I'll build an FD next fall... having helped start FB, I can do it again with FD.
I'll build an FD next fall... having helped start FB, I can do it again with FD.
Are you referring to 500's as overgrown karts ?Originally Posted by S Lathrop
I wasn't aware karts had suspension.
Try making your point without insulting a fellow Formula class.
F600 #27
The class started out without suspension. As far as I know it was Ed Zink who first came up with suspension for the front end of the F400 that circumvented the rules as they were originally written. I had a FV customer who called after a weekend in which he flipped his FV 2 different times in a week end while trying to pass a F400.
My point was more that F400 did not really become the new entry level formula class. It never became what FV or FF were at their best. And in the beginning it was a cart on steroids.
Yes, from what I can tell the rest of the world considers our FV a vintage car. Congrats on your UK win, BTW!
Maybe, but there are so many aftermarket sources of VW parts for the dune buggy and off-road crowd that I question parts availability being a major issue for FST. Likewise with parts durability...those 30 year old VW parts are doing fine on my CSR.For manufacturer to get involved where you want to turn out 50 to 100 cars a year over several years Formula First will have significant parts problems. I also think that the suspension is being asked to perform will beyond any reasonable design parameters. Problem is that no one has setout to work up a similar box of parts for another formula car class.
That is a very good point, Steve! When I was down at Doug Learned's CNC facility the other day one of his machines was spitting out complex diesel fuel pump parts one every three minutes. They literally dropped down into the bin, all polished looking and everything. And those were out of some unobtanium steel. Aluminum uprights are a snap...and Doug already has most common formula and sports racer upright designs in the computers' memories. I think one would have a hard time finding a cheaper source than that!Given the manufacturing capabilities that are available to day, I think we are better off specifying a design for certain components and have every one build to a single set of drawings. This would put us where a chassis builder is when he starts a new FV. Things that are durable in a design could be standardized such as uprights, spindles, drive shafts, steering racks, etc. The individual chassis would consist of frame, suspension links, bodies, etc. Stock car racing at the lower levels is not too much different. For years there has been a defacto standard of VW Rabbit drive line components for American made FF and FC chassis. In the Grand-Am, certain components are common to all cars and built by a single supplier. There might be some production car components that will do but I think that those days are behind us.
I agree about motorcycle engines. After all, newer ones are making 150+ hp/l or better...more than an all-out Atlantic engine at 10% of the cost. But I do have reservations about the 600cc, though. To make their power, they are stressed to unbelievable levels. How reliable will they be at 16,000+ RPMs? Would FD be better off with a restricted 1000cc engine option?As to power plants, I think that 600 cc bikes are the natural. As I work my through the F1000/FB design, I find that the savings in using the bike engine were more than I first thought. We are going to learn a lot with the FB class. There are some really successful bike powered race cars in the US. Mini Sprints and Legands cars come to mind.
I've drawn a line at 110 hp to illustrate the concept, but any reasonable power level or max RPM could be chosen. At 8000-ish RPMs the engines would still sound great and there would almost certainly be no oiling issues with the attendant need for the dry sump one commonly sees in FB. Of course, for the lunatic fringe unrestricted 600cc engines could be retained as an option.
The CRB and BoD agree with you, Steve, which is why the Runoffs are held to 24 classes and races while the number of National classes is being allowed to float. From talking with BoD members, I get the impression that 24 was chosen as the number because it was the number going in...but that they may reduce that to 21 or even 18 at some time in the future.I for one think that the main reason we have so many classes is that we have not hit on the classes that will have significant followings. In stead of limiting the number of classes, just reduce the number of classes that go the the run offs to say 15 or 18. Then let the best classes survive.
Yes...and from recent postings it is clear that the FC guys want to go faster...The FC and FM grouping comes to mind as a very unhappy situation. Either the FM should get through the corners with the FC or the FC should get down the streights with the FM.
