What does the perfect F600 class need?

[Jnovak]

Let's think long term (say 5 years), what do you think the F600 class needs to be a success?

Here are a couple of my thoughts:

1. Loosen up the rules on rubber suspension to allow for better control of the wheel rates. My analysis indicates that we can do just about any wheel rate (within reason) with a 2" diameter x a 2" long elastomer. Remember this is just my thoughts on this issue.

2. Longer wheelbase for better driver and engine package.

3. Wider car for better driver package and better mechanical grip. I have to say that the best F500 cars handle very nicely on smooth tracks in particular.

4. Shock absorbers, do we even need or want them?

5. 10" diameter or 13" diameter. The 10s work great but the brakes work harder. It can be done with 10" and 10s cost a lot less.

6. What should the target cost of a complete car cost?

The purpose of this post is NOT to start a war, just to listen to ideas from those outside of the F500/F600 community.

All ideas are welcome. Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Brands]

I'd be interested in building an F600 car with the following spec-
Longer wheel base
Little bit wider
13" wheels
Dampers
Solid rear axle (would prefer IRS/diff but wouldn't stop us building car if not)
A change to sidepod regs for aesthetic reasons but maintaining width.
$20 - $25k new car cost
F600 as a separate class.
I don't like inlet restrictors unless they cap power at current levels - ie no restriction until a manufacturer builds a high hp motor. That might help motor of the month scenario. Or a year cap.

[nulrich]

My wish list is pretty much the same, except I'd add an open differential to the solid rear axle and require that dampers be homologated and cost less than $500 each. I'd want to see a strict flat bottom rule, probably one identical to that in FF/FC.

Nathan

[DD16]

Preferrably with shocks and longer wheelbase. That's it.

[Daryl DeArman]

Let's think long term (say 5 years), what do you think the F600 class needs to be a success?

Here are a couple of my thoughts:

1. Loosen up the rules on rubber suspension to allow for better control of the wheel rates. My analysis indicates that we can do just about any wheel rate (within reason) with a 2" diameter x a 2" long elastomer. Remember this is just my thoughts on this issue.

2. Longer wheelbase for better driver and engine package.

3. Wider car for better driver package and better mechanical grip. I have to say that the best F500 cars handle very nicely on smooth tracks in particular.

4. Shock absorbers, do we even need or want them?

5. 10" diameter or 13" diameter. The 10s work great but the brakes work harder. It can be done with 10" and 10s cost a lot less.

6. What should the target cost of a complete car cost?

The purpose of this post is NOT to start a war, just to listen to ideas from those outside of the F500/F600 community.

All ideas are welcome. Thanks ... Jay Novak

My opinion:

1. I'll defer to you. If this makes it simplier to accomplish something a bit better have at it.

2. Sounds good. I'm 6"1 and 190# so I might be a bit biased.

3. No preference.

4. Don't want them.

5. As long as long term availabilty of the 10's is viable keep with the 10's. Lighter, cheaper. As far as brakes go, don't use them so much

6. $25K for a new car capable of winning, less data.

As long as we are pie in the sky thinking: no diffs, no IRS, no IIR's or SIR's; just cap the age of the motor so there isn't a motor of the month club.

[cooleyjb]

in a perfect world?

Wingless FB cars so add wings, switch motor and now you have a FB

[Jnovak]

in a perfect world?

Wingless FB cars so add wings, switch motor and now you have a FB

You certainly could not build cars to the FB rules minus wings for less than $25K. I have built a lot of cars and of this I am sure.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Keith Carter]

A pro series!

[rcrmike]

Longer wheelbase

Wider Track

No shocks

Keep the weight down so the brakes don't get overworked,
keeping the big guys in mind

Open to all other options, no preference either way

[cooleyjb]

You certainly could not build cars to the FB rules minus wings for less than $25K. I have built a lot of cars and of this I am sure.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

Yeah, I wasn't thinking it would be under 25K but I think it would do better if there was an easy progression within the same basic car. It's worked pretty well for FF/FC.

