Anyone one can build one to their own specs & run it in FS.Originally Posted by Scott Gesford
Anyone one can build one to their own specs & run it in FS.
Scott Woodruff
83 RT5 Ralt/Scooteria Suzuki Formula S
(former) F440/F5/FF/FC/FA
65 FFR Cobra Roadster 4.6 DOHC
I was reading this thread and would like to put my $.02 in....
Regarding the fall of the DSR home builders, how many home shops have a wind tunnel or fluid dynamics software to create a decent ground effect car? You're talking about creating a full bodied car from an open wheeler, it's all about aero. I think the DSR's price themself out of control when some very weathly driver's found out that they could buy plastic trophy's rather than win them with skill.
The United States is the only country in the free world that doesn't have a bike powered formula class. These typically are the best bang for the buck type classes, and are either purpose built or converted cars, depending on the series. Converting older Atlantic or FF makes sense because of the cost involved with overhauling a FC or FF engine. I'm personally working on a F500 car, that will have a CBR600 in it when finished. I like the simplicity chassis and layout...
Chris R.
f1000
Is there something wrong with rules that allow a wealthy racer to buy an advantage ?
Can you name the last high roller that won the DSR Runoffs ? Seems to me that skill still counts most. If you don't have skill or money, and don't want to make the effort required to aquire the skill, then tell me what rules will help you ?
Lee, I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you. You build a great car and have forgotten more about racing then most people will ever know.
Your a manufacturer, and biased, and any rule or lack of, that promotes unlimited spending is a good thing for you. It's a bad thing for most mortals. There's plenty of Formula classes that you can dominate, why not leave this idea alone?
Did you sell out to West Racing?
Chris R.
rules
Let me clarify, I didn't mean to be impolite. To some of your points -
Actually there are no formula classes left where a small manufacturer is allowed in.
Everything is a spec class now, those that aren't, don't have the sales potential to sustain a business.
I really believe there should be one or two classes around with no rules. There are plenty of other classes if you don't think you can compete in an open class like DSR. But look at DSR more closely - it is usually talent that wins, not money. Can you say that about controlled cost, spec classes like FA, FM, etc? Do you think you can compete with Graham Rahal, Marco Andretti, etc ?
I agree with Lee here. All of our formula classes are basically spec cars. And it's usually not the equipment that wins - it's the driver talent. Inferior equipment is typically the crutch of the inferior driver.
I also recall in one of Caroll Smith's books - he contends that the best people to write the rules are the car constructors.
That's not true in SCCA.
Sadly true....those that aren't, don't have the sales potential to sustain a business.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
My personal experience does not include much SCCA, but from what I have watch over the years, the formula classes were always dominated by one manufacture, same as DSR went.
I went through all this several times in Superkarts, and shifterkarts. You take a $6500 125 package, and then it becomes $12k plus. Superkarts did the same thing, it's a nice simple idea, and people went nuts pouring money into it. A front running Superkart is probably close to $20K, it should be 1/2 that.
This whole FA/FF chassis, 1000cc bike motor is great, proven concept, that will be cost effective unless somebody builds a specialized chassis that makes all the FC and FA obsolete.
Chris R.
classes
You are correct in a way, many formula classes became dominated by one make.
I think it is all more complex though. You have to look at each situation and see the reasons, which might be different. FF became dominated by Swift about the time English and American rules diverged. Made it more difficult for the English over here. In most other examples I think you will find politics to be the reason for one make domination. I would go so far as to say that today, no one in power cares about race cars, money rules everything. I find it very sad, as I can't imagine anyone going to the Monterrey Historic races in 20 years to watch Spec Racer Fords, or Formula Mazdas, or Formula BMW's, or whatever. In the future, can anyone really believe car enthusiasts will turn away from the Ferrari GTO's and Ford GT40's to go look at a 2005 Grand AM car?
Lee, excatly, money rules everything!!! Just when somebody comes up with a gerat idea to start a fairly simple, fairly inexpensive race class, somebody else comes up with an idea to make it purpose build carbon tub, million dollar race cars. That's the problem with getting manufactures involved in rule making..
Nobody wants to see late 80's early 90's FC cars.... So why not pop R1 motors in them and have fun racing them???? Is that what you getting at?
Chris R.
race
I think you may be over-estimating the interest in 1980's FC cars with bike motors stuck in.
It's 2006 now.
And you may be greatly under-estimating the cost.
Actually, it's pretty much only the manufacturers that truely understand all of the ramifications of a rule - ie - what can and cannot be done with available technology - and therefore how to word a rule that can actually get the limits that are desired. Leaving the rules writing to the amateurs has gotten us where we are now - lots of muddy rules that change their meaning according to who is reading them.