Stan
Last edited by Stan Clayton; 12.02.07 at 11:13 AM.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Forget it Bill
Forget it Bill it doesn't have sequential shifting, a bike motor and isn't part of the master plan. I personally like them and the guys running them are fast as can be. The F500's, FF's, FV's, FC, CF, CFC and FST's all played very well together at the last East West Challenge weekend. We had large fields and we didn't need anyone telling us our cars were obsolete. Hmmm maybe we just need our own race weekend to put this bunk to bed.
You guys are all so funny! The holy grail and the fountain of youth will be found long before you ever achieve cheap racing.
FC drivers don't necessarily want to go faster. If we have to stay in group 2, then we need more HP so we aren't savaged by bad drivers with lots of HP.
Those machines that pop out parts every 3 minutes are very expensive and need to pop out parts every three minutes to pay for themselves and their tooling. I doubt they can be kept busy poping out parts for 50 or 100 racecars.
Having raced FV, FF, FC for over 25 years, I can attest that FST is very inexpensive to race. I have also decided that while many say they want "cheap" racing, they then qualify their requirements so that it cannot be cheap. If someone wants competitive "cheap" racing then buy a FST car and come racing. Once you start adding the "real" restriction (real tires, real transmission, real engine, real shifter, real suspension, real ?, etc) you are eliminating any "real" chance of the racing being cheap.
PS .... Cheap racing has spec tires.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
Joe, since all those different kinds of cars played so well together, I take it you wouldn't object to a few more variants added to the mix, eh?
Doug, be careful of the gauntlets you throw down...I think scientists recently discovered the Fountain of Youth.
There are a couple of threads where a number of FC drivers energetically endorsed going faster. Besides, I noticed that the first thing you did to your Zetec was uncork it and revert to the pro map...
You are correct that those expensive CNC machines need to do steady work to pay for themselves. Fortunately, Doug Learned is smart enough to know that and keeps them busy popping out diesel fuel pump parts and other industrial widgets 18 hours a day. The racing bits are the "fun part" that he gets done in just a few days a month. Doug bought a couple of dedicated racing machine tools recently (I saw an align-borer (for the cam towers) and another small machine...?) for the heads, but the market for the ally heads goes way beyond SCCA. Roundy-round racers, land speed freaks, hydroplane junkies and road racers from around the world are waiting in line.
Doug also has a 5-axis tool on order. It will allow him to do the finish porting work in-house, instead of having to ship the heads out for that step. The machine will have to do lots of other work to pay for itself, of course...same as his existing stock of tools, but it will be there when the wizzy bits need some attention.
Finally guys, this isn't about "cheap" racing. None of us are so naive to believe in such a thing. Rather, it is about discovering where economies can be had and make sense. Standardizing parts makes sense. Industrial-scale production makes sense. Using mass produced parts within their design parameters makes sense (Zetec vs. Pinto...anyone?). That is a worthy "holy grail" goal in my opinion.
Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
And has not been that way for about 20 years now...but hey, lets hold onto the past like expensive, underpowered engines.
It appears I scratched a raw nerve.
The point I was making was that F??? has not caught on as the entry level class that FV and FF are even today. It is a valid class and it has a significant following but over 20 years it has not displaced any of the much older classes.
To me the point is to find the next FF/FV entry level class for the modest budget participant. Something that will rival Miata based cars for participation.
That class concept will need something new. I think we are looking for something that combines the sophistication of FF, the simplified parts source of FV, and the overall cost structure of F???. Isn't this the discussion we are having?
This might be a lot of fun to collectively design a class on the net. Even submit drawings. It might be a fun education for every one even if nothing comes of it.
Well said, Steve!
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
OK, so lets say you find the perfectly economical formula racecar. Would anyone want to race it? Let me say that it is my feeling that the top FV drivers are the best drivers in SCCA. But I would rather race a Yugo than a FV. It just holds no interest for me personally. I don't kow if you have all noticed, but Formula cars mostly have wings and Fuel Injection.