[JerryH]

While I would love to see a 600 mc powered ff style chassis (at 850 or 900 lbs), it would be hard to keep cost under 25K, which would be my first goal (we have enough high dollar classes to choose from). Some things that might make it possible are: spec brake callipers......$500 shocks......open dif or spool (no limited slip).....stock engines with IIR to keep power at current levels. If everyone used the same upright/bearing/hub/caliper, that would allow large quantities to be made reducing that cost substantially also. You would still have the freedom to build whatever you want using those pieces.

Keeping closer to f500 specs would encourage retrofitting those cars and help with car count.....and help keep cost down. Lengthen the wheelbase (90 max).....keep width the same....body rules the same....flat floor.....same rear axle rules.....stay with 10 in wheels (cheaper, lighter). Add to that the same comment about using a spec upright/bearing/hub/caliper.....it's a really big cost savings. It's hard to build an f500 under 25k these days.

Either way, I would allow the use of shocks that cost no more than $500 each (a claiming rule might be neccessary to police that).

The class will be great either way.....and I will build a car either way!

Jerry

[Purple Frog]

I think what the class needs is totally dependent on what customer base you are trying to attract.

One version keeps the F5 guys happier, and encourages some F5s to convert.

Another version attracts new blood.

[Jnovak]

I think what the class needs is totally dependent on what customer base you are trying to attract.

One version keeps the F5 guys happier, and encourages some F5s to convert.

Another version attracts new blood.

I agree Mike, except that some of the F500 guys will not be happy.

What I am trying to gauge is what will produce a class with the greatest growth.
Obviously the interest in both proposals has been extremely high with over 200 letters sent in to the CRB and over 14,000 hits both here on Apex and on the F500/F600 website.

My personal opinion is that the club needs a modern very low cost open wheel class. It used to be FF and FV. However FV is a long way from a modern class and FF costs are now over $50K minimum for a new car.

It certainly appears that we have a decent chance to roll F600 into F500 with a longer wheelbase. My question is: Is this what will be best for the growth of a low cost open wheel class?

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Ananth K]

My wish list is pretty much the same, except I'd add an open differential to the solid rear axle and require that dampers be homologated and cost less than $500 each. I'd want to see a strict flat bottom rule, probably one identical to that in FF/FC.

Nathan

Nathan, just as a matter of discussion:

Why the diff on a low-cost road racing car? The wheel speed difference between the inner/outer tire on even the tightest corner in a typical road course is less than 2.5% for an F500. A larger track width (say 5" more) would worsen that only another 10%, but still probably not to the point where there would be significant degradation of the total lateral force capability of the axle.

[Marshall Mauney]

I don't know if I qualify as an "outsider" since I'm a former F500 driver, but:

• Low cost. This trumps everything else. People who have more money to spend are free to go to FF, FC, FE, FM, FA, and we shouldn't allow rules creep to put this class in the position of competing with other well-attended classes.
• Minimum weight, within reason. Lower weight results in less stress on the brakes, easier maintenance, etc. Clearly, we can't get to the point that you have to use titanium to get survivability and meet the minimum, but adding 75lb of ballast to make weight is just silly.
• 13" wheels seem like a nice idea since they are common with other cars, but do we really need them? If the weight stays down, you can live with the 10", IMO. In the end, I'd ask which is less expensive from a tire perspective, as that is probably the most important driver.
• Shocks/springs seem to me to be a negative, not a positive. IMO, they will add significant cost without improving the performance of the vehicle; the only value they would add would be from a marketing standpoint, and I'm not certain this is worth the added cost. The cost is not just capital, BTW, as it's a lot more expensive to rebuild a set of dampers than to get a new set of pucks.
• Solid axle is fine. I'd rather stay away from the added cost and maintenance of a differential.
• Stock-rules 600cc motorcycle engine with integrated transmission & clutch. No mods, no machining, period.
• Dry sumps allowed.
• Intake restrictor for parity, pressurized airboxes and intake scoops allowed, but must be ahead of the restrictor.
• ECMs - open software rules, but you have to use the stock control unit with no hardware mods. You can't police it in a multi-engine class, so don't try. if this results in no-lift shifting, so be it.
• Exhaust - open rules.
• Mechanical shifting linkages only, mechanical or hydraulic clutch, with no assist. Any mounting is OK - wheel, pedal, stick.
• I don't have a strong opinion on the longer wheelbase - I assume that this is primarily to allow a long enough chain drive center-to-center distance, right?

