Formula D

[Stan Clayton]

Stan;

I hate to think that we can not come up with a better idea to control tire costs than the old bromide of "spec. tires". I will accept that maybe there is no other solution, but I think we should try hard to find some other way.

I am open to ideas, but I think that getting tire costs under control is a big key to the success of an entry level class.

Because F600 will have to be on the track with FF and FC, in the interest of safety and good racing experience, the F600 should corner on a par with the other cars on the track. As such F600 should not be on DOT tires or super hard racing slicks.

FC, FF and CFF all run together now anyway, and the drivers have to account for differing cornering speeds, so I think this concern may be overstated.

Most of pro series limit the number of tires you can use. I think that the pro F2000 limit is one set.

If you just implimented a one set only rule, then you have increased tire life by one third.

Your 2 session tire situation is more a reflection of the people you are listening to than the true performance of the tires. The experience of my drivers at the pointy end of the competition is that tires can go 2 weekends and some time more. Because there is no on track penality to abusing tires and because it is easier to put a new set of tires on than learn to get a good setup on the car and learn to drive with that setup, people will continue to use a new set of each race weekend.

My thought is to:
1. All tires are marked prior to the first practice session
2. Have a limit of one set of sticker tires per weekend.
3. Have a time penality of 1% for each sticker tire used in qualifying (if you qualify on stickers you have a 4% time penality)
4. Have a 1.5% time penality for each sticker tire you start a race with. The time penality is added to you qualifying time and you are regridded accordingly.
5. Tires that have more than one race stamp may be used without limit.

FM has a "race what you qualified on" tire rule, and we almost had to abandon the rule this year because the grid workers could/would not reliably mark tires. As a consequence, the rule is on "probation" this year while we try to get Regions to enforce it, but the bottom line is that in the chaos that is Club racing, enforcing such a rule has been problematical.

Some program like this would put a premium on making tires last at least 2 weekends. You might be able to construct a scenario that favors 3 weekend tires.

People say they want tires that last, then make tire longevity a part of winning.

The tire testing I have done, has shown me that the current selection of tires will give a good 100 miles. Interestingly we have had the best performance over the full 100 miles with some of the softer compounds. But those soft compounds tires had many heat cycles. I am certain I can find tires that will do better if that is part of winning.

100 miles? That is barely more than one National race (45 mile race plus practice and qualifying), or $600 per race in tire costs alone, which I think is inappropriate for an entry level class. Even if the tires go twice that far, it still strikes me as violating the basic premise of a truly cost-effective class.

Lets get the tire companies in on this section of the rules.

During the discussion last year about a tire rule for FF I spoke with reps from GY and Hoosier for their input. Both companies want wide-open tire rules. Period. Dot. End of discussion. Where the Club forces them to compete (SRF and SM), they will, but they don't like all-or-nothing propositions. I don't think they cared what tire type (racing or DoT) was permitted for any particular class, but they DEFINITELY wanted the opportunity to compete for sales in the class. That is why I commented as I did in the third choice in post #26 above.

I would hope that F600 would not be a "spec car" in any way. We already have Spec. Racer for those who want that type racing at this level. F1 used a longevity rule to control tires, maybe we can do something similar with F600.

Please believe me when I say that I am not interested in another spec formula class. That said, I think that an effective tire strategy is key to a truly cost effective entry level class (whether F600 or the more inclusive FD concept). Permit a state-of-the-art racing tire, no matter the steps taken to prolong their lives, and we are right back in the technology wars that have driven FF to the state it is in today.

[Steve Demeter]

I think in other than a spec class, tires need to be free.

The other way to look at it is that I often run my older set of tires for practice and qualifying and save the newest for the race. So a rule stating only one set may be used for the weekend would force me to run all weekend on my "good" set, which is contrary to the whole idea of containing cost.

[bryancohnracing]

Did any of you know that Hankooks DOT Radial Race Tire for SS/Touring cars and their regular Slick road race tires have the same compounds?

That's right! What you have is one tire with DOT ratings and two grooves of "tread" available in X, Y and Z compounds, with another tire without the DOT rating and no grooves with the exact same X, Y and Z compounds.

What's this mean? DOT radial race tires and what we call slick can be the same tire. I do not know if the Hankook's mentioned above are the same construction or even the same carcas with different caps. I can find out if anyone is interested.

I'm not sold on this bike motor thing yet. Here are my questions:
What is the reason for going to bike power? I mean the real reason, not some cost saving BS. Sure, not having to buy a gearbox eliminates "X" cost, but isn't the same $$ going back into the trick diff carrier/rear subframe piece (ala Stohr)?

From what I see from DSR and from old friends that race in 600 SuperSport they go through more engines than I've ever personally gone through in any of my FF's. Sure, a stock 1000 is cheaper, but if it blows up three times a year or I have to upgrade every season where is the savings? So instead of giving $$ to my engine builder I spend it in time changing motors?

The biggest problem I see is this: Bike manufacturers will never care about our use of their hardware in a car. It won't help them sell a bike, ever.
For how many years did Ford have an interest in FF? 10? 15? That's better than nothing.

Is all this answering the question no one has asked? Until open wheel racing fixes itself at the top we at the bottom are screwed. No path, no possible opportunity, no nuthin.

You want to grow an open wheel class with buy in under $25,000?
Here is how:
1. Build it in China/Korea/India/etc Sorry, but the facts are the facts, cheap labor rules.
2. Build a marketing plan that ties a manufacturers involvement to new car sales. Someone out there wants to build their image through racing, and the tie in at the grassroots level can be made.
3. As much as we hate "Spec" things, certain items just make sense. Tires could be one. I like Steve's idea of "X" number of shock suppliers, using a base model rebuildable shock. Follow that idea for other cost control measure.
4. Rebuild the model that FF represented in the early days. What was that? That anything was possible! That winning could/would/should lead to an OPPORTUNITY. Ok, so include FC, F1000 etc. I don't care, as it's all about bringing back the possibility of opportunity. Yes, I know it was about the $$ then just as it is now, but we still need to help open the F**KING door.
5. Finally, clone ourselves so we can go back in time and have a go at this as young guns one more time!

