Cool stuff from Japan

[Lee Stohr]

New class with almost no rules ! Spec tire width, spec carbon tub, fixed inlet restrictor - I think that's it. Any engine, any body type allowed.

http://www.jmia.info/index.html

[RussMcB]

That is a neat idea. Almost Can-Am like. Good find, Lee.

What I like: Very interesting to see how different designers/builders try to build the best car.

Possible downsides: If someone has a lot of money, they will have a big advantage (I know - true for all types of racing), and someone may build a superior car, relegating everyone else as uncompetitive. Might be hard to create a sustainable series if the majority of competitors have no chance to win.

I hope it catches on and we can see how it plays out.

[carnut169]

What motor is that?

[R. Pare]

That's a bit along the line of something that Steve and I have advocated for 20+ years - the "box of parts" approach (sorta an FV approach, but with modern parts) - as a means of allowing design freedom, but keeping the major costs in control.

[Lee Stohr]

Unfortunately almost everything written about the series is in Japanese, and the internet translators don't do a very good job with Japanese. Maybe someone can help?
I think the series is founded by the Dome CEO, who wants to encourage young race car designers in Japan.

[RussMcB]

That's a bit along the line of something that Steve and I have advocated for 20+ years - the "box of parts" approach (sorta an FV approach, but with modern parts) - as a means of allowing design freedom, but keeping the major costs in control.

Richard, the next time you have a good idea, have someone else present it so it doesn't get automatically discarded because it was yours. :-).

Just pokin' fun atcha. It sure seems like a good idea that could catch on under the right circumstances. I know I might take on a fabrication project if the basic platform and a lot of the hard stuff was done for me.

[HazelNut]

A good buddy of mine happens to be a Japanese translator and English teacher living in japan.

what specifically do you guys want to know from the website? I'd ask him to translate the entire site but that might take a while!

[Lee Stohr]

If your translator can find the Rules, and a contact email - that would be great.
Maybe also translate the latest news item too.
Thanks

[S Lathrop]

Richard, the next time you have a good idea, have someone else present it so it doesn't get automatically discarded because it was yours. :-).

Just pokin' fun atcha. It sure seems like a good idea that could catch on under the right circumstances. I know I might take on a fabrication project if the basic platform and a lot of the hard stuff was done for me.

Contact Laverty. He and I have exchanged several ideas. Sevenpiper and I exchanged drawings as well. I started a design project to see if I could do an front corner for a formula car for $500. That was the upright, brakes and wheel. Not only can it be done but it can be done and weigh less that what is common in FF or FC.

[R. Pare]

Richard, the next time you have a good idea, have someone else present it so it doesn't get automatically discarded because it was yours. :-)

Believe me, I fully understand that my mouth hasn't always made me the most popular guy on the block!

Unfortunately, to get such an idea up and running correctly would take a heck of a lot of research - a lot more work that just a bunch of guys hammering out rules via the internet.

[Lee Stohr]

Yup; and only you, me and about 6 other guys would give a ****.

[R. Pare]

I wouldn't be too sure about that. If the right price and performance compromise could be found (yes, a lot easier said than done!), it could have a pretty good following.

[Rick Ross]

I really like the idea of the spec carbon tub. So much safer than the old tube frame structures that most SCCA classes must use. Of course Dallara, Mygale, and Tatuus all make very nice entry level cars with carbon tubs.......but there is no real home for them in SCCA.

[Lee Stohr]

I don't know Richard, after selling almost 100 new race cars we've only sold one kit.
There aren't many people today that want to assemble a new race car, let alone build one from scratch. New car buyers want all the options, no one ever wants a stripped starter car. Just my observations.
That said, I do like the idea of low cost carbon tubs or at least carbon reinforced steel tube frames.
Specifications for tub cross-section could be put in writting, instructions on how to make a structural carbon part could even be given away free.
Should have been done for F1000, but you know how it goes.

[R. Pare]

Cars don't necessarily have to be sold only as kits, but as an option for the brave (and foolish!).

The level that you are shooting for also has great bearing on the desirability of cars in kit form - not everybody, especially the younger crowd, has the $$ to shell out all at once for a turnkey car. If the performance level is somewhere down nearer that of an FF, rather than a DSR, I believe that the popularity of kits might surprise us. When Steve was making the Z10 - some 100+ of them - almost all went out as kits. Granted, that was a long time ago and demographics have changed, but the feedback I get is that there are a lot of beginners that have no fear of putting their own car together.