Once you get a car and get it competitive, the cost isn't really that bad. The expenses are tires and $500 entry fees at Laguna Seca so you can sit in the pit lane for most of the race while they fish people who drive over their heads and the people they hit out of the sand.
I think Steve hit the goal on the head with his statement above. Originally I was thinking a continuation of latest several generations FF's retooled to accept a less expensive cycle motor (600 or 1000, makes no difference at this point of discussion) would make sense. This left the upgrade path open to those running FF now.
However. in looking at prices of new FF rollers (I think I saw $38,500 for Piper), I now see that does not make economic sense. If you deduct $4K for FF tranny and add $4,000 back in for the Cycle Engine Tranny and combo, you are still above what I think the market will bare.
I'd think you'd have to start out with a clean sheet of paper (Just like the Banshee) with the focus on:
1. Min initial costs down (We need new cars comin in each year).
2. Max safety (Cars are safe already, but I'm sure some lessions have been learned)
3. Min ongoing/operating costs
4. Max durability/longevity
5. Max Sex Appeal
6. FF level overall performance
7. Consider simplicity if to be offered in DIY Kit Form
Both design and manufacturing tools available to builders today have improved. Even the web and Email dramatically facilitate collaboration and research. Lessons have been learned on how to make parts simpler and easier to produce. Additional lessons can be learned by watching F1000 develop.
AMBROSE BULDO - Abuldo at AOL.com
CURRENT: Mid Life Crisis Racing Chump/Lemons Sometime Driver (Dodge Neon)
CURRENT: iKart Evo Rotax 125 Kart
GONE: CITATION 87/93 FC - Loved that car
GONE: VD RF-85FF , 1981 FIAT Spider Turbo
I happen to agree with you on the quality of FV drivers as a group. I still recommend FV as the best place to start if your budget is limited. If you can win in FV you can win in most anything.
The exercise is to see if we can find the "perfectly economical formula racecar" that people want to race. If we can't, then we can't. Nothing really lost. You have problems with FV but in its day there was nothing better, as was FF some years later. And maybe that is lost forever. But it may be worth the effort to see.
You also bring up a very important point: the cost/value of an SCCA event. Look at FC in the Eastern half of the country. 75 cars at 2 races in the old Central Division region on the same weekend. That is a strange definition of a dying class. Maybe it says the same thing about Club racing you just said. Both races were SCCA sanctioned events. I think this topic is way off topic for this thread.
If you did it right...absolutely! I'd race a car like Chris Moore's Lola FF conversion in a heartbeat, even if it were restricted back in power from the stock 150 hp.
Now Doug, in SCCA that's not even close on either count...I don't kow if you have all noticed, but Formula cars mostly have wings and Fuel Injection.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Here are some pics from this season: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.
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
http://www.frcca.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2035
http://www.frcca.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2029
http://www.frcca.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2016
http://www.frcca.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2054
http://www.frcca.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2070
http://www.frcca.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2083 - 2 banshee's in this pic. Also check out 3 seater!
http://www.frcca.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2162
http://www.frcca.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2165
http://www.frcca.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2175 - close up
http://www.frcca.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2285
I am not suggesting that this is "FD" but just posting to illistrate how using mass produced components can dramaticially reduce costs.
I'm was also thinking about the cost. What would be the next step up in terms of the cost/value for a NEW Formula car? FSCCA? Price disparity between that next level and FD needs to be large enough be percieved as a value.
AMBROSE BULDO - Abuldo at AOL.com
CURRENT: Mid Life Crisis Racing Chump/Lemons Sometime Driver (Dodge Neon)
CURRENT: iKart Evo Rotax 125 Kart
GONE: CITATION 87/93 FC - Loved that car
GONE: VD RF-85FF , 1981 FIAT Spider Turbo
"Now Doug, in SCCA that's not even close on either count"
The formula classes you speak of were started when Formula Cars didn't have wings and had carbs. We are talking about a new class of Formula cars. If you plan to build them without wings and with carbs, maybe you could call it Formula Anachronism. If you don't want wings and fuel injection, then what is wrong with the classes now available?
how about a combo ?
from Steve:
To me the point is to find the next FF/FV entry level class for the modest budget participant. Something that will rival Miata based cars for participation.
and the FRCCA's. Banshee (as a roller).