The last statement is most telling, as the past is just that. Past. Gone. Over. Most of what we are trying to do is recreate the past, as I just did above.

We all have good intentions by our thoughts and ramblings, but like most of you I ain't buying a new car. Can't afford it. Don't have any interest in it. I'm happy with what I've got and I'm enjoying the level of commitment I can give.

Until we can get new players to devote themselves to open wheel road racing like we did when we were young none of this matters.

Sorry to be such a downer, but it's just how I see it. You may not, and frankly that's good!

[Jim Garry]

Yes, my statement on "intellectual musings" was incorrect. It is necessary. I was pissed that there is consideration being given to making a set of rules that would render the current FF obsolete and thus valueless.

To those who say that we have too many classes, maybe if we get one of these classes really right then it will be obvious what classes need to be dropped. We actually have the proceedure in place. To do the run offs you have to make the numbers. To stay as a class you have to make the numbers. Get the class mix correct then this won't be an issue. Every one will gravitate to the popular classes.

Yes, the procedure is great. But in addition to that "survival of the fittest" procedure, the leadership in this organization must stop flooding the market with new classes with no apparent long term consideration, no vision. Right now it is more of a "Here, have a class, any class. Here's another. Want some more?" Sort of like tobacco companies in the 50s and 60s handing out free packs of cigs at every turn.

Rather than doing this in an uncoordinated fashion, there should be a moratorium on new classes (that goes for tin tops also), and a multi year, in depth analysis of all issues. And when the analysis is finished (and that includes alot of member input), then the BOD must have the courage to eliminate some classes (and consolidate a whole bunch of tin top classes). But it doesn't seem likely that an SCCA BOD could bring themselves to do this.

FD might be just fine, but my fear is it will get pushed into being a national class too soon, with not enough consideration of all issues. And the biggest of those issues is that any new FD class must have chassis rules that allow conversions of current FF chassis to be equal in performance potential to the new cars. As Steve wrote, start with the current FF chassis rules. And it would be fine to place some limit on dampers. Perhaps a rule could be written that limits shocks to 2 way adjustable only. [Edit: and using the current wt, minus whatever wt would be saved by the MC engine and lack of Hewland, would be necessary if we want conversions to be feasible.]

If current FF owners only had to purchase new wheels and perhaps shocks (depending on what they currently run), along with the engine change, it might work. We could use the engines as sculptures or something.

Jim

[Don Denomme]

My only comment is that you should ask all the Spec Miata guys how cheaply that could get engines BEFORE it became a national class. Ask them what a national motor costs now.

[Daryl DeArman]

Stan,

I agree that tires should be a major concern when attempting to contain costs. Along that line of thinking I don't believe an IT class like tire rule is the answer. Those tires are every bit as expensive as a slick and wear can be very similar. Sure, there are DOT tires used in IT racing like the V700 Kumho or Toyo RA-1 that last many, many cycles, but there are also tires like the Hoosier and V710 Kumho that don't. The hoosiers will run north of $600 a set and will be good for one race weekend.

I believe a really hard slick is the answer or a true treaded tire with a minimum tread depth and durometer reading.

[Dick R.]

Jay used a FF racing weight (car plus driver) of 1000 lbs. Is this a proposal (or did I miss something) since the current car plus driver min for an uprated engine is 1100 lbs.

Also, is part of the performance of a FF dependent on have the "right" ratio spread in a relatively torquey engine. If so, how will the 600 cc bike engines with what I assume are fixed ratios (except for final drive) fair on many tracks?

Dick (who has no idea what it would take to get my car and me down to 1000 lbs and I only weigh about 155)
85 VD FF 1600

[Stan Clayton]

I've been wondering for some time how inexpensive an entry level "real" formula car can be made, and here is what I have found.

The Banshee BTF 1600 sells for $12,995, and is built at Summit Point, WV.



The Banshee may not represent the latest style, and it has an aircooled VW engine, but the design does give us an idea of what cost a minimalist car can be built to. The engine and trans are probably a wash, cost wise, with a late-model 600cc m/c engine and spool, and you'd need to provide for engine cooling, but I don't see any reason an attractive, quality turn-key entry level car can't be built and sold for under $25,000. Perhaps quite a bit under that figure.

BTW, I have a sales brochure for the Banshee with several more photos, but I haven't found any additional photos of them on the web. From the photos I have the car appears similar to late 70's FFs. Simple, straight forward and inexpensive. Interesting concept.

Stan

[DaveW]

Jay used a FF racing weight (car plus driver) of 1000 lbs. Is this a proposal (or did I miss something) since the current car plus driver min for an uprated engine is 1100 lbs.

Also, is part of the performance of a FF dependent on have the "right" ratio spread in a relatively torquey engine. If so, how will the 600 cc bike engines with what I assume are fixed ratios (except for final drive) fair on many tracks?

Dick (who has no idea what it would take to get my car and me down to 1000 lbs and I only weigh about 155)
85 VD FF 1600

He's assuming the bike engine/trans would be ~100-lb lighter than the current FF engine.

[S Lathrop]

I just got off the phone with a Z10 customer who says that in his region, many Club Ford drivers and putting new tires on every weekend.

If that is fairly common, then what is the case for a spec tire anyway?

[Stan Clayton]

I just got off the phone with a Z10 customer who says that in his region, many Club Ford drivers and putting new tires on every weekend.

If that is fairly common, then what is the case for a spec tire anyway?