R. You missed the point... Any manufacturer can give valuable input, they build the cars, they know what can and can't be done. The problem with getting a manufacturer involved, is that the rules get swayed and the costs go up...
Here's an example, Ground Effects in DSR...
Lee, I know at least a hand full of my racing buddies that would build FC/F1000 car tomorrow if it was a national class.... The biggest expense is building a structure to replace the Hewland.
Personally, I think it would be great if we could buy a brand new turn key chassis, but it sounds like the prices are out of control before anything is even built..
Chris R.
Sorry, but as a manufacturer who has had some input into a few class rules over the years, I and the other manufacturers who have been asked to come up with simple and cost effective rules have been the only ones who have done a satisfactory job. It truely is "amateur as rule maker" who has made costs escallate by not understanding that what they have written has a thousand ( usually expensive) ways around it.
Manufacturers have had nothing at all to do with ground effects in DSR - the rules have allowed it darned near forever. It was amateurs who attempted to write the flat bottom rules that are such a mess, not professional builders.
rules
I may be wrong, but I have heard that a 'secret' committee is preparing the F1000 rules, certainly I am not on it. Nor did I ask to be, in fairness.
You can build a fun, fast open wheel racer starting with an old FC chassis and a junkyard bike engine. It would be very inexpensive I'm sure. But you can do the same thing in DSR. There are plenty of older DSR's that are really fast, fun, great bang-for-the-buck. But they and you won't be competitive against a new car.
If Stohr hadn't 'ruined' DSR, then Speads would be winning. OR Phoenix. Not a 15 year old car with a bike motor stuck in the back. See the situation?
We can argue this till the cows come home, but is it an unlimited type series that most successful or the closer to the spec type that is? Is it, and dare I say it... NASCAR that is most successful or is it F1? F1 almost went bust because of out of control spending. Like I said, I think new cars would be awesome, but there has to be a limit, and Lee stated that he wanted to see some sort of unlimited type class, and cost would be out of control. How can you screw up a flat bottom rule? The bottom needs to be flat! No holes, ducts, channels..
Lee, if you sold out to West Racing, then I would assume you signed a no contest clause? I guess then you looking for another venue to display your talents…
Chris R.
rules
I don't want to argue til the cows come home either, but I don't think anyone has figured out how to make road racing cheap. You can't stop someone from spending more than you. F1 is not going bust, they have nearly unlimited budgets. Look at the new 'motorhomes' the teams rolled out this year. The FIA uses cost as an excuse to change the rules to provide a better show for the fans. The purpose of the F1 rules changes is to allow FIA the power to mix up the race results, so one team doesn't win all the time. Has nothing to do with saving the teams money. FIA is trying to introduce both an element of chance in the game (so talent and skill won't triumph every time) and to give themselves the ability to adjust the performance of the cars individually (sort of like success ballast).
But back to F1000 - I don't suggest no rules, the bike engine sets an engine cost that is reasonable considering the performance. Flat bottoms make downforce, even if you don't want to believe that. Even club fords have $5000 shocks today, what can you do about that ?
Regarding west, I didn't sell out - I'm lucky I still have the shirt on my back.
[SIZE=1] Sorry to hear about the West deal... I guess that's your opinion about F1, but the fact is equipment wins most of those races, Williams proved that. He could put a monkey in the car Villeneuve won a championship with...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] Your right there is no cheap racing period, but there is cost effective racing...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] Shock thing is easy; specify a spec shock or shocks, Penske's can get expensive.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]Have you looked at [/SIZE][SIZE=1]http://www.monoposto.co.uk/[/SIZE][SIZE=1] good example... I met someone from Spain and they have a similar series.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] Lee I do understand a little about aerodynamics, aircraft was my 1st love. SCCA specifies no more than 3/4 deviation front to back on a flat bottom F500 to cover that.. You could also put a kink or ripple in the bottom...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] I picked a F500 chassis to stuff a 600 in. I think those chassis are very simple and easy to work with. That platform is an excellent cost effective one, just a really goofy power plant. I'll keep you posted...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]Chris R[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][FONT='Times New Roman']PS Good discussion...[/FONT][/SIZE]
We agree about Williams then ! Even Damon Hill won in that car.
Still, I think the F1 teams all have similar budgets. It's just that Ferrari did a better job for a few years.
A spec shock doesn't really save money - a good shock engineer can massage almost anything to work like a expensive Ohlins, but it will cost you. Sealed shocks probably won't work in this class, who will monitor it ?
