Cool stuff from Japan

[S Lathrop]

Completely off the topic.

Your idea of a sports racing body on a 1500cc FV was done in the late '60 by ED Zink. The car was raced in the Sebring 12 hour and finished. The idea never went beyond that point.

[Formula2]

^That's too bad.

Don't follow SR classes too much, but say someone designed a body and bolted it to a FST car. You could run it in ASR correct? Kinda dangerous though as you would be so much slower than the rest of the run group.

[Herman Pahls]

I have enjoyed this "low budjet look into the future" since that is how I got started in "uncompetitive" sports racing. The car is homebuilt, 2 seat, street legal, weighs 1100#, and with a stock 2008 Hayabusa is close to FF lap times at Portland I R with a newbie driving. 10K plus labor and I am having a great time learning to drive.

The Miata uprights, rotors and calipers cost less than the Hawk pads. $220.

I am currently building a F-1000 and this is how much the uprights are costing per corner.

Audi 4000 bearing and hub $100
Willwood powerlight caliper $140
Willwood pads $ 25
Miata rotor ( 9 and 7/8 dia) $ 20
CNC upright and camber
block machined by a friend $200
Used 4 bolt Kodiak 8x13
and 10x13 wheels $100each

$585 This does not include camber shims, fasteners, misalignment spacers, stub axles and sperical joints. Let me know if there are cheaper
lightweight options. I appreciate this forum.
Herman Pahls

[Jnovak]

The concept of building low cost race cars around spec parts is really great. How do we get it off the ground?

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[SpacemanSpiff]

I joined largely to respond to this thread. I'm a 22 year old mechanical engineering student, looking for exactly this class. I'd like to build/buy an entry level track car/race car once I graduate, and if this class existed I'd take a long hard look at it. The FV/F500 cars are probably a blast, but look very dated, DSR would be a fun home but I doubt I could compete with the Stohr's etc. As an engineer I'd prefer a class where I could design and build a large part of the car myself, but as I don't have the background a starting point would be nice.

The uncompetitive build that I've had running around my mind was a car engine (Miata/HPD Formula Ford) and transmission or one of the "starter bike" (FZ1) engine/trans. While I'd love a full on engine, burning through multiple engines a season isn't likely to be an option. I'm also willing to spend a little more to build a car that looks nice. The idea of a class open to both open wheel and sports racers would be interesting, as long as it could be done safe.

~Patrick Cleary

[S Lathrop]

There is a down side to using production car components in a race car class. I have a few years experience starting with FV in 1968.

For one offs or just a few cars using production car components works well. However if you look at a class like a midgets you find that almost all the parts are purpose built. Over time and with decent volume, those purpose built parts are less expensive than adapting something that will be hard to find in the future.

As an example, trying to build a Zink Z10 would be very difficult today because so much of the running gear is unavailable from any place but salvage yards and components that old have been recycled years ago.

My original post in this thread was to look at designs that were inexpensive to begin with and could be produced for or by any one building a car. I am talking about a single design not a "spec" sourced item. Oval track racing works this way because most builders have standardized around designs that are effective and inexpensive.

An other example of a problem caused by using production car parts is the Citation and Swift cars. Both Bruns and I designed around VW spindles and bearings. Those decisions dated to the late 1970's when we were both doing Super Vees. However I chose Dasher parts and David used Rabbit. For over a decade the choice did not make much difference other than I had slightly more trouble getting my VW parts. But as the performance of the tires improved and the cars improved, the Rabbit parts started to fail. Not very often but just enough to be of concern and to require replacing parts just as they were getting hard to find. Now those parts are being replaced with purpose built parts. By the time this became a problem there were several hundred cars in the field.

[nulrich]

Some interesting ideas here. I like the idea of an entry level low cost formula class (what FF was originally intended to be, I'm told). I especially like the idea of spec designs rather than single source suppliers. The big problem with spec classes like SRF and FE is that the value is terrible. Since there's no competition, the quality is poor and the price is much too high.

Most of my designs are produced in the thousands to millions range, so designing for low cost is something I know well. If the quantity was high enough (meaning we could amortize tooling over a at least a few hundred parts), and people were willing to source components from offshore (Asia) then a $20k kit of parts is easy.

For example, a die-cast magnesium upright would cost about $15k for tooling and less than $50 per part, including machining and finish, in quantity 500 (made in China). Quality can be as good as anything made in the US, but requires attention. To keep the design somewhat open, the casting could be single source and each supplier could do their own finish machining. Maybe.