If this is the case, then it would appear that the Region in question did not choose the right spec tire. This subject was extensively discussed last year in the FF Nationwide Tire Suggestion thread, among others. A merely "hard" tire which still falls off in lap time after a few heat cycles is as bad as no tire rule at all.

Which brings me to the Toyo Proxes RA-1 mentioned in the second option in post #26 above, and which Quickshoe mentions a few posts above my Banshee post. During the run-up to SM becoming a National class, the Club had a tire "shootout" to pick the spec tire for that class, and the Toyo won hands-down. It was slightly slower than some other tires, but it was the energizer bunny...it just kept going and going with no drop off in lap times until literally the chords were showing.

If a spec tire is to truly save competitors money it must exhibit those two qualities. Otherwise, it's just a pointless exercise.

Stan

[Bruce kilcoyne]

I just got off the phone with a Z10 customer who says that in his region, many Club Ford drivers and putting new tires on every weekend.

If that is fairly common, then what is the case for a spec tire anyway?

That just says to me that they don't have a R60/GY600 tire rule in that region.
EWC has had more competitive races in CFF, on R60's and NOBODY, put on tires for
every double race weekend. 20+ cycles for front runners was the norm.


R60/GY600 tire rule is a simple, available and immediate solution to tire costs in FF, besides making a slightly more equal field.

[Dick R.]

He's assuming the bike engine/trans would be ~100-lb lighter than the current FF engine.

Jay,

What did you actually mean. I was assuming you were comparing a current FF1600 as raced (which is 1100) with an anticipated F600 as raced weight of 900.

Dick

[S Lathrop]

The spec tire in question is R60/GY600. I know of other examples of spec tires not having the intended results. And spec tire was a failure when last tried in National FF racing.

If spec tires are the best this bunch can do, then I ain't going to fight city hall.

I was just hoping that there was a better solution.

[jgaither]

I just got off the phone with a Z10 customer who says that in his region, many Club Ford drivers and putting new tires on every weekend.

If that is fairly common, then what is the case for a spec tire anyway?

I think unless you combine a spec tire rule (doesn't have to be one manufacturer) with a tire usage rule (ala FSCCA) you don't accomplish much. About any tire will be a shade faster when new & people with more bucks will do what it takes to win. period. Even the CF Hoosier R60 is faster when new.

[akilcoyne]

I don't like the idea of adding another open wheel class that "targets" a specific group of potential drivers. I don't see a need to alienate arguably the most stable class in the Formula car run group.

Every winter we have the doom and gloom of the engine woes in FF. This year with having other discussion topics such as F1000 and achieving Zetec parity in FC we seem to have eluded that.

With the new engine components that are available for FF, why don't we work at addressing the other availability issues.

-What about casting new blocks?
-Weber carbs? How about the addition of fuel injection? Throttle body Injection (TBI) would be a simple affordable addition. Take it one step farther, new intake manifolds (intakes are in short order anyway) that could incorporate multiport injection. Performance changes? Likely, but it will not be difficult to reach parity between the updated injected setup to the current carb'd versions. We're not trying to overcome different internal masses, rod ratio, compression etc.
-Connecting rods

We need to adapt and be more modern, without having to do a $10k+ engine converison or lose more entries to yet another new class. I'd like to see us update and not obsolete 40 years of history.

[Stan Clayton]

I don't like the idea of adding another open wheel class that "targets" a specific group of potential drivers. I don't see a need to alienate arguably the most stable class in the Formula car run group.

We are discussing the topic because over the past 20+ years FF has dropped from more than 1800 National entries (more than all other formula classes combined) to a bit over 400 (a roughly 75% decline) and last year ranked third out of 5 National formula classes. If the Club adopts a policy of "benign neglect", FF may be gone in a few years. I know that there are many factors which have contributed to the decline of FF, and that there are counter arguments to my last point there, but the numbers don't lie. Over the past several years you can count the number of new FFs homologated with SCCA on one hand. During the same time period SCCA has issued at least one new SM logbook PER DAY.

Every winter we have the doom and gloom of the engine woes in FF. This year with having other discussion topics such as F1000 and achieving Zetec parity in FC we seem to have eluded that.

Gee, it sounds like we finally have some excitement in the formula ranks!

With the new engine components that are available for FF, why don't we work at addressing the other availability issues.

-What about casting new blocks?
-Weber carbs? How about the addition of fuel injection? Throttle body Injection (TBI) would be a simple affordable addition. Take it one step farther, new intake manifolds (intakes are in short order anyway) that could incorporate multiport injection. Performance changes? Likely, but it will not be difficult to reach parity between the updated injected setup to the current carb'd versions. We're not trying to overcome different internal masses, rod ratio, compression etc.
-Connecting rods

We need to adapt and be more modern, without having to do a $10k+ engine converison or lose more entries to yet another new class. I'd like to see us update and not obsolete 40 years of history.

Yes, I understand that the supply of blocks is becoming problematical. Not a crisis yet, certainly, but there is a finite supply out there. The challenge to getting more blocks cast is that I understand Ford destroyed the patterns some years ago and that it is too difficult/too small a market/too whatever for foundries to gear up to cast more.

The real answer is to gradually open up the class to other engine options. Look at the Zetec. It is a $15,000 investment, but one that more and more folks are considering worth the price. In its 170+ hp pro version, the engines go 9,000 to 11,000 miles between $3500 replacement. Who knows how long the mechanically identical engines will go at the 144-ish hp they are permitted in Club racing? Add a restrictor plate to a Miata, Toyota or Honda 1600cc stock motor and who knows how long one might last at 115 hp. Surely a lot longer than the 20 or so hours (40 hours?) that a Kent will go between rebuilds. So maybe a $10,000 alternate FF engine that goes 5 or 10 times as far between rebuilds as the Kent might be worth it.