In a nutshell, I think that F500 as it is today has the absolute best price/performance ratio in SCCA. However, a lot of people really dislike the 2-stroke/CVT setup - especially drivers in other classes who don't like the noise and smoke. It seems to me that staying as close to the F500 formula as possible, but putting in a motorcycle engine to solve the transmission and 2-stroke/4-stroke issues does the job without increasing costs to the point of pushing it out of the current price point relative to other SCCA open-wheel classes.

[Brands]

Personally I think any association with F500 will be a detriment to F600. It needs to be a stand alone series to attract new drivers into a modern low cost great sounding class. Nothing against the 500's but trying to explain a rubber suspended, snow mobile powered car with a CVT even to a racing enthusiast seems to result in a confused look and not much enthusiasm. On the other hand I've had nothing but interest in F600. From the outside it seems as though F500 has a niche following which is fine but I don't think it has mass market appeal and combining the two could stunt the growth of F600 and detract from F500 for those enthusiasts.

[Jnovak]

Nathan, just as a matter of discussion:

Why the diff on a low-cost road racing car? The wheel speed difference between the inner/outer tire on even the tightest corner in a typical road course is less than 2.5% for an F500. A larger track width (say 5" more) would worsen that only another 10%, but still probably not to the point where there would be significant degradation of the total lateral force capability of the axle.

Actually the live axle without a diff has the potential to actually develope a better traction circle than a car with an open diff. Think tire slip ratio and you can figure it out.

Now there are some different setup methods that you need to take advantage of but they are not any big deal at all.

[iamuwere]

I do agree we need a not 25k or less class, but 15k or less possibly. That might bring back number.

No matter how well I know rubber springs work compared to steel springs, there will always be a dislike of rubber springs for some reason. (Look at the fact there are ridiculous shoes with little metal springs in them in the SkyMall catalogue!)

Has anyone tried something like these AFCO shocks? Steel and aluminum, large or small body, coilover from $100-200 each. Springs are $50 each. Legends racing has a policy policing their use and compliance that could be copied.
http://speedpartz.com/AFCO_SUPER_CENTER.htm

[Stan Clayton]

I'm going to go against the grain here and suggest that keeping F600s capable of being folded into F500 is the right answer to the initial question. If they need to be longer and wider, make that legal for all cars in the class, not just the ones with m/c engines. Same for 2" pucks; but above all else keep them F500-legal.

[KevinFirlein]

didnt Phil say there was zero BoD support for a seperate rule set ? so why keep doing this ? Unless I missed something he encouraged debate on how to eventually wrap the 600's into f500. It would seem anything else , while maybe an enoyable excersize, is just gonna lead to more pissed off people with cries of SCCA doesnt care about us. Even though the one BoD member who regualry posts said this isnt gonna fly up front

[Wren]

didnt Phil say there was zero BoD support for a seperate rule set ? so why keep doing this ? Unless I missed something he encouraged debate on how to eventually wrap the 600's into f500. It would seem anything else , while maybe an enoyable excersize, is just gonna lead to more pissed off people with cries of SCCA doesnt care about us. Even though the one BoD member who regualry posts said this isnt gonna fly up front

That's exactly what Phil said. I assume that this is just an exercise with no intent to actually try to present these as the proposed rules.

If F600 were to ever be established as a stand alone class for regional racing, it would end up languishing there forever. There is basically no hope of ever actually making the participation numbers for a regional class to be a national class. There are just too many regionals.

[Ananth K]

I do agree we need a not 25k or less class, but 15k or less possibly. That might bring back number.

For 15k or less, you're probably looking at something like this, which actually isn't a bad idea IMHO: http://www.hyperracer.com/hyper-race.../pictures.html

I've put together a bargain basement BOM for an F600 with the current "f500 with bike engine" ruleset using mostly off-the-shelf parts, and it is nudging the 12k mark already just for the parts. At 15k for a turnkey car, the manufacturer would essentially be working for $2/hour. Jay or anyone else who has put a completely brand-new F600 on track can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Chris Elwell]

However, a lot of people really dislike the 2-stroke/CVT setup - especially drivers in other classes who don't like the noise and smoke. It seems to me that staying as close to the F500 formula as possible, but putting in a motorcycle engine to solve the transmission and 2-stroke/4-stroke issues does the job without increasing costs to the point of pushing it out of the current price point relative to other SCCA open-wheel classes.