F500 have flat bottoms, but what is this big rear diffuser ? Ground effects ?
http://www.f500.org/albums/2005runof...n_Offs_pic.jpg
Challenge
Lee,
Since I know that you are an engineer at heart and love a technical challenge. Let me pose this whole F1000 thing to you in a different light. How would you solve the following problem...
Propose a new racing formula...
- Limit total car investment to $25,000 range.
- Provide modern powerful powerplants.
- Sequential Shift
- Modern brakes,
- High performance for minimum costs...
- Create disincentives to spend on development of engine, shocks, chassis, aero - the aim is that the best driver wins
How would you solve that equation???
Sean
challenge
Sean, Very well put ! You hit on some key issues.
It is very difficult, I don't have the answer right now to your equation, not sure if I can.
'The aim is the best driver wins' - is that possible with car racing? with an automobile involved ? The best athlete wins in sports where there is only a stick or ball involved. Well, maybe not, since drugs are now everywhere in modern sport.
You hit on a key issue with that statement - we like cars, and want to see a competition between drivers too. Getting the balance is the challenge. I don't think anyone here wants to see a one make F1000 series. Wouldn't that be the first step towards making sure the best driver wins ? Of course there is a lot you can do to the car in a spec car series, including the temptation to cheat; since everyone else is doing it anyway, right ?
'create disencentives to make your car faster ???" In a competitive sport like this, how do you create disencentives to improve your car ?
The only thing that comes to mind is a claimer rule - that has never been popular with roadracers. I don't know anywhere that is popular.
Limit investment to $25K ? Would anyone really want a low tech, crude car that you would have to sell for $25K? You could always buy a higher tech, faster used car in some other class for that money. You could get the trickest shifter Kart. Would anyone want a $25K road race car? There is nothing on the market now in that price range, is there?
Later,
Car age
Richard,
I recall That Steve had taken section times on some of the DSRs, FCs and FFs at the runoffs. I think it was in 02 or 03. If you or anyone has access to that data I would like to see a comparison between the front running cars in each class to see who had the "best" section times around some of the corners. If I recall correctly, people might be surprised at how close those section times really are.
I'll have to ask him - I don't recall that he ever got section times from anyone other than LaRue from off of his data system (Weitzenhof doesn't use a computer) and possibly from the DSR that we helped sort a bit 3 years ago, but I could be wrong.
[quote=Lee Stohr]Limit investment to $25K ? Would anyone really want a low tech, crude car that you would have to sell for $25K?
It is very obvious that we are approaching this from completely different points of reference here. Low tech and crude? $25K will buy a lot of car - and hardly low tech and crude. Lee, your attitude is a perfect example of why the originally purposed rules for F1000 need to be sent, as is, to the FAC. Seems too many people have forgotten that this is club racing - remember? $5 trophies, mostly non-spectator events, and rarely are there any big name sponsors involved (those that find them, I applaud your efforts).
I guess when the pond gets too big for the fish, he has to find a smaller pond....
Wish I had more time to write - but I have a chassis that needs my attention.
Loren
No time, no talent, plenty of sleep....
cost
Spec Racer Fords are over $30K new, and I don't think many people consider them "high tech"
Duane, Turn 1 at MidOhio we are doing 108mph in the DSR now, about 100 in the FF I think.
[SIZE=1] Lee, that diffuser on that F500 car is a Novakar and it also has a "sports car" nose. Jay Novak, that I'm sure you know is an engineer for Ford racing, and is the designer. That car always finishes behind the QRE/KBS car of Mike Quadrini, the builder of that car. Mike's cars, don’t have a sports car nose or diffusers.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] Simple is better![/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] I think we're talking apples and oranges here, and I don't think you can build any type of new formula car that uses all the latest go fast technology for $25k. I think you can build a new car using the latest engineering technology that is somewhat less sophisticated but yet still fast for $25k or less. What if you looked at a late 80's early 90's FC Van Diemen Reynard? What it cost to build something along those lines from scratch? Take off a Hewland and Mag wheels to start.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] Lee, you make a $100 shock work like an Ohlins!!! You can't get a Fox, Kayaba, or a Showa to work like an Ohlins. I built motorcycle shocks in another life also... You tune them better than off the shelf for sure, but there's only so much you can get from cheep materials and poor tolerances.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]Chris R.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1]PS Lee, I'm glad it's not just the two of us in here...[/SIZE]
Section speed
Lee,
On your new gen, everyone I spoke with has said your car was flying around the corners. This is the first year with the new aero package? What was Mark's speed around turn 1 the first year he won DSR?
speed
Duane, I think we were about FF speeds in 2002/2003 in turn 1. Slightly under 100mph.
I still say - how can you expect a better car than a Spec Racer Ford for less money?
speed
Lee,
Thanks for the response. I know you're busy building those rockets.