That said, most cars would probably still go out in turnkey form. The "box of parts" concept, depending on its form, could be that everybody uses the same uprights, wheels and brakes, maybe the same steering rack, same engine and drivetrain, and maybe the same fuel cell. Frames could be part of the package, but selling that idea may be harder than leaving it at the former. Manufacturers could divvy up the mass manufacture of those parts among themselves, helping to keep costs down, and eliminating the tweek of the week in those areas. Think of it as a bit like taking out a few pages from a stock car suppliers catalogue, and being limited to building from those pages.

Everybody would still be free to play as they wished in every other area of the car (again, much like FV), so while there are some fairly restrictive limits as to what ultimately can be done, you would still have variety and not just boring FE-like cookie-cutter clones everywhere.

Somehow, though, I doubt that it's a concept that the SCCA will ever venture in to.

[Mike B]

I started a design project to see if I could do an front corner for a formula car for $500. That was the upright, brakes and wheel. Not only can it be done but it can be done and weigh less that what is common in FF or FC.

I'm listening...

[RobLav]

Lee - I built mine from somewhere between a kit and from scratch. There are not many of us around anymore.

Mike - Steve and I went back and forth on a few EMails about the concept. If you and Russ are interested, I can dig those out.

[RussMcB]

Thanks but I don't need them. My current project is keeping me plenty busy. I was just saying it sounds like a good idea.

[Lee Stohr]

Richard, The last thing you'd want is the SCCA involved - that would be like putting the government in charge of health care

I guess we'll always disagree about cost being the root of all problems in amatuer racing. I just haven't seen the guys with the most money winning all the championships.

[S Lathrop]

Lee: It is interesting to see how our respective customer bases influences our opinions about what is needed to be successful. Most of my customers are "do-it-yourselfers". Further more they would be hard pressed to buy new cars more than once a decade. You are absolutely right about SCCA.

When I started racing in SCCA, it was in FV then FF. In the late '60s early '70s most of the guys I raced with were 20 something, collage graduates, earning medium incomes. Our cars cost new about 1/2 our annual salaries. Back then, June Sprints FV and FF classes were 75 plus cars. Places like Lime Rock, we had to split the class into 2 race groups.

Richard and I started noodling the idea of an entry level formula car class that would replicate the success of FV and FF back then. Could there be a cost effective class that gave FF performance in a $25,000 car? FF to day is a $50,000 plus class.

The one thing that was common to both FV and FF then was that almost all the cars were built with a lot of common parts. FV is the prime example. But it was true of FF. As an example, a Z10 and a Lola 142 used the same front uprights. The old air cooled Super Vees had to use a large number of VW parts which is why Zink and Lola had a lot of VW parts.

Because of the design of modern street cars, that is no longer as easy as it was then. But how about a class that uses a common design for major components? The rules would then consist of engineering drawings for the required/restricted components. A builder would have the option of building to those drawings or buying.

This would be a class much like FV with various chassis designers all using the same collection of parts.

My goal at the design stage was to see if I could do the 4 corners and rear drive train for a bike powered car for $2500 or close to it. I got as far as the four corners. The project is stalled at the rear center section as Richard researches available drive line components.

If you look at a mini sprint, you will be surprised how inexpensive those guys do things but still have good end products.

[R. Pare]

Lee:

Cost may not be the root of all things wrong in the club, but it certainly is a major player when it comes to recruiting and keeping new players, especially those who are just at the start of their professional careers and don't have Daddy's money to support their habit. That's an issue that can't be denied.

Not everyone is out to win a championship - I'd venture that the majority just love driving, love the competition, and are happiest when they can improve on their personal best within the restricted budget thay have to play with. Unfortunately, for a young person today, the cost of entry is so high, never mind the cost of constant upgrading just to stay at the same reletive level of competitiveness, that too many chose to go elsewhere.

Before you can get the customers buying the sexier, more expensive and faster cars like F1000 and DSR, you have to have a good place for them to get their feet wet without draining their bank account. FV and FF used to fit the bill, but today have lost that allure, and people are going elsewhere.