I agree with Stan and others that using production car parts is a false economy. Proper racing parts designed with manufacturing cost in consideration won't be significantly more expensive, won't break, and will always be available.

One big issue is safety. I would suggest that meeting the safety standards common in the rest of the world is a good idea, rather than the current SCCA standards (which are a joke). It doesn't really cost much more to build a proper survival cell. In fact, we are convinced you could build a carbon tub cheaper than a tube frame chassis under certain conditions.

I think the tub/chassis/survival cell is one place to use a single supplier. That means you are sure that the driver is well protected and don't take the risk of someone building a chassis in their garage that doesn't meet safety standards.

It would be better if the car didn't have wings, since they add a lot of initial cost and have to be replaced too often because of crash damage, but I'm not sure you can attract young drivers to a FF/FV looking car.

Unfortunately, SCCA is exactly the wrong organization to sanction something like this. It's mostly becoming a strange combination of older vintage racers and Spec Miata . You only have to look at how they've sabotaged the Fit engine, which had the opportunity to revitalize FF, but now is going to stall.

Nathan

[Stan Clayton]

I thought folks might like to see some photos of Herman's car.

[nulrich]

I was just looking back at the original post about the Japanese series. Cool idea.

It's unfortunate that SCCA has moved in such divergent directions for all the different formula classes. For example, it used to be that you could use a single chassis for both FF and FC, the only difference being wheels and tires and wings. Unfortunately, the rules have diverged just enough to make that less feasible now.

And the rules for FB should have been written to be completely in line with FF/FC, but they are enough different to require a lot of new parts. For example, we won't do a FB version of our car because the chassis design doesn't meet FB rules (which prohibit carbon fiber in structural applications, even for cockpit protection).

If someone were to appoint me dictator of SCCA racing for a week, I'd rewrite the rules for all the formula classes as follows:

- All classes (or at least FF/FC/FB and FA) would use a spec design cockpit survival cell. It would be a carbon fiber tub with front and rear bulkheads, roomy enough for a 6'5" 215 lb driver (me), and big hardpoints for various suspension mounting positions. It wouldn't be single source, but any manufacturer would have to pass a static crush test (like F3/F1). It could cost as little as $3000 given modern manufacturing methods, including roll hoop. If someone crashes the car hard enough to damage the tub (HARD crash) then you replace it.

- FF would use the Kent Engine, the Fit engine (with a 30.5 mm restrictor ), or any other approved 120 hp 4 cylinder engine, and 6" max wheels front and rear. No wings, flat bottom. Sidepods of a minimum height and length to provide side impact protection (like the British National class).

- FC would use the Pinto engine, the Zetec engine, the new USF2000 Duratec engine (with appropriate restrictor), or any other approved 150 hp engine. Wings and diffuser like the current rules. Maximum width of 1200 mm with minimum height and length sidepods. 6 and 8 inch wheels.

- FB would use any 1000 cc motorcycle engine with an inlet restrictor to allow 180 hp. Same wing, sidepod and diffuser rules as FC. 8 and 10 inch wheels.

- FA would have a variety of approved engines to allow 240 hp, wider tires and wheels. More liberal undertray rules (with a flat bottom still required under the tub).

That would allow a number of manufacturers to produce chassis for all four classes with a huge commonality of parts. Costs would go down, participation would go up, safety would be enhanced.

Of course, it will never happen, but it's a fun fantasy!

Nathan

[R. Pare]

For example, it used to be that you could use a single chassis for both FF and FC, the only difference being wheels and tires and wings. Unfortunately, the rules have diverged just enough to make that less feasible now.

And the rules for FB should have been written to be completely in line with FF/FC, but they are enough different to require a lot of new parts. For example, we won't do a FB version of our car because the chassis design doesn't meet FB rules (which prohibit carbon fiber in structural applications, even for cockpit protection).

Nathan

Don't know where you came up with those ideas, but the FF/FB/FC chassis rules are all basicly the same thing (in fact, FC has to build to the FF rules), and it is easy to build a single design that is legal for all 3. The main differences are in the allowed FB body width.

You cannot use CF in the bodywork of any of these 3 classes, except for the attenuator. You can use CF on the outside of the frame rails in all 3 (as long as it is not part of the bodywork), or as cockpit interior panels, but in all cases they cannot be attached with closer than 6" centers.

[nulrich]

Don't know where you came up with those ideas, but the FF/FB/FC chassis rules are all basicly the same thing (in fact, FC has to build to the FF rules), and it is easy to build a single design that is legal for all 3. The main differences are in the allowed FB body width.

Yes, I agree, the rules are all "basically" the same. Unfortunately, they are not exactly the same, and the differences are important.