Is EFI in FF a possibility? Sure, as long as folks are willing to embrace it and not treat it like a red-headed family embarrassment. (BWT, this holds for the Pinto in FC and S2, as well.) And rods are free so long as they're ferrous and meet the size and weight restrictions (p. 196 of the 2007 GCR).

Let me say again that having these discussions is both necessary and positive, because without them we may not identify problem areas and come up with solutions before it is too late.

Stan

[thunderracing91]

What would it take to make the Kent last 8000 to 10,000 miles between builds? Regardless of what it does to HP etc etc etc. Internal mods, external mods etc etc??? What would have to be changed modified or whatever!?! Is it even possible to make that happen without getting too expensive? I am not an engine builder or fab man so thats why I am curious. I am still pretty new to FF and coming from shifterkarts and bikes so I am learning as much as possible guys!!

Andrew

[Daryl DeArman]

What would it take to make the Kent last 8000 to 10,000 miles between builds?

Answer:Less stress

Seriously, if you lower the revs, it will lower the HP (given the same torque) and will last longer. The issues then become enforcement and the costs of R&D that will be spent to increase the torque at that same lower rpm...

The question then becomes what do you mean by "last"? Are you asking what can be done to make the motor "last" longer without a component failure? "Last" without a noticeable horsepower loss?

I think great steps have been made, thanks to all those involved, to get parts manufactured and approved that will help on the longevity front. Those parts will eventually get stressed more (because they can take it), a new weak link will be exposed and other horsepower making wear items will have their life expectancy decreased.

[EYERACE]

ah ha.......club ford spec tires....that get changed frequently .....defeats the purpose......i'm the only one in the SEDiv years ago that voted against the CF spec tire rule......and watched the same thing happen here, people changing tires that yet had meat on them.....even though i did run one set all season....so i went back to FF and ran a lot of one-heat-cycle tires as much as 3 weekends and some free take offs......and won my class at some races, finished 3rd over all in SARRC in FF and won my region too. Hoosier never did, that first year, deliver on the promised purse either.

I'd really not care to run a hard FF tire when i'm on the track with FA/FC/FM etc .......why handicap myself just to have my mirrors more full more of the time? why have your budget dictated to you, when at the same time, you could have been faster too?

so in an effort to get others in CF SEDiv to have an interest to travel more [the excuse having been, "there's no CF down in florida, so why go?"]....and if you're reading this - see you in the 32F soon at maybe Roebling or Kershaw - an agreement was reached such that now the 32F is back in CF along with another car, even though i'd rather have stayed FF.....and so far no other CF have appeared.......the two floridians that registered CF for sebring has shrunk to one for lack of an engine.

qualifier rule? yes a multiweekend rule - that could be tracked via the log book - yes a choice of various spec tires? maybe

[racer27]

It is interesting that Stan posted a Picture of the $12,995 Banshee a few posts back. I've sat in the car, I've raced against it. I did not buy one, due to it being club specific, or being relegated to FS in SCCA. However the concept is similar to what I proposed at the start of this thread. Interesting point to note is that the Banshee can be run in CF/FF Power Tune, Or you can add the Aero bits (I don't believe one exists in this trim yet) and tune it to 150HP and be CFC Compatible. Same engine (Different state of tune) Same Chassis. Almost two cars for the price of one. A built in upgrade path is already factored into the initial purchase price.

I borrowed from this idea when I suggested that FD be powered by a restricted (but upgradeable) version of the FD legal power-plant. By using the same power-plants, the market for those supporting the F1000 Power-plant doubles in size. It allows for more healthy competition and reduces the spares inventory for suppliers and competitors. It also increases the appeal of the car, increases the size of the potential market. The car has an upgrade path to the next rung in the performance ladder built in.

How cool would it be to have FD & FD parts interchangable. Even items such are rear bodywork could be common between classed, making the eventual jump of an FD to FC Competitor easier.

Part of this comes down to marketimg. It is a common belief that wings & things are sexy. However, a winged car is not the best first race car. By offering FD in "Starter Trim", a form that can be upgraded without an engine swap makes the new car investment proposition much more attractive. For most of us, an engine swap (From 600 to 1000) may seem like a piece of cake (if chassis was engineered for it), but for newer participant, it can be intimidating.

Eliminate that intimidation by making the upgrade as simple as possible. One of 2 ways, Share engines between FD and FB or make sure that cars can be upgraded (From 600 to 1000 & Aero Bits) at a reasonable cost without re-engineering.

As for tires, the objective, IMHO should be that:

- they can last a full season a
- are hard enough that you can't take advantage of the wizzest suspension pieces out there
- are relatively cheap
- are common enough size that the mfg is not manufacturing them solely for a small class
- If rims & tires can be shared with another class(es) that would be ideal. Having class specific Wheel & Tire Sizes makes no econimic sense.

[Stan Clayton]

What would it take to make the Kent last 8000 to 10,000 miles between builds? Regardless of what it does to HP etc etc etc. Internal mods, external mods etc etc??? What would have to be changed modified or whatever!?! Is it even possible to make that happen without getting too expensive? I am not an engine builder or fab man so thats why I am curious. I am still pretty new to FF and coming from shifterkarts and bikes so I am learning as much as possible guys!!

Andrew

Good question, Andrew! Since my day job is to sit around and think about racing, I've actually gone around asking that basic question to several engine builders and engineers. However, if I screw something up in what follows, the fault is entirely mine and I'm confident those in the know will set the record straight.

As Quickshoe notes, the stresses experienced in a Kent engine, especially inherent in the stock valve train at high RPMs, preclude a longer Time Between Overhaul (TBO). A change in valves and/or follower geometry might help skip the ritual "valve job" between overhauls. How far optimal parts can take us is an unknown to me, but rest assured that I will check into it.