This is what I would like to see F600 as; F500 but with a good sounding, plentiful engine and a real transmission. F500 as a class is appealing to me (I'm young, just out of college, just started club racing in FV) because the cars are almost FF-quick but are affordable. The only downside is the engine/CVT combo, I just hate that sound and you don't shift.

I also think F500 and F600 should eventually be combined into one class. There are too many classes already, the last thing we need is another one. Maybe call the combined class F550?

[Bill Bonow]

For 15k or less, you're probably looking at something like this, which actually isn't a bad idea IMHO: http://www.hyperracer.com/hyper-race.../pictures.html

If you check that website, they sell for $30k USD (without options) without shipping it here from OZ. Build it here, it will be less than $30k. But not $15k less

[Jnovak]

I'm going to go against the grain here and suggest that keeping F600s capable of being folded into F500 is the right answer to the initial question. If they need to be longer and wider, make that legal for all cars in the class, not just the ones with m/c engines. Same for 2" pucks; but above all else keep them F500-legal.

There is no question that rolling into F500 is certainly the solution. What I am trying to define is what possible changes to the existing rules would generate more interest in the future of this class.

I think we can hope that there is an opportunity that F600 will be a seperate regional class next year with the premis that it would become part of F500. The question is: are other changes needed down the road to get more people involved?

Of course any future changes would have to be for all the cars.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Jnovak]

For 15k or less, you're probably looking at something like this, which actually isn't a bad idea IMHO: http://www.hyperracer.com/hyper-race.../pictures.html

I've put together a bargain basement BOM for an F600 with the current "f500 with bike engine" ruleset using mostly off-the-shelf parts, and it is nudging the 12k mark already just for the parts. At 15k for a turnkey car, the manufacturer would essentially be working for $2/hour. Jay or anyone else who has put a completely brand-new F600 on track can correct me if I'm wrong.

Ananth, looking at exchange rates it is a $30K go kart.

I know what it takes to build low cost cars and $20K-25K for a 600cc MC power car is very affordable. I can tell you that the builders will not make enough at that price unless they sell something north of 100 cars in a couple of years. That is why I am trying to define the interest of the marketplace. What kind of a car would it take to interest racers to move to this class?

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Mark_Silverberg]

My view is make it a simple as possible withing the following parameters

1) Must be able to accmodate a 6'6" driver at 250 lbs. The reality is that we are getting bigger and a US based formula car has to accomodate someone of that size - if this means a longer wheelbase so be it.

2) Live rear axle is fine - dont need a differential - don't have one in my kart.

3) Don't need regular shocks and springs - elastomer is fine as long as the ride is not too punishing - I am getting older.

4) 10" wheel is OK if there is a reasonable cost savings over 13" in tire cost of opperation (not purchase) - in other words if 10" have the same usable life as 13" then 10" is fine.

5) I would prefer some sort of inlet restricter - IIR is probably better in my view as it is easier to enforce - but smarter minds may disagree.


Please remember that I have no illusions that I am going to be up front winning. I am presently a solid back of the lead pack vintage FV driver (P4-P7) who would like to have an SCCA alternative that has a modern powertrain.

[Rob E]

I guess that I was hoping for something more like a FF w/ a m/c engine. I do like the idea of a 25K car at the race track.

I looked at the rules proposal and was trying to figure out how difficult it would be to do a used VD or Swift w/ the m/c engine.

I could be wrong, it has happened before but I am envisioning "kids" coming out of shifter Karts and wanting shocks and springs, even if it only gives them the illusion that they are learning about chassis set-up and tuning.

10" wheels are no big deal one way or the other in my rose-colored world. I guess that the supply of tires long-term is the most important component to that part of the discussion.