For example, FC requires a flat bottom "between the rearmost point of the front tire and the frontmost part of the rear tire," FF requires it "between the front axle centerline and the rear of the rear tires." Big difference aerodynamically. Of course, bodywork and sidepods would be different for FF and FC in any case, unless you want to make a big aerodynamic compromise for one or the other.

Also, D.9. in the FF rules has some limitations that don't apply to FC.

The larger FB body width is also a huge difference. Lots of opportunity there. I'd like to see FC and FF use the same 150 cm max width, but I doubt that will happen.

You cannot use CF in the bodywork of any of these 3 classes, except for the attenuator. You can use CF on the outside of the frame rails in all 3 (as long as it is not part of the bodywork), or as cockpit interior panels, but in all cases they cannot be attached with closer than 6" centers.

True for FF/FC, but not for FB: "H.2.A....Composite construction (defined as carbon fiber, Kevlar, honeycomb or fiberglass) in a structural application is prohibited, except as specifically allowed in these rules." The carbon fiber cockpit protection panels we use on our chassis are attached on centers greater than six inches, so they are legal in FF and FC, but they are necessarily structural (since they wouldn't provide much protection otherwise) so they are illegal in FB.

It would be nice to clean up the inconsistencies, but hard to do without making obsolete existing cars or angering a lot of people . And although it is "easy" to make a car that meets all three sets of rules, it's far from optimum.

Nathan

[R. Pare]

For example, FC requires a flat bottom "between the rearmost point of the front tire and the frontmost part of the rear tire," FF requires it "between the front axle centerline and the rear of the rear tires." Big difference aerodynamically. Of course, bodywork and sidepods would be different for FF and FC in any case, unless you want to make a big aerodynamic compromise for one or the other..

And the 1" bodywork undersides rule has just what to do with the chassis? Remember, since it is in the bodywork section, it pertains only to bodywork. Start thinking.

Also, D.9. in the FF rules has some limitations that don't apply to FC.

The only differences are that in FF the inner suspension joints, if they attach directly to the framerails, have to be boxed in (damned good idea for an FC also), and that FF doesn't allow mag uprights. The use of boxed-in pickups is not illegal in FC.

True for FF/FC, but not for FB: "H.2.A....Composite construction (defined as carbon fiber, Kevlar, honeycomb or fiberglass) in a structural application is prohibited, except as specifically allowed in these rules." The carbon fiber cockpit protection panels we use on our chassis are attached on centers greater than six inches, so they are legal in FF and FC, but they are necessarily structural (since they wouldn't provide much protection otherwise) so they are illegal in FB.

If they are on greater than 6" centers, they ain't structural by any of the rule set definitions, and therefore legal in all 3.


Note to Dave Gomberg:

The start of the 2010 FF rules, where it states that FC shall also be built to D.6 and D.7 should read D.7. and D.8. to reflect the change in the section numbering that came about with the 2010 GCR. A correction needs to be issued immediately before someone screws up a new design.

[ric baribeault]

of course, this is only my opinion. apologies for the hijack....ric

[nulrich]

And the 1" bodywork undersides rule has just what to do with the chassis? Remember, since it is in the bodywork section, it pertains only to bodywork. Start thinking.

Some people say I think TOO much. You'll see what I mean when our car is shown. For now, I'll just say that the chassis design of the Rn.10 enables a significant advantage in the aero/bodywork design, one that can't be exploited as much in FF.

The only differences are that in FF the inner suspension joints, if they attach directly to the framerails, have to be boxed in (damned good idea for an FC also), and that FF doesn't allow mag uprights. The use of boxed-in pickups is not illegal in FC.

From the 2010 GCR:

D.9. All suspension components shall be of steel or ferrous material, with the
exception of hubs, hub adapters, hub carriers, bell cranks, pivot blocks,
bearings, bushings, spring caps, abutment nuts, shock absorber caps and
nuts. Titanium and carbon fiber are prohibited...

...All components that are not defined as chassis/frame or suspension are
unrestricted, unless otherwise restricted by these rules or the GCR. Titanium
is prohibited. Carbon fiber is prohibited.

Those sections contain important limitations for our design that don't apply to FC.

If they are on greater than 6" centers, they ain't structural by any of the rule set definitions, and therefore legal in all 3.

Apparently lots of people (some at SCCA) disagree with you. I don't see any definition of "structural" in the GCR, just "stress-bearing panels." I do hope you're right.

Nathan

[R. Pare]

Lots of people think too much, and lots of them don't think too clearly.