Other big factors are the clearance of the piston package in the bore and the bearing clearances. Engine builders routinely set the clearances for main and rod bearings so wide that if this was your street engine you'd be rebuilding it to keep from blowing it up. Only the dry sump pump keeps the metal bits from banging together. Meanwhile, the piston runs with 8-10 thousanths (or more?) clearance in the bore in the name of lower friction. And the rings are set up with the loosest possible tension to minimize drag. All of that means that the engine is almost "worn out" when it comes off the dyno. It is a delicate balance to send the customer an engine that is loose enough to make good power, but will hold together long enough to make him feel he's gotten his money's worth.

BTW, this should not be taken as an indictment of the engine builders. They build what the buyers want and what the rules permit, while over the years the rules have evolved to permit building a hand grenade FF engine with mainly stock parts.

Don't believe me? Take a look -- no, read carefully(!) the FF engine rules starting on page 193 of the 2007 GCR. Notice that there is no maximum displacement? No maximum bore? Over the years the engine rules evolved from "throw a crate motor in it and go racing" to "who can be cleverest with the stock parts". As a result we get 115-ish hp from a motor designed to make what, half that? The downside is that it needs a costly rebuild every 20-40 hours, depending on whom one asks.

Now let's contrast that with the Zetec. The Zetec is installed as a stock, brand new engine. Its bearing clearances are probably half that of a Kent race engine fresh off the dyno. With a dry sump pump's good oil pressure that means the bearing won't see any significant wear for thousands of miles instead of in just a few hours. Plus, the pistons sit in the bores with only about one-tenth the clearance of a Kent's or Pinto's. That means they have higher friction, yes, but they are also more firmly stabilized and hence don't see much wear. Ring tension is normal, as well, for long life with low leakage.

The Zetec's head is better, too. There are 4 valves for better higher RPM breathing. And the geometry of the overhead cams has the benefit of 35 years of development from the days of the 1950's pushrod British econobox tractor motor in your FF. As a result the valves go straight up and down in their guides and don't pound out their seats.

To bring this conversation full circle, what could be done to the Kent to dramatically extend its life? Surprisingly, I think the answers don't involve a loss of power. On the contrary, it may involve an INCREASE in power, while still permitting a much longer TBO, perhaps as long as the Zetec's. Here's how I would go about it:

1) Set minimum main and rod journal diameters (and bearing sizes!) to tighten up clearances. That prolongs the life of the lower end, though it does cost a couple of hp.

2) Set a maximum bore diameter to close up the piston clearance to about 5 thou for forged pistons (less for cast). That would shave off a few hp but stabilize the piston, leading to less piston wear, and probably double the piston life. It would also lead to longer ring life.

3) Free up the rockers to permit roller tips or alternate geometry to reduce side-thrust loads. I understand that it is this asymmetrical loading that pounds out the valve seats. This also recovers a few hp lost by tightening up the engine in 1 & 2 above.

4) And finally, open up the valves to permit any valve of the specified maximum diameter, perhaps even increase the diameter to permit better flow. With this measure it would be a snap to recover any hp lost through steps 1 & 2 above. After all, the Kent readily makes 175-ish hp in its GT version without any sacrifice in TBO once the internals are freed up. Dramatically increasing its TBO while maintaining 115-ish hp should be easy.

Stan

[jdp526]

From what I have read recently, engine reliability can be greatly increased in the Ford 1600/1800/2000 engines by changing out the rods, valves/keepers, and rockers with aftermarket parts designed for higher rpm limits.. And an increase in power can be obtained as a additional advantage.

I picked up a used 2.0l engine recently that I plan to build into a'cheater' motor for better reliability with a small increase in power to be used for solo and time trial events.

I would imagine the increase in life/reliability/power with aftermarket parts using tighter clearances would easily overcome the power increases gained with loose clearances that will decrease engine life.

[Larry]

The two largest cost drivers in a new FF are engine ($13,000) and gearbox ($8000). Shcoks are third, and may be as much as $6000. The key to reenergizing FF (and not merely "keep it alive") is to reduce acquisition cost for new cars. When looking for places to cut costs, you start with the major costs first. Ergo the look at bike engines and their combined gearbox if you are trying to figure out a way to reduce costs of a new formula car.

Regrettably, many of the folks that already own cars seem more interested in preserving their investment than changing the rules to encourage more participation. The very few folks who make chassis aren't making enough to replace attrition units, so the class will continue to decline UNLESS there are serious changes. If you want to keep racing the same few folks in the same few cars, then leave things the way they are.

Larry Oliver

[Moore3FF]

I have spent the last year working on converting my FF to motorcyle power and hope to run it in FS this year. I guess you could consider it a possible Formula D car. I plan on running it in full FF spec except for the motor. I went with a 1000 motor since that would be common with the DSR's and the F1000 comunity. If a Formula D class was made I would rather have a restricted 1 liter motor to make the performance level similiar to FF as oppossed to trying to squeze everything out of a 600 cc motor. I would think you could run a restricted 1 liter motor for a very long time and that was my main goal (reducing engine costs) when doing my conversion.

[Jim Garry]

The two largest cost drivers in a new FF are engine ($13,000) and gearbox ($8000). Shcoks are third, and may be as much as $6000. The key to reenergizing FF (and not merely "keep it alive") is to reduce acquisition cost for new cars. When looking for places to cut costs, you start with the major costs first. Ergo the look at bike engines and their combined gearbox if you are trying to figure out a way to reduce costs of a new formula car.

Regrettably, many of the folks that already own cars seem more interested in preserving their investment than changing the rules to encourage more participation. The very few folks who make chassis aren't making enough to replace attrition units, so the class will continue to decline UNLESS there are serious changes. If you want to keep racing the same few folks in the same few cars, then leave things the way they are.

Larry Oliver

Change is needed, that is generally agreed by all.