Use the Banshee chassis (maybe in kit form? (8K kit?) combined with a 1600 or 1800 Miata built to SM specs.
The Miata guys like the engines, there are plenty of builders that know the rules for them and they seem to last along time. It is a known entity for all racers, maybe we could get some crossover from guys who are tired of doing body repair?
can sell it as "learn to race in SM and then take your engine and 'build a REAL RaceCar'"
that give a lower entry level price since the guy already has the Miata engine and knowledge of how to maintain it. I would be willing to buy kits and assemble them for guys who just wanted to drop their engine into a chassis.
use a hewland MK9? what other options are there for a gearbox?
Not my favorite choice, but maybe a 'spec' gearbox non-hewland/staffs/webster. There are a lot of non formula racers that are intimidated by real gearboxes and having to acquire multiple ratios and learning how to change them.
Hmm, my first cars were FV and I didn't have any trans issues other than short-box or long-box? (and split case for Daytona). How about a VW IRS box?? is that the gearbox used for FST?
this would overcome the hesitation and stigma (by newbies and the unwashed) of using VW air-cooled engines.
I know and respect the skills of FV drivers, having been one myself, but when I mention FV to non-racers as an entry level way to go racing (and some racers too), one of the first reactions is something like 'Volkswagen? ugh, you must be kidding." Clearly, the image in their mind is of Herbie and the bugs of the 60's -> old school.
the other tie in would be with Mazda. They already own a lot of classes in SCCA: SM, FM, IT7, Spec7, Miata Cup, Pro Mazda. Just add another one to their listMaybe they would support an 'entry level' formula car series to feed their Pro Mazda series???
Of course this will be shot down because is would compete with Enterprises efforts.
Stan,
I wholeheartedly disagree! Look closely at the comments from the vast majority that are concentrating on costs. These same guys don't want to incur any future development costs either. Just like the FB crowd, they will want to make the injitial investment in the conversion and have a fixed entity without the obvious costs of continued development. Yes, they want cheap racing - plain and simple. The FB guys don't want engine development. What's next? No suspension or shock improvement? No data systems? As you have alluded, racing is not cheap. We have pie-in-the-sky racers who look at the initial costs of a M/C engine as being cheap. What happens when the fully race prepped M/C is stuck in an FB or an FD and makes 25 more hp than the initial cadre envisioned?
Then we have the conceptual issue of an "entry level formula car." Just exactly what is that? IMO it means a relatively inexpensive car (relative to the cars that are nationally competitive, that is) that a prospective racer can try to see if he likes the genre. By (my) definition this car should be what was once called a "regional car." These cars are availabe all day long for (relatively) little money - both CF and CFC. No development needed or re-engineering. Are we really naive enough to expect a manufacturer such as Steve Lathrop to develop and make a car that is to be an introductory machine and, as such, will be passed on to another prospective racer in a couple of seasons, thereby serving the needs of multiple racers? I would posit that Steve would not entertain building a car that would not be less than fully and nationally competitive, and he would continue to create upgrades and fixes for as long as the cars were raced. That leads to increased (continued) costs. Yes, these issues can be addressed by making the entire class a spec class. My, how history can repeat itself.
We all (should) know that the majority of the racers that want to see these cars appear are not interested in an entry level car but a race car in which they can be nationally competitive from the get-go and not have to "keep up with the Andrettis."