FV is the most successful class in the world, due in great part to the fact that it is still reletively cheap to enter, and still reletively cheap to stay in and stay competitive - you can buy a car today and race it for the next 25 years. Unfortunately, it is in a decline, especially when it comes to recruiting young blood, a large reason for which is due to the ancient nature of the design - the cars are not sexy-looking enough when compared to more modern classes. F500 has the same problem in that while reletively inexpensive, they just aren't pleasing to the eye, or ear, to a lot of newcomers.

FF is still one of the best classes there is, but everybody now understands that to run at the front, you need either a particular car, a boatload of money, top-notch engineering help, or a combination of all of the above. One of the draws for FF for the first 20 or so years was that the ambitious homebuilders could grab a bunch of parts out of a junkyard - the same parts that everyone else was using - fab up their own suspension, chassis and bodywork, and go racing for very little money (but a lot of sweat equity). The fact that there have been well over 50 different would-be chassis builders giving it a go over the years is solid proof of the success of that box-of-parts concept. Once the designs became more and more unique, with the attendant skyrocketing of costs, those 50+ builder got pared down to 3 or 4, and almost no new cars being built any more.

That scenario is does not make for a healthy series with a good and long future.

The club has tried to address this issue with their spec classes, but missed the obvious drawback - a fixed, high cost, all-at-once, entry fee that is beyond the means of the majority of 20-somethings.

Maybe the circle has started to close and the box-of-parts approach has merit again.

But you are right - if the Club, in its current form and incompetancy, gets involved, it'll be a disaster!

[Rick Kirchner]

Steve - one thing I learned from my stint as a production engineer was that cost is directly related to parts count (complexity). Looking at a modern corner, a floating rotor is not only a racing specific part, but so is the hat, and there are an additional 12 parts in the drive bolts and nuts (outrageously expensive for what they are to boot!). Not to mention the additional separate axle.

Looking back, a Type 3 upright was really pretty elegant. It seems with all the IFS and IRS cars out there there should be something fairly common that works.

Is there really a major cost benefit in a bike drivetrain vs a car drivetrain when everything is said and done? Is the gearbox/bell that big of a total cost driver? If so maybe it's time to go back to a oil tank that's not inline with the motor and gearbox. Although a bike motor is more "racy" there's certainly a lot more honda Civics in junkyards than all the bikes together. Although if you used an air cooled motor you could ditch the need for a cooling system.

[R. Pare]

Rick;

You are correct that in general more parts = more costs, but that is only a small part of the equation when it comes to costing out a race car design with this sort of cost goal.

In sorting out this type of design, easy availibility and reliability play a big part, and unfortunately, so does eye appeal.

While one might think that using production car parts would be the cheapest - and they probably would be from an initial purchase standpoint - not many are going to stand up to the rigors of racing for more than a minimal amount of time before they have to be replaced. For the "box-of-parts" concept to work, everything has to last multiple seasons, yet still look like a proper race part and be reletively inexpensive.

A case in point is the FWD engine/gearbox concept. While the combo can be inexpensive to pruchase, the cost of making them race worthy and race reliable can actually be more than the purchase price - unless the car is restricted to such a low performance level that even the newbies aren't interested.

The same sort of issues are inherent in all of the highly stressed components - brakes, wheels, hubs, wheel bearings, etc.

And therein lies the problem : Can race worthy components be designed and produced at a price level that meets the low-cost goal and still meet the "racy-looking" criteria? Personally, I think the answer is yes, but the time and research needed to prove that out cannot be carried by a single entity.

[S Lathrop]

Rick;

The last formula car class that I know of that adapted the drive line out of a production car was Formula First. There are some things that should never be undressed and a Spec Racer as as formula car is one of those things.

Seriously; the design I came up with did reduce the parts count by a bunch. I also included the wheel as a part of the design. Look at a FV. There the brake drum and wheel are an integrated part. The stock car guys do things a lot cheaper than the road racing guys.

The bike engine/transmission is a mass produced drive line that better fits racing applications than any thing from a car. The designers know that the engines will be operated more like race cars than street cars. The last I checked, you can have a new bike for the price of a new LD200 and bell housing.

In my work the big problem is a low cost differential and drive line components that are readily available. Here we need to look to the automotive market.