But the rush to MC power must be carefully looked at. 600 cc? Restricted 1000 cc? Open up the Kent to changes as discussed by Stan in post #62? Both MC and opened up Kent? Yeah, that needs to be discussed and researched also. Can both MC and Kent run together in a new FD class? Make the Kent slightly disadvantaged to MC power?

Lot's of questions. Not alot of research.

And importantly, can we make an engine change but maintain the current chassis rules? In this way, all the current FFs can join with the new FD class by making the engine/transmission swap regardless of the decision on engines.

Jim

[Stan Clayton]

Chris, during last year's discussion of alternate engines in FF the option of a restricted 1000cc engine was discussed. In the end, the majority wanted to stick with the unlimited 600cc option, but your approach remains very viable. I took this comparison chart from Sport Rider and plugged in the lines to show where 110 rwhp would be. Could you live with a rev limit of ~7500 RPMs? FYI, all of these engines make about 70 lbs-ft of torque at this RPM. Stan

PS - I meant to add that even though 7500 RPM may not sound as sexy as a 16,500 RPM 600cc engine, or even a 12,000 RPM FB engine, it isn't exactly tractor motor country. And all those wet sump/dry sump arguments in FB would be moot, as I don't think you could really hurt a bike motor at that low an RPM. It's not a bad idea...cheap, reliable and fast.

[Moore3FF]

I could live with a reduced rev limit. This would help with engine life and hopefully help to equal the playing field between older engines and the new ones that come out every year making more power and more power at higher revs.

[Rick Kirchner]

I've heard the engine/gearbox argument before and I'm not buying it. As Stan pointed out, it's the long term evolution of the rules that has led to what could be considered exorbitant engine costs. Had the FF community migrated to a more modern motor years ago and had the rulemakers been a bit smarter the engine costs could be much, much lower.

As archaic as they are in basic design, there's a lot to be said for the VW Type 1 style motor. Every part is available aftermarket from multiple manufacturers, so you have competition there. New head and cylinder designs have solved many of the problems associated with the actual VW design. You could probably build a decent pure-race Type 1 out of all aftermarket parts for $6K. There's also the fact that you don't need a water cooling system, and damage is frequently relegated to just one cylinder or just one side of the motor. Unfortunately, it's also probably just too close to being a FV. On the other hand if FV went totally vintage (horrors!) one could replace the whole FV/F500/FF entry level mess with ONE class, and if it was a modern, large displacement (2.0 to 2.3 L) VW design in a more modern chassis that would be a pretty interesting package.

A brand-new LD-200 in single unit quantities is $5625 using today's lousy exchang rates (not $8K), an FTR, which has the same external envelope as the LD but is MUCH beefier inside, is $9390. One has to wonder with the emergence of EMCO, Ricardo, Quaife, Pankl, and Elite in competition with Hewland and Webster, as well as Weismann, that there couldn't be a good deal out there if one specified a competiton for a mandated box.

I think shocks are probably the hardest item to both police and maintain cost control. Limit them to non-adjustable, and folks will just buy lots of shocks - that's what NASCAR guys do. Limit them to one type, and folks will get very crafty in cheating the shock llike in showroom stock. Maybe the thing to do here is spec a very simple, purely hydraulic shock that's easy to tear down and thus identify that the correct parts are inside - or - engineer a solution where the shocks aren't such a huge part of the overall equation.

The original FF concept had a junkyard motor. I'll wager one can buy a junkyard Zetec for much less than a bike motor - for no other reason than the fact that there are a lot more crashed Foci out there. It's true the bike motor is lighter and at a higher state of tune, but it was not engineered to go 100K miles. So a bike motor is cheaper than a race-prepped motor, but no way will it be cheaper than something built in the millions.

But the important discussion here should really be about something similar to the Banshee chassis concept, and overall simplification. Because of the relatively open rules of the FF and FC classes outside of the engines, The cars have become very complex. Complexity costs. Customization costs. Parts count costs. Take a look at a modern FF/FC upright and realize that none of the changes between that assembly and a similar item from 1972 made the racing better - it just made the cars lighter and marginally faster. Just look at floating rotors - only made necessary by trying to shave a few onces with aluminum hats. Besides the higher cost of the hat, there's $50/corner just in the special rotor bolts! That has little to do with learning to drive a more tunable chassis, they just shortend up braking distances some more, which makes passing tougher.

In order to reduce costs for the chassis - which is in actuality the highest cost item on the car - one needs to look at using parts from production cars where possible without getting into a matter of false economy by specing out something that is ill-suited to start with. Where production parts won't do then we should look at commonality with other types of racing - stuff like wide five hubs, wilwood brakes, etc, rather than re-inventing the wheel and optimizing it for our use. One could even have a limited, approved set of the major expensive parts that are cost controlled and awarded through competition. And lastly, one needs to look at techniques for lowering the fabrication costs in the frame - The amount of welding and hand-fitting is extensive - are there ways to reduce this? If one can't do that then offshore sources beckon.

This is one place where the dreaded Enterprises could actually help by being a broker to source parts at a higher quantity than any one manufacturer could do on his own, with limited pass-thru costs. But unfortunately, asking enterprises to support classes that might cut into FSCCA/Spec Racer sales would be a tough thing to do.

[Stan Clayton]

I understand that one way the designer of the Banshee reduces costs is to use Jetta/Golf front uprights on all four corners. That harks back to the early days of FF when as many parts as practical were sourced from production cars (the front uprights on my '75 Zink came from a Type 3 VW). A little "cleaner" approach might be to use Toyota MR2 or Mazda Miata uprights. These photos show a Solo II A-Mod that used all four uprights from a Toyota MR2, complete with the entire OEM brake package. Here is the front right corner.



The rear of the car has a spool with half-shafts from the MR2 going out to MR2 rear uprights.



Nice clean design. One could do the same thing with Miata parts even cheaper today, and they would be just as good and are a lot more widely available.

Stan

[S Lathrop]

Rick;

You make some good points.