To me the older FF is the perfect entry level formula car: easy to work on, introduction to racing suspensions and gearboxes (anyone that can't change gears in a Hewland needs to play elsewhere), excellent conceptual introduction to the genre, and availability of a knowledge base and parts. A Kent engine (1.6 or 2.0) can easily last many years with minimum maintenance. (Yes, a full-fledged national rebuild from Steve or Sandy or Jay might cost a pretty penny but we are talking entry level here, remember?) This level of FF or FC is about the cheapest form of established formula car racing we have other than FV. Of course, if the real goal is a M/C based car capable of winning the Runoffs in FF then . . . . . . and does anyone really think we can really achieve (dare I use the word?) parity? As we have proven in other exercises, that never will occur and someone who has invested a lot of time and money will be disenfranchised in some way.
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing
'Cause there's bugger-all down here on earth!
Solving the right problem.
I am sure this notion has been posted before somewhere in this mile long thread, but to be honest I am too busy doing a ground up on my race car to be bothered with reading it from the start, so forgive me if I am restating that which has already been said.
I believe the decline in numbers of those interested in getting into an open wheeled class has little to do with whether we have the "right" entry level formula car and much more to do with the general decline in interest here in North America with open wheeled racing. If you doubt this assertion, just look at the attendance at any of the open wheeled races around the country. There were more people at the US Grand Prix at Watkins Glen when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's than at any current IRL event with the exception of Indy and Indy is an event unto itself. Don't even ask about champ car attendance.
Everyone involved in formula racing in SCCA (or at least FF racing in SCCA) dreams of the glory days of FF when grids of 40+ FF's was the norm. Well, I believe the answer is not in the next great class designed by all of the best minds in SCCA.
I do believe there is a finite (and declining) number of people interested in formula car racing and each time we add another new class in SCCA (that is going to capture the imagination of all the latent formula racers standing on the sidelines just waiting for a really cheap, really cool, really modern race car), well I think we just dilute that which we have already going.
I agree with many that updating FF with a modern engine that went 10,000 miles between swaps and cost $3-4K to replace would help the grid counts in FF a fair amount and even though the Zetec/Pinto conversion in FC has not been painless, I think it is a model to follow, make mapping and restriction such that the new cars are on an equal footing with the best old cars and over time you will get a conversion to lower cost racing. I also believe hard compound tires like the American Racer #133 the Club Ford guys run in SF Region would also help as some of the front running CF guys get as many as 3-4 races between sets of tires and they cost $500/set.
I totally disagree that a brand new car/class is the answer. The success of FF through the years has created a stockpile of FF chassis that are competitive in the right hands. Cut the cost of operating during the season (engine rebuilds and tires) and you will get as many "latent" drivers that are undecided as you are likely to get.
As far as energizing a whole new generation of racers that are either not racing or racing something else like SRF or Spec Miata and getting them to jump into formula cars, just because you came up with a new design? Well, on that score I believe you are merely exercising your creative nature on the wrong problem.
Now I am going back down to the garage and start taking each corner apart, everything needs to be checked twice before I start reassembling everything when the engine comes back from Arnie.
Charles - I disagree with your broad brushed comment about the "FB guys don't want engine development". And we certainly are not "pie in the sky".
Really Charles, I don't know where the blazes you are coming from.
For FB, we've continued our initial rule forming group to massage the rules - particularly the engine ones. One of our primary concerns is that we are hearing rumblings that SCCA thinks our tube frame cars are too fast, and therefore unsafe. And that, along with the yearly change in engines that some believe will occur, has become just as important to our discussions. In our group, we have differing viewpoints on a few items, but we are faithfully working out compromises that we believe will benefit the growth. It's our class - let us figure out what is a reasonable ruleset within all the competing variables.
The Kent and Pinto (like the VW air-cooled engines) might work for old guys, but not for very many of the younger people. It's time for something new at the entry level.
In all these cost discussions, we have not included the assembly time and money. This cost is not the same for all future drivers. Many of us will opt to build a car out of a "kit" (as I have). I'll bet I can build a new decent FD car (with 600cc motorcycle power) for $20K.