[Jnovak]

Thanks for all the comments guys. I think it really sounds like most want something like this:

Chassis
1. A bigger car with a longer wheelbase and maximum width to fit the big guys safely
2. Elastomer springs to keep costs down.
3. 10" wheels

engine:
1. Screaming 15,000 rpm MC engine (everyone loves this part)
2. Totally mechanical shift system. (already part of our proposals)

Body:
1. Basically F500 rules but with perhaps a minimum width that is near enough to current F500 rules so that converted cars do not have to change bodies.

Thanks for the many good comments ... Jay Novak

[GBugg]

Man! That looks like a car with a LOT of potential. I think I'll build one!

...oh wait.... I did!

Let's go racing!!!

[Stan Clayton]

What I am trying to define is what possible changes to the existing rules would generate more interest in the future of this class.

Thanks Jay. I didn't catch this from your initial post.

Body:
1. Basically F500 rules but with perhaps a minimum width that is near enough to current F500 rules so that converted cars do not have to change bodies.

For me, the present bodywork rules make the cars unattractive. The cars look like the illegitimate offspring of a Shelby Can-Am, and are just plain "fugly" to me. To answer your question, though, I'd permit FF bodywork as an option to those who want it.

Then you'd have a fast, cheap car that sounds great and looks just as good.

[RobLav]

- Wheelbase up to 98"
- Max width at 72"
- Max body width at current FF
- All corners spec'd out - all cars use the same design uprights, calipers, rotors, bearings, 13" steel rims. Choice of 2-way-adjustable dampers at < $500 per corner. Damper options are designated.
- All suspension uses round tube
- Spec steering rack
- Open diff / IRS

Costs:
- Chassis - $5000
- All bodywork - $2000
- 4 corners including wheels and brakes - $4000
- Dampers - $2000
- Used engine - $1500
- Wet sump - $1000
- Rear drive box / diff - $3000
- Steering system - $1000
- Exhaust - $500
- Plumbing and hardware - $1000

Total ~ $22K

Cars are sold as kit based. You pick your engine. Labor provided by owner/builder. No welding necessary. You build your car, then you know it really really well.

Cars are spec'd out in areas to constrain costs but not spec'd in setups. Allows driver to understand changes made to the car and how they effect the handling.

On edit - I hate running with other cars with 10" wheels. Too much risk of jumping over them on contact. I am not alone in this!

[tedsimmons2]

I like Rob’s spec F600 dimensions including the 13” wheels. If adopted the only remaining question would be which class would it be rolled into – F500 or Formula F?

Doesn’t look like it would fit well in F500 but would be a great addition in Formula F. We could rename the combined class Formula . If I were running in Formula F I’d scream bloody murder as that car, as defined under Rob’s specification, would be quicker then a current Formula Ford/Honda.

[jim murphy]

"Maybe call the combined class F550?"

With the recent approval of a restricted Rotax 593, it could easily be called F600
sometime in the future.

Jim

[jim murphy]

"To answer your question, though, I'd permit FF bodywork as an option to those who want it."

Not without the F500 wide sidepods included both for safety and ease of packaging.
You can easily improve the bodywork rules for "prettier" cars.
And sports car noses (for wider footboxes) will have an impact on
the F600's looks - beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Jim
Been messing with these cars since 1982

[F five hunj]

What I'd like to see:

600cc bike motors, w/ IIR's took prevent the flavor of the week.

Piggyback tuning.

Dimensionally equivalent or very similar to F5. The easiest way for someone to get into the class is by taking an F5 and modifying the frame.

Suspension:

Don't really care whether dampers are permitted or not, however, it seems like a great idea to have a homologation list for allowable shocks.

I know just how fast an F5 is on elastomers, so I probably wouldn't opt to go with shocks anyways.

Wheels:

Don't really care.

Bodywork:

Adapted F5 rules, relaxing minimum clearances between wheels and pods.

What I don't want to see:

Spec suspension design. Too many conversion cars in the game right now to force that onto the class, and there's really no need for it anyways.

IRS / Diffs: add too much cost without enough ROI

[Stan Clayton]

"To answer your question, though, I'd permit FF bodywork as an option to those who want it."