I see nothing else in the FF description of suspension allowances material-wise that isn't mentioned in FC, with the exception of the sway bar links and steering (in addition to the upright material ).

In any case, I'll ask again : Just what does that have to do with the chassis design?

There is NO description of "structural", only "stress bearing". Therefore, you can clad your chassis all you want with CF, steel, fiberglass, kevlar, or whatever, as long as there are no 6" or less ( 5.9 in FB for some unknown reason) centers. That has been understood for, oh, maybe the last 25 years or so. If someone is telling you otherwise, they really don't know squat.

What you decide to do with your chassis has zippo to do with whether or not the same chassis can be used effectively in all three classes, which is what you claimed cannot be done. Wrong - it's been done by all the manufacturers in FF and FC since FC started, and has now extended to FF/FC/FB. Whether or not an FB built to FF chassis specs is taking full advantage of the rules differences is a whole different question than what your statement implied.

The most (obvious) change in FB from FF and FC in the chassis rules is the lack of the requirement for a stressed floor, and the possibility that you could use something other than sheet metal as a stressed panel - ie - a stressed panel is defined as a sheet metal panel with 150mm fastener centers. This tells me then that a non-sheetmetal panel with 150mm fasteners centers is not considered to be a stressed panel. To me, that is a bad wording of that rule that should be corrected since the consensus in the rule writing was to not allow any "stressed panels" regardless of the material used. Now, whether or not some Steward might want to consider it "structural" (prohibited, but not defined), is a different problem.

Other than that, there is no real difference in the 2 rule sets as to how you can shape the chassis, including the undersides - you just have to read carefully.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with coming up with a low cost entry level car!

[tjcezar]

nice!

of course, this is only my opinion. apologies for the hijack....ric

[nulrich]

What I said:

It's unfortunate that SCCA has moved in such divergent directions for all the different formula classes. For example, it used to be that you could use a single chassis for both FF and FC, the only difference being wheels and tires and wings. Unfortunately, the rules have diverged just enough to make that less feasible now.

I do not doubt that you can build a chassis that is legal in all three classes (FF/FC/FB), and I never said it wasn't possible. However, there are significant enough differences in the rules for the three classes that it cannot be close to optimum in all three. That is unfortunate.

Lots of people think too much, and lots of them don't think too clearly.

I see nothing else in the FF description of suspension allowances material-wise that isn't mentioned in FC, with the exception of the sway bar links and steering (in addition to the upright material ).

Yes, and some people can't read . From the GCR for FF:

D.9. All suspension components shall be of steel or ferrous material, with the exception of hubs, hub adapters, hub carriers, bell cranks, pivot blocks, bearings, bushings, spring caps, abutment nuts, shock absorber caps and nuts. Titanium and carbon fiber are prohibited...

...All components that are not defined as chassis/frame or suspension are unrestricted, unless otherwise restricted by these rules or the GCR. Titanium is prohibited. Carbon fiber is prohibited.

From the GCR for FC:

B.5. Suspension: All parts shall be of steel or ferrous material, with the exception of hubs, hub adapters, hub carriers, bell cranks, pivot blocks, bearings and bushes, spring caps, abutment nuts, anti‑roll bar links, shock absorber caps, and nuts. Titanium is prohibited.

You don't see any difference?

There is NO description of "structural", only "stress bearing". Therefore, you can clad your chassis all you want with CF, steel, fiberglass, kevlar, or whatever, as long as there are no 6" or less ( 5.9 in FB for some unknown reason) centers. That has been understood for, oh, maybe the last 25 years or so. If someone is telling you otherwise, they really don't know squat.

No offense, but I'll take the judgment of the individuals making and arbitrating the SCCA rules over yours. I prefer your interpretation, but that's not how SCCA works.

What you decide to do with your chassis has zippo to do with whether or not the same chassis can be used effectively in all three classes, which is what you claimed cannot be done. Wrong - it's been done by all the manufacturers in FF and FC since FC started, and has now extended to FF/FC/FB

Can you point out where I "claimed it could not be done?" I said it was "less feasible" now.

Other than that, there is no real difference in the 2 rule sets as to how you can shape the chassis, including the undersides - you just have to read carefully.

Really? No difference between FF/FC and FB? Hmmm...perhaps you should read the rules again.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with coming up with a low cost entry level car!

On that we agree! Let's revisit this in a month or two, when it will all become more clear. Over and out.

Nathan

[Stan Clayton]

Over and out.

Nathan

Does that mean we can get back on topic now?

[RobLav]

If I ever said "over and out" on a directed communications net, I'd get my head slapped!

Back to topic eh?