With modern computer machining processes you can accomplish a lot. Many of the parts in my bell housings are just water jet cut and bolted into the finished assembly. The CNC machining is minimized. I think that over a short time, most of the common parts will have a single source. As you attract people to the class, we will find that various people will have some special capability that they can produce individual parts at a very favorable price. The frame, body and control arms, parts for which there is a significant repeat business, will be the business of the individual car builders. Parts that have a lower turn over will be shared among all builders.

As we get more experience with FB, I think we can use that for an FF/entry level formula car.

[racer27]

4 other benefits of "Out of the box Components approach"

1. Price Competition - Since design of components is spec'd out, various manufactures could compete brining costs down to market level. This would also increase redundancy and ensure supply chain would not be interrupted if an issue arises with manufacturer. If volume is needed to justify mfg involvement, then put it out to bid (although, I'm not sure who would do that or what the free market competition implications would be.)

Single sourcing of parts is the biggest reason I don't own an FE (Yet) as appealing as that concept is.

2. Spares - Big issue now is $$$ we have to invest in spares. If 50% of the components of car was common, there is a good chance you could borrow or buy parts at track from competitor. If not, a quick call to common part suppier has it to you next day, as these will probably be run rate items. There should be no reason you'll miss "nest weeks" race due to common part availibility. Every dollar that does not go into spares is a dollar I can spend on entry fees. This will help pull in more entrants.

3. Will yield different looking cars.

Also creates design competion with lower cost upgrade path. Lets say you own Brand X and brand Y is quicker. If 50% of parts are common, you chould (Altough I doubt I would) sell brand X specific Components and buy Brand Y Specific Components, rather then buying a new car. I see this as both a good or bad thing...

4. Creates opportunities for vendors. I can see a segment of the industry evolving where Kits are assembled. More opportunities for mfg to build cars, mfg to mfg spares and vendors to sell spares.

We need a back to basics, grass roots offering. You got to remember, a small shop like Formula Haus can sell a new FF equivalent performing car for $13K. It uses allot of off the shelf components to keep costs low. I'm wondering if a race specific "Component box" approach would yield a similar but more appealing alternative. The Component items should be more suitable to racing (In durability/suitability, performance, safety/serviciability and sex factor) then production stuff. I'd defiantly pay more up front for these benefits.

Tech compliance for these common componets shiould also be allot easier, as they will all look the same, weigh the same, perform the same.

[Rick Kirchner]

I didn't mean to imply using a FWD driveline ala' SRF. I was thinking along the lines of how many more choices there are in uprights, CVs, axles and such compared to the Super-vee and early FF days.

Agree the stock car and sprint car guys have this figured out a lot better then us road-racer types.

Your bit about water-jet parts is spot-on. There's a lot that could be done to "value engineer" the bell.

In the beginning there was Hewland. Now there's hewland, ricardo, xtrac, enco, and a couple of others. The trick to getting a cheap, durable design for a gearbox is some min weight specifications. Seems like in a competitive performance market Hewland optimized the box, which pretty much prevents the use of off-the-shelf components and drives the cost up. Somebody out there might be willing to jump out on a new lower-cost design.

From a business standpoint, it seems the thing to do would be to create an open-source community like Unix or OpenOffice.org. As the rules and designs evolve post them for any manufacturer. To be a qualified source (and able to use the term "xxx compliant") the parts builders could submit examples for checking.

I hafta think that current street car parts in a formula car would be pretty survivable. The Type 3 stuff was rugged. Today's cars are heavier and have more cornering capability, so if you divide the weight by 3 and up the cornering forces by 2 wouldn't you still be in the ballpark and not pushing the design margin?

I like the idea of skinned tube frames. Seems like they would allow you to be less weight conscious and not degrade the safety aspects.

[racer27]

I like the idea of skinned tube frames. Seems like they would allow you to be less weight conscious and not degrade the safety aspects.

I think you are correct... Lite Weight, costs money, creates complex parts and typicially decreases durabiliy.

Min Wt should be high enough to make it easliy reachable at reasonable cost. I'd rather see car made safer with maybe beefer frame, more driver protection (Foot box, cockpit, steel floor, etc).

If going down this road, also address one of the other contraints keeping people from going FF, confined cockpits. Force the common Frame/Tub to accomidate the larger driver. Same with roll protection. Between the 2, I'd bet you'd have a few guys who go FM or tin top consider this approach. At 200#, I know I was limited in my chassis choices.