Rob,
It's comments like these that unnerve me. It is not your class. It is a class, one of many, that is controlled and administered by the SCCA. The comments I've seen that state anyone that installs an engine that does not fit your desires (I.e. the Ducatti Desmo engine) will be relegated to illegality by your (plural) forthcoming edicts seem, to me, pretty arrogant. Have any of these ideas or future restrictions been presented to the Comp Board for consideration? I haven't seen any requests for input. Has the Club actually put out something that says they think the cars are too fast (rumblings aside?) Until the Club enacts any changes the racers who wish to upgrade their engines to a 2008 spec can do so without fear as long as they build according to the rules that are in effect. If you guys are so worried about this potentiality why was that not considered in the initial proposal? As Kevin Firlein has stated, a blind man could have seen that coming.
BTW, Rob, as for engine development, you guys just want to limit it so your investments will hold their values. I understand that desire, but it isn't in the rulebook yet. It isn't hard to do what you are trying to do. My whole point is to get off your collective backsides and make the proposals so as to get the changes in effect before 2009 comes around. It's probably already too late for 2008. You know as well as I do that getting all of the FB guys to agree on this is like herding cats. Someone needs to get the ball rolling. Submit a proposal to the Club and let the process proceed.
The Kent and Pinto (like the VW air-cooled engines) might work for old guys, but not for very many of the younger people. It's time for something new at the entry level.
The inference to age is really confusing. The 2.0 liter engine works quite well for both Dave W. and Coello. Is there a correllation to age that I'm missing. Are you saying they are too cool or smart or good to be seen driving a car with a Kent/Pinto engine? Or are you saying the younger types can't really handle a non-syncro gearbox. I guess it's really more about image than racing. And, please, we are not talking about entry level machinery here. We are talking about full blown national level competitive cars, and there will always be someone who will spend way more money than any of us think is reasonable just to win.
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing
'Cause there's bugger-all down here on earth!
No doubt. I bet I can find a good decent FF for less than $14k that would be a perfect entry level car, with support equipment, trailer and an engine that will last at least 3 years and keep its value over those three years. What would your FD be worth 3 years down the road? I'd bet way less than the $20K it cost.
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing
'Cause there's bugger-all down here on earth!
Charles - I understand and appreciate your points of view... but I guess we have unnerved each other. The FB class may be controlled and administered by the SCCA, but we are the ones investing money in the class. We are the customers here. Not the SCCA. SCCA is the service provider here.
I have written a letter to the CRB with my current FB recommendations already... that input was "no change". It is too soon - we had only one good race. Our plan is to provide a combined proposal to the CRB just after the June Sprints for the 2009 season.
Also, I invite you to join our next FB teleconference so you will gain a better understanding of what we are doing. Or I'd be happy to talk on the phone with you anytime soon.
401 368-1964
Rob
Director, NER
Rob,
That is the first time I've seen what I consider a cogent approach. I agree with your position. You are correct in that you are the ones investing money but do not forget that the Club is investing some faith in the Class and its competitors by recognizing it. There is a decided risk that this new class (indeed any new class) will dilute other existing classes, thereby reducing the value of other racers' investments. The Club has a responsibility (or it should) to protect all racers and not allow classes in that could potentialy harm others, regardless of how committed and dedicated a few racers/builders are. IOW, all racers are the Club's customers, not just some. Obviously, and kudos to those in the process, FB has created some exciting cars. I do feel it has probably diluted the ranks of others but it is what it is. I also feel the basic nature of the racer was not accurately considered when the rules were written. Without a purely spec class, or at least engine/gearbox, technology creep (more like a headlong rush) will always occur.
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing
'Cause there's bugger-all down here on earth!
In Favor of it
I'm in favor of it Stan but only after everything has been done with the existing classes to improve their attractiveness, then think about new classes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