Not without the F500 wide sidepods included both for safety and ease of packaging.
You can easily improve the bodywork rules for "prettier" cars.
And sports car noses (for wider footboxes) will have an impact on
the F600's looks - beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Jim
Been messing with these cars since 1982

Thanks Jim, and I agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which is why I made sure to state that these were 'my opinions' and not statements of fact.

That said, in all my years on various SCCA committees and boards, I cannot tell you how many people have told me that they were intrigued by the cost-saving aspects of F500, but that they simply could not get around the peculiarities of the engine/CVTs and the cars' appearance.

IMO, those two factors are why F500 isn't as big as FV or FF. The cars are simply too weird looking and sounding. Adding the 600cc motorcycle engine is a stroke of genius. I wish we'd been able to get that combo in FF, as we tried to do several years ago. But the engine only goes half way to making your class MUCH more appealing to potential members.

As they say in the restaurant business, the sizzle is as important as the steak! IOW, the cars need to LOOK as good as they sound and go. Now, you claim that we could "easily improve the bodywork rules for "prettier" cars", but I beg to differ. Several years ago we spent the better part of a year rewriting the F500 rules to preclude competitors tweaking their bodywork to eek out minor aero advantages. There ain't gonna be nothing "easy" about tweaking the rules.

Phil has made it clear that there is not enough support on the BoD to create a truly new class, and Jay has replied in this thread that he is seeking input on new rules for the existing class. That's what I offer up here...let the cars look like proper formula cars! Do that and Katie bar the door, because with the m/c engine option I believe you'd see some actual growth instead of just siphoning off cars from F500.

[Purple Frog]

Ditto Stan.

Formula F type chassis with 600 cc MC engines! Real race cars! A step ladder to F1000. Real car tuning for those learning the craft.
If you want the width, adopt the Europe 135 wide sidepods. Lots and lots of cars to convert in a heartbeat. Buy an old FF, sell the gearbox, use the kent as an anchor for your fishing boat, install a 600cc, and go racing for a hell of a lot less than $25K.

Shut up Frog. You are stupid.

[Daryl DeArman]

As they say in the restaurant business, the sizzle is as important as the steak! IOW, the cars need to LOOK as good as they sound and go.

I respect your opinions Stan. FV's neither look good nor sound good (IMO), however their participation numbers suggest that close affordable racing is of paramount importance if you wish to attract the numbers. People will race ugly and slow if it's cheap and good racing.

[jim murphy]

Thanks Jim, and I agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which is why I made sure to state that these were 'my opinions' and not statements of fact.

That said, in all my years on various SCCA committees and boards, I cannot tell you how many people have told me that they were intrigued by the cost-saving aspects of F500, but that they simply could not get around the peculiarities of the engine/CVTs and the cars' appearance.

IMO, those two factors are why F500 isn't as big as FV or FF. The cars are simply too weird looking and sounding. Adding the 600cc motorcycle engine is a stroke of genius. I wish we'd been able to get that combo in FF, as we tried to do several years ago. But the engine only goes half way to making your class MUCH more appealing to potential members.

As they say in the restaurant business, the sizzle is as important as the steak! IOW, the cars need to LOOK as good as they sound and go. Now, you claim that we could "easily improve the bodywork rules for "prettier" cars", but I beg to differ. Several years ago we spent the better part of a year rewriting the F500 rules to preclude competitors tweaking their bodywork to eek out minor aero advantages. There ain't gonna be nothing "easy" about tweaking the rules.

Phil has made it clear that there is not enough support on the BoD to create a truly new class, and Jay has replied in this thread that he is seeking input on new rules for the existing class. That's what I offer up here...let the cars look like proper formula cars! Do that and Katie bar the door, because with the m/c engine option I believe you'd see some actual growth instead of just siphoning off cars from F500.

IRT the MC drivetrain we we are simply reacting to people in the paddock coming up to us and saying: "Installing a MC would make this a great class" for over 25 years.
Interesting that you were part of the rules proces that took away any aero improvements and now you say it is ugly - this is still fixable.
As long as the new body rules include the sidepods and optional sports car nose I would be curious to see what kind of bodywork the creative types could come up with.

Jim