Is it the word Carbon, or what?
Richard, thank you very much. That kind of well thought-out post is the kind of discussion I was looking to start. But on the whole, frankly, I'm kind of disappointed - instead of being open to listening to and contributing facts to a frank discussion about chassis construction costs, people are using "carbon!" as a subtle pseudonym for "expensive and bad!" without regard to the reality of modern construction costs. I had high hopes that perhaps we could discuss the facts rationally, but clearly this does not appear to be the case.
Sean, I have a great deal of respect for what you've done with your car, and of course your opinions on what F1000 should and should not be. However, "Isn't this post about F1000 rules? ... you just have a couple people talking about it who are effectively ruining the whole idea ... I'm just not sure that everyone is grasping what F1000 should be all about" ?? - shame on you! The other people in this conversation have intelligent opinions and should be allowed to voice them without being faced with those kinds of derisive and marginalizing comments. I have not, and will not ever accuse you of ruining the F1000 concept, regardless of what opinions you voice or what suggestions you would like to discuss, and I would appreciate it if you afforded me the same courtesy. The point with F1000, in my opinion, should be to modernise the drivelines of our existing classes and bring us forward to this millenium without breaking the bank. While we're at it, within the bounds of reasonable and provable expenditure, we should embrace other modern technologies that probably afford some advantages to performance or safety. Like 4-pot calipers. And yes, like composite tubs. We should consider them in their entirety without tossing them out of hand like they're stupid ideas whose supporters "just don't get it."
If you're using cost as the point of argument, then the facts do not hold up under scrutiny. If you're using performance as a point of argument, as Matt Conrad points out, then you have a point - just don't use cost as a scapegoat when it doesn't really have anything to do with it. Yes, a composite monocoque car is probably going to have a performance advantage over a tube frame car. Isn't the point of this class to be high performance? I humbly submit that the costs will be approximately the same for each technology, and have requested that the folks participating here put forward current facts and figures to dispute or support that notion. Here, I'll start...
Tube Frame w/intrusion panels & bodywork
Van Diemen F1000
$40,000, turn-key
Van Diemen RF06 Zetec
$11,000, tub only
$53,000, turn-key
Composite Monocoque
DJ Racecars Firehawk
http://users.breathe.com/defiant1/djracecars/carbontub.html
$45,000, turn-key
Formula Mazda
$11,000, tub only
Ralt RT-41
$18,000, tub only
ATR (F-Renault)
$?
Dallara F3
$?
ATS Silani F3
$?
Martini F3
$?
TOM's F3
$?
Anybody with more facts and figures on available chassis?
Cheers,
Rennie
Lets try to keep some discipline in this topic
I think it is fairly clear that we have two pretty firmly divided camps on this discussion. On the pro high tech composite tubbed car side we have Stan Clayton, Rennie Clayton and Lee Stohr. I have a great deal of respect for each of your racing business resumes, but I do not think your views and agenda are in tune with the majority involved in this discussion.
This whole F1000 idea started out as a place to race converted mid-90s Van Diemens preparred to a common set of rules. Central to that concept was to avoid the 'arms race' as seen in DSR. We are looking to provide the maximum 'bang for the buck'. To help the class grow we realize that manufacturer involvement is desireable. BUT, we are not interested in a $70,000 open wheel version of the current DSR crop. We see natural F1000 manufacturers as Speads/OMS/Jedi/Gloria/etc... each of these makers has managed to sell rollers over the past two years well below $30,000 with VERY unfavorable exchange rates. Surely a domestic manufacturer could do even better (Sauce/Citation/Piper/Pheonix)?
Our initial discussions are centered around ways to avoid the pitfalls of DSR/FC/FF. We would like to see a disincentive for the "motor/chassis/shocks of the week". None of this spending actually makes the racing more fun for the drivers. That's a big reason they are all leaving these classes. We want to create any and all incentives to keep total investment very low to encourage participation. In my opinion $70-80,000 cars don't do that. My personal vision is something closer to a formula car take on the Legends car concept (just not quite as crude).
So can we maybe spin off this discussion on the benefits of composite tubs and get back to trying to create a class where you can go very fast for a fairly low initial investment ($20-30,000 max). Ideas on how to minimize spending on engines/shocks/tires/chassis upgrades seem like good discussion material to me.
Here are a few tidbits I would like to see hashed out:
1) How to limit engine spending (require them to be stock, SIR, claiming rule???)
2) How to limit chassis of the week (track/WB limits, min width???)
3) How to limit tire budgets (Spec tire, spec range R60, R600...)
Thats all for now...
Sean
P.S. Rennie, I appreciate you analysis of the FR1600. I think that if the SCCA had not so badly screwed that whole thing up we might not have to be having these discussions right now...
How about another opinion?
Guys,
I got no dog in this fight at all, but would love to throw in my .02 from doing Formula First as an attempt to help. In writing rules, don't try to limit spending as it will never work as people will always figure out ways to out-spend the other guy. Try instead to limit the effects of spending. It has worked pretty well in the two years of Formula First, new cars and converted old cars racing side-by-side.
I must add that I just love seeing/reading the "big dogs" of our world having "geek fights" on the internet. It makes me feel better about myself, thanks.
Bill