"Speed costs - how fast do you want to go?"
"Race only that in which you can afford to win"
These two have served me well in 28 yrs of racing.
Almost ANYTHING would be better than one of those turds!
I'd race a pickup before a SRF!!! Lee first off cut the expense of the Hewland as discussed, and the price of a really expensive outdated Pinto engine. Then consider the fact that SRF's hold their value because nothing has changed on them in what, 20 or 30 years??? There's also no competitive pricing because nobody else can build one... It's kind of like buying a $20k or $30k Harley, it's nowhere near the performance or technology of a rice rocket, but people stand in line to buy them. The SRF is an instant vintage racer...
I think the SRF is a bad example, the F500's are a better one. $20-$25k turn key for a F500. The Rotax is more expensive than a R1 crate motor. What about OMS? Don't they build a reasonably priced bike powered Formula car?
[FONT='Times New Roman']Chris R.[/FONT]
f1000
I wouldn't go so far as to say a SRF is an instant vintage racer. That's kind of an insult to vintage race cars, don't you think ?
I think the SRF is a good example, because far from being overpriced, some people feel it has been subsized by the club.
I don't know anything about the OMS, you should find out what they really cost to put on the track here in the US.
Karts are always cheaper than full sized cars, that's not a fair comparison.
Remember the Hewland is replaced in F1000 with a Quiafe and chain adjuster mechanism.
Lee I still think the SRF is a bad example, it may be subsidized but there's still only one vendor that supplies the car, so there's no competitive pricing at all. Yah, sorry all you vintage racers!!!
I know the Quaife diff aint cheep, but you got one set of gears instead of a set for each 1st through 4th or 5th, and aluminum sprockets are cheaper than gear sets. I just looked at Hewland's site. Their gearboxes start at $4000 Brit Pounds which is about $7500 USD and go well over $20K Pounds... Do you think a Quaife chain drive unit is more than that? I think it's 1/2 of that or so... How much cheaper do you think a crate R1 is than a "new" SRF Ford engine?
There's no comparison....
Chris R.
F1000
F1000 is shaping up - I hear the proposed rules will probably be a FF2000 type car with a bike engine. If that is what it is, Stohr Cars may have to offer a design of our own !
Let me guess, FF2000 use carbon tubs? Makes no sense to use a cost effective powerplant, and a way too expensive chassis....
Chris R.
F1000
I don't think carbon tubs, or even carbon reinforced steel tube frames, will be allowed.
What do you think about aluminum tubs ?
As the proposal stands tube frame and aluminum tubs would be ok. Even structural aluminum (any metal) will be allowed. No carbon fiber of any type will be permitted.
Also, stock bore & stroke 1000cc w/ sir
1000lbs w/ driver
8 & 10" wheels
FC aero
Any metal calipers
FWIW-
Figure a max of about $7,000 for the driveline.
I paid $2500 for a NEW 04 GSXR 1000, $3500 for the new Quaffe diff and another couple hundred for your chain and sprockets.
Remember that you do get to sell the Pinto $2000- $6000ish and the gearbox $1500- $3500ish plus your gearsets, bellhousing, etc.
Sean O'Connell
1996 RF96 FC
1996 RF96 FB
2004 Mygale SJ04 Zetec
What's the Status
I did not read through this whole thread mainly because I'm just too damn lazy but am interested in where the proposal sits. Are you done hammering it out? I know you've been busy with the move, reproducing and whatnot, but if it has not been submitted yet, then quit dicking around Sean
Tom Sprecher
ATL Region Treasurer
The proposal has been submitted to the F/SRAC for consideration. Eventually they will send it up to the CRB for consideration. If it makes it past the CRB, the proposal may be at the BoD in time for consideration for the 2007 season.
Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Mike B. / F1000 committee-
Richard has posted an objectively verifiable flat bottom rule draft for F1000 to replace the mumbo jumbo currently in the GCR. it mechanizes in a verifiable manner the plus one / minus zero "vision" (certainly not what the rule as currently written states) that some in the community have been attempting to arrive at. it's an objectively verifiable flat bottom rule, it's NOT a cure for all that ails the current aerodynamic rules as written.
as a minimum, I think Richard deserves an answer on the draft!! if the objectively verifiable flat bottom rule draft needs constructive change(s) to achieve its intent I'm sure it/they could be worked out. if there are now people that believe other parts of the aerodynamics rules package needs improvement then someone needs to complile a list and get knowledgeable people assigned to post objectively verifiable drafts. to argue an objectively verifiable flat bottom rule is unacceptable because it doesn't solve all the GCR's problems make NO SENSE.
what has been submitted to the F/SRAC for consideration; or is it a secret??
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote