the spring. This is to stop people getting too creative with infinitely stiff springs and just using the tires or compliance in other components as the spring medium.
3. No active method of changing ride height in motion. Sure the aero package will compress the suspension, but this is limited by the down force. Also the # of parameters in the standard loom prevents active control.
4. Self-contained dampers. This means no electronic, mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic etc. inputs that could give active control.
Other.
1. Minimum weight obviously
2. Cost of tub and replacements fixed and agreed based of minimum order.
Adrian Thompson
Rule writer in training.
Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves, Adrian. I propose that if we can get X number of cars, it might make an interesting subcategory for the Ultimate Track Day car for next year. Perhaps the intrepid GRM folks would have an opinion on that. We basically run them under Challenge rules to see what comes out of the woodwork, maybe? The prize does to the lowest lap as a function of price--lowest dollars per mph?
stroker wrote: Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves, Adrian.
Oh, you want to be rooted in reality do you???
I thought this was just a mental masturbation exercise. I'd love to actualy see some cars, even old ones. I don't think I've ever seen a F5000 car running
I thought this was just a mental masturbation exercise. I'd love to actualy see some cars, even old ones. I don't think I've ever seen a F5000 car running
The only problem with F5000 was the two-heat format. I always thought it sucked. I suppose given the safety issues with refueling it was better than pit stops in a longer race.
By the end of the series the engine guys had those 305's twisted pretty tight and sounding a lot like Cosworth DFV's. Originally they were typically "lumpety-lump" sounding V-8's. I'd love for a new series to get some engine diversity but I suppose that time has long since passed.
You obviously spent some time typing your proposed rules concept but I think those would be more applicable to a mature and established series. What do you come up with for a GRM-level startup series using tube-frame chassis? I suppose given FSAE teams are able to build their own carbon frames it's within the reach of more people than you might think but I don't see it happening much compared to steel tube.
Transaxles are the problem for a startup, as we've discussed in several threads here. I remember seeing a picture of an early Can-Am car powered by a 426 Hemi where a guy simply took (I think) a 9" Ford differential and a gearbox from the time (1966/67) and cast then machined his own transaxle case. It wasn't the most compact thing you've ever seen but it worked, apparently.
If you were serious about getting the series off the ground, I'd suggest that once you pay your fee to join the series you'd get a "spec" transaxle rather than a spec tub. The tub would come later as the series matured.
Adrian_Thompson wrote: I'd love to actualy see some cars, even old ones. I don't think I've ever seen a F5000 car running
Go to a vintage racing event. I usually see a couple running with the old F1 and Indy/CART group at Watkins Glen in Sept.
F5000 couldn't pull the fans in back in the hey day. Why should a start up (low buck?) series do it now?
fasted58 wrote: F5000 couldn't pull the fans in back in the hey day. Why should a start up (low buck?) series do it now?
Because the IRL is a joke and F1 is fast on its heels...
Ian F wrote:Adrian_Thompson wrote: I'd love to actualy see some cars, even old ones. I don't think I've ever seen a F5000 car runningGo to a vintage racing event. I usually see a couple running with the old F1 and Indy/CART group at Watkins Glen in Sept.
You are aware that there still is a sponsored series . . . The Formula 5000 Registry
I know of no issues of F5000 not pulling the fans in back in its heyday. According to Wiki it's death became of "increasing costs and Lola domination".
Think of the reasons for the original crowd draw: Variety of the machinery, sound of the engine and the fact they were rolling death machines, overstressed and unballanced.
I posed this question to a fellow PRDA member (in good standing and entitled to all privileges and verbal brick bats that may accrue) who is experienced in this type of machinery. He said, and I quote, "I regroup to the original intent of F 5000....a driver development series of relative lower cost of operation."
I think Adrian_Thompson is right on point. Why not a driver development open wheel series run under the auspices of say. . . I don't know. . . NASCAR? With say. . . NASCAR spec engines and tires?
Because a series using a heavy, powerful engine will be hideously expensive?
Here's my first few thoughts on Adrian's ruleset:
1) Flat-bottom cars are exceptionally sensitive to ride height. If you don't want real tunnels, then regulate the maximum width of the car between the wheels - get rid of anything that might turn into a sidepod.