From my perspective some of you points are not quite valid but only because of new realities of manufacturing. With modern CNC equipment we can make parts for way less than we can aquire and modify production items.

When I started building FFs we used a large number of production car parts. When I was doing Z10s I was able to use front uprights, brake rotors and claipers, the entire rear drive line from the transmission to the wheel from a late model Bug abd Fastback. For the Z16, I used Spindles, bearings, rotors, and the entire drive line from the trans out from a Rabbit.
Swift used a lot of VW parts as well.

Some production car parts that look adiquate going in prove to be problemetic over time. The spec racers had some problems with stock components and Swift has problems with some stock components. Today some of the stock components we used in the Z10 are no longer safe to use. And ICP builds VW rear brake drums for the same reason.

Over time we were able to make our own parts that were a better fit at a lower cost. Today, it is less expensive to build what you need than adapt production parts. The brake rotor and aluminum hat deal came about because the alternative was no longer available.

Having just finished a new FC, I have a good idea about what it costs to do cars in the volume that SCCA racing is likely see.

Years ago in England, formula Renault started with what I thought was a good idea. Renault sold a box of parts from which you made a race car. This is what FV was/is, a race car built from a box of parts. In the Renault box were engine, transmission, other dirve line and components. The manufacturers then had to build a car using the parts.

Another idea, that would not involve a large investment, would be for some "group" to come up with a standardized design for major components such as uprights, bell housings, and other drive line components. The drawings would be published and you would build a race car and incorperate standard design components. Let the market decide if every one wanted to single source the various components, maybe get them built in China, or every builder do his own. But the parts would still be interchangeable. Stock racing is somewhat like this, in that many of their suspension components are interchangeable with early Camero.

Stan: Some of the stuff in those pictures might be a little marginal if you were to up the tire performance very much.

[S Lathrop]

Several have asked why the bike engines.

To answer that question, look at the success of bike engine powered race cars. Legandscars, dwarf cars, mini sprints, just to name a few.

Look at what the 4 cylinder, water coolde bike engine has done for DSR. a decade ago the class was on the chopping block. Along comes a good source of engines as well as production cars that are reasonably competitive and prices about right. Recently the class has enjoyed a resurgance because Lee Stohr was able to market a better car that was a winner available to all. Not only that, the performance of the DSR became impresive.

After I spent a year working with a Stohr customer, I became sold on the MC engine package. I just hate leaning over fenders. Thus I have become a big fan of MC powered formula cars.

[Stan Clayton]

Stan: Some of the stuff in those pictures might be a little marginal if you were to up the tire performance very much.

Yep...I wouldn't want to circuit race those a-arms!

[Rick Kirchner]

Steve - I knew the CNC thing could throw a monkey wrench in the economics - that's why I'm as much in favor of the "box of parts" concept as the "production parts" concept. Standardize and simplify the uprights, hubs, rotors, bearings, halfshafts, and calipers and there's probably a 50% savings per corner over everybody doing their own thing.

What can be done with the basic chassis? Is it possible to reduce costs by going to fewer, square tubes with simple, flat stressed composite skins? Maintain the repairability of tube frame while getting some of the stiffness and safety of a tub car without the long term problems of tub cars in a club world.

One thing that keeps me at arm's length on the bike motors is the lack of a consistent supply. With car motors, when it's time to re-build, it can be re-built at reasonable cost. If it's cheaper to replace, there's certainly a pile of them in the junkyard. But let's say in 2018 I buy a 2008 FD wirh a 600cc bike motor that was retired to a barn with a soft motor. My options are now to re-build the bike motor (potentially as expensive as any 4-cam race motor re-build) or to integrate a completely different 600cc motor - a much larger task even if the chassis easily acommodates it, and not something the entry level guy might want to tackle.

Another point, but harder to measure, is if americans keep maiming and killing themselves on these things sooner or later the insurance companies will speak loudly, and the supply could drop dramatically.

[Charles Warner]

This is Deja Vu all over again. Access the F1000/FB threads. Same song different band.

Deciding on spec tires isn't going to reduce the cost of racing. It simply means someone will put on new spec tires every race (even if there's only a 5% difference between used and new - they'll do it!) - AND, spend the same amount of money to win, just in different areas. Maybe the cars will be so spec that the extra funding is spent on driver coaches and motor coaches, and gazillion dollars trailers, etc. Do we have spec trailers next? We've already seen a thread in the F1000 section where people are worried about the "new" motors that will produce more power. I know Sean says his motor cost will be $375 a year. No offense, Sean, but I doubt that will provide a motor tuned to the limit of the rules. Someone will pony up for several brand new Dean engines every year. I'll say it again, there is cheap racing. There ain't no cheap winning.

To say FF is no longer an entry level class is, IMO, bollocks. An entry level class, again IMO, provides a safe and relatively inexpensive venue to learn the craft and develop the skills. It does not have to provide for being nationally competitive from the get-go. Used FFs are available for a lot less than $25k. Complete setups with trailers and support equipment. Are they as fast as the top-o'-the-line current cars? No. They ain't supposed to be. So. please don't say there are no opportunities to get into the open wheel sport for reasonable costs. At that level of racing a Kent motor can easily last two years (or more) with only head freshening. The costs do not have to be as high as are touted. They can be - but they don't have to be. And, that statement can be made in reference to any class either conceptual or extant.

Plus, I happen to agree with those that see any such move as a direct threat to FF and the rather extensive investments in time and money many loyal racers have made. Any new class in this area will irreparably harm FF, just as we'll see (IMO) FB hurt FC.

[racer27]

Until I saw an F1000 in action for the first time, I was in the camp that these are race cars and race cars are powered by car engines. However, after seeing and hearing one of these in action, I've become convinced that MC engines are the way to go. Sex sells, The MC Engine in my opinion is higher tech, almost has a F1 (sexy) sound, especially with a semi auto transmission. Make the package easily upgradeable to FB trim (adding the extra the sexiness factor of wings) and you have a very marketable vehicle.