Also specify a min ride ht (at least at rest) so bottom wear is limited and off road damage is minimized. I went to one event where the inbedded in track timing loop was broken and they had to tape the wire to the track surface. In order for us to not tear it up, they suggested all cars had to be able to over a 2X4. They got the loop fixed, but we dound the idea appealing having spent the week before repairing a damaged diffusser.

[R. Pare]

I hafta think that current street car parts in a formula car would be pretty survivable. The Type 3 stuff was rugged. Today's cars are heavier and have more cornering capability, so if you divide the weight by 3 and up the cornering forces by 2 wouldn't you still be in the ballpark and not pushing the design margin?

While surviveability might not be an issue with some street car stuff, there is still the "eye appeal" (or lack there of) factor, but more importantly, availability over the long run.

Unfortunately, street car components seem to change almost yearly nowadays, and factory support with new replacements is dropped immediately after the 10 year mandate. Junk yards scap cars almost as fast as they get them now, so you can forget them as a long-term source.

That pretty much leaves us with using custom designs. If Steve can figure out how to post his upright design study before he leaves on va ca for a couple of weeks, you'll see that customs designs don't necessarily mean expensive.

[RussMcB]

A few months ago I bought a Racecar Engineering (April 2009 issue) because it had an article about chain drive.

Last night while flipping through it I noticed a half page article about "F20", a technically open, one make series from the Japanese Motor Racing Industry Association (JMIA).

I did a Google search for F20 JMIA and got a few good hits:

http://abajian.livejournal.com/683309.html
http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=112926
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n....html#comments
http://originalgaijin.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/f20/
http://originalgaijin.wordpress.com/...nded-coverage/
http://originalgaijin.wordpress.com/...uzuka-testing/

[samiam520]

Wow...................... this is an interesting thread. I have been thinking of building something along these lines since I sold the Mystique/Mysterian M5 Formula First design.

As a long time FV guy, with a brief stint in FA, I have found the FV concept of building a car around specific production based parts to have many benefits. After my experience with the Formula First project, I realized that a Formula First chassis and suspension might make a great platform for a sports racer.

One of the benefits of the Formula First concept is that all of the parts, other then the chassis and body, are available at your local VW bug shop. Because of the strength of the VW aftermarket, these parts are available brand new and made by many different aftermarket suppliers, consequently, the parts pricing is reasonable. The entire drive train, suspension, steering, etc, can be purchased for around $7-8K A complete car can be made for $13-17K depending on how much work the owner wants to put into it.

As far as performance, a well friven FST is about 2-3 seconds faster then a SRF. The 1600 motor has a lot of torque and is much more fun to drive then a FV. So if you were to put a sports racer body on a FST it may increase the speed based on the aero improvement.

Anyway, its just a idea that has been floating around in my head and is somewhat alligned with this topic so I thought I would throw it out there. I relize that a lot of builders are not excited with the idea of building modern day chassis and bodys to be bolted to parts that were designed between 1930-1950

[JerryH]

Thank you Steve and Richard! You are definately on the right track. Iv;e been driving and engineering race cars off and on since the 2-seater Can-Am days. I have been touting the concept you described for several years now. I'm really inpressed by the $500 per corner! What this sport needs is a FF type race car, which can be put on the track for $20000 - and it can be done - using standarized suspension, shocks, brakes, wheels, steering, fuel cells, axles, diffs, etc - and perhaps 600 MC engines. This would leave lots of room for experimentation by builders (as you said, it works for FV) and it would provide a cool looking and cool sounding entry level car that appealed to kids coming out of karts (and to some of us old farts too!).

F1000 is cool, and so is DSR, but DSR is way to expensive for a big percentage of would be new drivers (young and old). F1000 is headed that way too, There are enough guys (usually older) with the money to make those classes successfull - just as there are enough connected and/or wealthy fathers to fund the attempts at pro racing by their sons (and daughters) in expensive classes such as Formula BMW, Pro Mazda, etc. - but, how many more talented kids never get the chance to proove his stuff beyond karting, or FV, or F500 - and how many of us would just like to play for a little less - and therefore a little longer? This is the answer - don't let the idea wither on the vine.

Jerry Hodges

[R. Pare]

And therein lies the problem - getting enough people on board to get the research and design work done, never mind getting a sanctioning body on board also. Unfortunately, too many of us that would be interested in persuing such a project already have our hands full just paying the bills every month!

[Jnovak]

And therein lies the problem - getting enough people on board to get the research and design work done, never mind getting a sanctioning body on board also. Unfortunately, too many of us that would be interested in persuing such a project already have our hands full just paying the bills every month!

Count me in guys.

Thanks ... Jay Novak
jnovak at novaracecars dot com

[Lee Stohr]

Are we confusing two different things here? Seems like some people want a $20,000 car that is just like a Formula 1 car. That's never gonna happen. Or is the desire really to get the fastest roadracing car that can be built for $20,000? That's a whole different thing. Might be interesting to look at it that way.

[Ron B.]

This is a great discussion from respected manufacturers. Keep it up!

ALOT of water has been under the bridge since, but back in the day ('02 I think) I was at an open, off season test day at Roebling with JDC. Jon and Primus (pre-FE/SCCA drama) had what they then called a "school car" there which turns out was the first incarnation of the VD bike (600cc?) powered car - maybe someone can clear up the details on this. It was turning times 1-2 sec/lap slower than our FC's (somwhere around FF times, I think). Cool sounding and good looking, and if I recall his target price was $25K.

I always thought if that could be done they'd sell a million of them.

[Lee Stohr]

You might want to read this before dealing with Jon Baytos.

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34451

[Wright D]

20K, that's about what our FSAE cost.

600cc GSXR, turbo'd, dry sump’d, and weighed in at 454 lbs.
However; it did take a team of ten of us to build. Let's just say that we did not factor labor into our budget.

[racer27]

...Or is the desire really to get the fastest road-racing car that can be built for $20,000? That's a whole different thing. Might be interesting to look at it that way.

Lee: Valid point.

It has to be allot of things for $20K and they are all relative and need to be balanced. Excelig in one area, compromises the others.

No one should expect F1 performance for $20K. IMHO, FST-FC Performance levels would be more reasonable.

Key goals would be affordability (Not only purchase price but long term) over performance.

Other factors to consider would have to be:
Comfort (How many guys don't fit in current crop of cars)
- can most cars be set up to be operated solo without crew?
Safety (Would a cage over driver's head attract SM drivers?)
- would this diminish sex appeal? What is the net gain?
Durability (Lets face it, short rebuild cycle times and high rebuild costs are a deterant)
Ease of maintenance
Sex appeal
Modern
Fun

If I were driving a project like this, I'd start out by identifying my audience. Then determining the relative importance of these factors. With that in hand you can set targets and priorities. From there determine feasibility and so-on.

Easy to ramble about on line, I'm sure much more challenging in the non-cyber world. But FB, started out as cyber dialog and now it is a growing, evolving, exciting class. I think the lower cost, lower performing car would have a much broader potential market.

I'm sure you'll get people who chime in and say, these alternatives already exist in the form of F500, FV, FST, CF, Used FF, Used FC. However each of those classes probably has a low score in at least one of the "Factors".

[R. Pare]

Are we confusing two different things here? Seems like some people want a $20,000 car that is just like a Formula 1 car. That's never gonna happen. Or is the desire really to get the fastest roadracing car that can be built for $20,000? That's a whole different thing. Might be interesting to look at it that way.

We (Steve and I) have always looked at it only as an inexpensive entry-level car concept - no clue how anything else crept in to the picture.

$20000 may or may not be realistic - only time and a lot of research will tell. Unfortunately, I have little to no extra unused time available!

[Formula2]

As far as performance, a well friven FST is about 2-3 seconds faster then a SRF. The 1600 motor has a lot of torque and is much more fun to drive then a FV. So if you were to put a sports racer body on a FST it may increase the speed based on the aero improvement.

Anyway, its just a idea that has been floating around in my head and is somewhat alligned with this topic so I thought I would throw it out there. I relize that a lot of builders are not excited with the idea of building modern day chassis and bodys to be bolted to parts that were designed between 1930-1950

I think that is a great idea personally. A faster, sexier, and cheaper car than a SRF. That is pure WIN!! I would love to see a shop like Dauntless Racing or HRP design a sexy SR body for the common FST chassis'. Functional sexy, with a wing, splitter, and maybe some fender louvers. I think the car would be pretty fun. Almost like what S2000 is to FF, but much cheaper.