2) You've specified a maximum spring rate but not a minimum. I'll start with very soft springs and a lot of preload - and drive the car on the bump stops the whole way around. One of the lessons FSAE currently teaches is that suspension is strictly for rules compliance - the tires provide everything you need to build a very nice-handling kart.
3) Am I allowed to run a cooling fan? Is there a maximum alternator size?
stroker wrote: You obviously spent some time typing your proposed rules concept but I think those would be more applicable to a mature and established series. What do you come up with for a GRM-level startup series using tube-frame chassis? I suppose given FSAE teams are able to build their own carbon frames it's within the reach of more people than you might think but I don't see it happening much compared to steel tube.
There’s a big difference in safety requirements for a carbon tub between a cone dodging SAE car and a 200+mph capable single seater racing other cars with barriers around. I don’t doubt the home builders ability to build a carbon tub. I do doubt there ability to build one that would meet FIA safety regs. However, I was approaching this from the concept of a real race series. Building cars for E36 M3s and giggles is totally different and I’ve had that same fantasy. I even posted a thread day dreaming about possible 70’s and 80’s F1 cars that I would love to be able to build a track day replica of here. http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/f1-related-stupid-idea/59137/page1/
stroker wrote: Transaxles are the problem for a startup, as we've discussed in several threads here. I remember seeing a picture of an early Can-Am car powered by a 426 Hemi where a guy simply took (I think) a 9" Ford differential and a gearbox from the time (1966/67) and cast then machined his own transaxle case. It wasn't the most compact thing you've ever seen but it worked, apparently.
Do you remember the home built CanAm style car that was built for NASA events that was in the mag a couple of years ago. It used a corvette engine and rear transaxle without a torque tube / drive shaft. It was long, but worked. I think it was even auto, but for a 500+ hp 1,500lb’s all up car I’d be fine with an auto as you’re really going to have your hands full even keeping it in a straight line.
Ian F wrote: Go to a vintage racing event. I usually see a couple running with the old F1 and Indy/CART group at Watkins Glen in Sept.
Yes, I need to do that.
stroker wrote:fasted58 wrote: F5000 couldn't pull the fans in back in the heyday. Why should a start up (low buck?) series do it now?Because the IRL is a joke and F1 is fast on its heels...
BS. F1 and Indy cars are both awesome right now. Both with close competition with multiple different drivers winning. Both cars have got a lot better looking over the last few years. I’d call the last 3 years a golden age of F1, and Indy starting to pull out of a 15 year slump
chaparral wrote: Because a series using a heavy, powerful engine will be hideously expensive? Here's my first few thoughts on Adrian's ruleset: 1) Flat-bottom cars are exceptionally sensitive to ride height. If you don't want real tunnels, then regulate the maximum width of the car between the wheels - get rid of anything that might turn into a sidepod. 2) You've specified a maximum spring rate but not a minimum. I'll start with very soft springs and a lot of preload - and drive the car on the bump stops the whole way around. One of the lessons FSAE currently teaches is that suspension is strictly for rules compliance - the tires provide everything you need to build a very nice-handling kart.
Excellent points. How about a 50mm ride height in the pits with a min and max wheel rate excluding the tires?
I get the feeling what’s being talked about is something like the cars they used in Iron Man 2 for the ‘historic Monaco Grand Prix’ part. The cars were double loosely based on the Wolf WR1 shape. These are some of the few photo’s I’ve found online. They have a very simple space frame with what looks like a SBC and I ASSume some kind of auto box. Something like this would prove massive fun per $$ ratio and it what I’d love to build. I don’t think I’d want to race it wheel to wheel though. Track days, hillclimb's even but wheel to wheel?!?!?!?! Not so sure.
I'm a late-comer to this thread (found it while searching for engine specs for a Facebook F5000 Racing Cars thread about the Leyland engine in John McCormack's McLaren M23!), but I'm 100 percent behind a 'born-again F5000'!
As one who witnessed F5000's glory days in Australia, and watched with anguish as uncontrolled costs killed it, I can see every reason for a modern version succeeding by learning from the mistakes of the past.
And a controversial 'last, but not least' -
* No wings or 'ground effect' aero bodywork (eg. diffusers) - spoilers only!
To make this happen, we need to create a groundswell of public opinion by speaking up in public forums (eg. motorsport forums and media Facebook accounts) whenever the poor state of national openwheeler racing is mentioned.
Let's do it!
You'll need to log in to post.