I also like the smaller packaging of a MC Motor. It would be nice to have most of the engine/trans spares in my trailer replaced with a spare engine/tranny and a selection of sprockets. The unit is small enough to be manually handled by two people. Small enough to fit in the back of a mid sized SUV. Easier to ship for a rebuild (or to second owner if rebuild does not make economic sense).

Question: Does it make sense to base a class on junk yard sourced motors? I don' think that is wise as the Supply may not always be enough to meet demand. Question not only applies to the MC engine but any Auto engines being considered. I know that Banshee went the route they did, since all the components are avail via multiple sources, as new. No junk yard donors needed. Nice to be able to drop an assembly line fresh motor into a new car.

Are any of the engines under consideration avail as new? Will they be avail as new long term? Not that new sourcing is a deal breaker, but it is nice to have that option, should used power-plants become unavailable.

I believe if a $5000 Engine/Tranny Combo is made avail, the manufacturers are starting on a firm foundation to bringing a moderate tech, reasonably quick, modern open wheeler to the market for low $20's. At that price, I believe they will find buyers, in particular if the package is upgradeable to the next level for reasonable cost. The club gets the entry level class to attract the Karters and first timers. These folks, hopefully will be life long contributing members, helping to keep the open wheel spirit alive.

[Wren]

As an alumni of several FSAE cars. I would love to see a 600cc bike motor powered, no wing class. Please make it compatible with converting a FF(as I do not believe FB is compatible with FC without major aero upgrades), even keep the FF wheels, track, wb, everything.

I'll be the first one in line to build one.

As for spec tires- let the people who know more than me decide.

[S Lathrop]

Stan: For sure, but the attachment points wern't much better.

Rick:

The basic frame is not a big cost item. Example, I am selling my frames for $4000, fully welded, with all the suspension and engine frame mounts. But the customer would have to pay me another $2000 to add all the finishing details. That $1000 to $2000 would be involved in any frame no matter how much you simplify. The labor to complete a car is the killer.

The best way to calculate the cost of a car is to count the number of joints and multiply by your shop rate. Then take the weight of the frame and multiply by $2 to $3 for the material cost. Joints in round tubing are actually easier to make. Welding is done by the inch. Square tubing is a lot more inches of welding.

Tube frames have proven to be very durable. Look the age of some FF frames. I am selling parts for cars I built in 1974 and those cars are not really old by FF standards.

Most of the recient designs of FF/FC have detachable engine bays. This makes changing power plants easy. If F600 sticks with FF rules, then we already have a good supply of entry level cars for F600. New cars will be added at the top end but in time they will shift down in cost to provide good entry level cars.

The bottom line is that this is all hand labor by highly skilled people making reasonable wages. Until you have done it you can not imagine how much labor is involved in building a car. Rebuilding a car is nothing like building that same from new parts. In a new car, I guarantee that nothing fits exactly right the first time.

You buy a new Stohr F1000 "turn key" and you may spend several thousand getting the car to a truely race winning car. There is no way that the customer car can ever be delivered at the same level of preparation that goes into a national championship winning car. If you were honest that level of preparation might double the price of the car.

As to engines: in todays marked and it has been true for some time, new engines have been equal to or cheeper than rebuilding. It is also true that the bike guys rebuild all the time. The one thing about basing a class around current bike engines is that the engines will evolve as the bike market changes. The thing that is killing FF and FC is that there was no painless way to change engines. Today you can buy a brand new F1000 engine for less than a rebuild on a Pinto or Kent engine.

[carnut169]

Question: Does it make sense to base a class on junk yard sourced motors? I don' think that is wise as the Supply may not always be enough to meet demand. Question not only applies to the MC engine but any Auto engines being considered. I know that Banshee went the route they did, since all the components are avail via multiple sources, as new. No junk yard donors needed. Nice to be able to drop an assembly line fresh motor into a new car.

As optimistic as I like to be I don't believe we will ever have more FB's or FD's than squids who wad up bikes. Add in the guys who buy and strip them... I don't think supply will be an issue.

I posted a link to an Ebay add for new GSXR600s for $1700. These were 0 mile motors. I know Matt and others believe a builder should go through the motor but I know guys (I'm one) who beat on them for years (just stockers) w/o any issues. The issues arise when lubrication is lost or they are built to beyond design.
I've down-shifted accidently 2x in a row resulting in 14,000+ rpm w/o throwing a rod. These are robust little motors.


I believe the main issue in a class designed for cost savings/ entry level racing is tires as others have eluded. Crack that nut and your on the way.

(BTW- I know I'm going to be at a disadvantage w/ my 04 motor. I've also got a 11 year old car! So what? I raced an entire season on a set of 8 & 10's. I raced an entire season on a used motor... and was fast. 98+ VD fast. Thats about $1,000 for tires/ motor/ trans for a YEAR. There's your cost savings. )

[Wren]

The issues arise when lubrication is lost or they are built to beyond design.
I've down-shifted accidently 2x in a row resulting in 14,000+ rpm w/o throwing a rod. These are robust little motors.

I'll also throw in a vote for the durability of these motors. I've seen multiple people learn to drive a clutch on one, no problem. Ours last for dozens(50+) of dyno pulls, then the chassis dyno, and then lots of hours driven by people who have no clue. We tore the pan off of one in a crash, shut the motor down afterwards, put a new pan on, and it ran.

We usually expect to pay about $1000 for a used, low mile 600cc CBR600F4i motor. You can do better if you are willing to wait, or strip one out of a bike.

I'm interested in how feasible it would be to buy a new bike, ride the break-in period, and part the bike out. Plastic is very expensive, so I think it might work.