What does the perfect F600 class need?

[Brands]

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.

Sounds good to me. I can't help thinking that it's short sighted at this stage to combine with F500. In 5 years time this could still be a backwater class - biting the bullet now on a new class would pay off long term. I realize that's not going to happen but if I could wave a wand that would be my choice. FB lites!

[RobLav]

Seems Brands, the Amphibian, and I are on the same page.

[Purple Frog]

Re-read post #12. Obviously Stan, Frog, Brands, and Rob are not existing F500 folks. Please forgive them their transgressions.

Continue on with the solid axle.

As Zebra would say, if he could, controlling the cost of race cars is like keeping teens from having sex. It will only work with draconian rules... such as any car in the paddock must be sold for $25,000 to anyone offering the money.

[Stan Clayton]

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.

A few months ago I was invited to draft a 'clean sheet' set of rules for F6, and this is essentially what I submitted. I even suggested a max width of 66" to sweep in older, narrower FF chassis that were no longer competitive with the newer, wider cars. The draft got run up the flagpole and was shot down immediately: No "FB-Lite" cars or "FF-wth-a-m/c-engine" cars need apply!

Okay, so after stewing on it for a while I've come 180-degrees: An otherwise F500-legal car with a m/c engine...hopefully with a FF-type bodywork option and Jay's longer wb and width, and bigger pucks. No dampers. No IRS. No 13" wheels. We don't need them and they just add cost.

[Purple Frog]

Proves my point. Stan is correct!
And, as stated earlier, Frog is stupid.

Build it and they will come.

As soon as Jay tells me how to write the CRB, I'll send in a letter in favor.
But, i will not buy two for my grandsons.

[Mark Filip]

- 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!

Sounds sweet

[JerryH]

Like Stan, I have stewed over this for a while.....and have come to the conclusion that the best route is an f500 with longer wheelbase and bigger pucks.....no other changes.....same width.....same bodywork rules. I do think the flat floor rules need clarification......something similar to ff wording. The changes should also apply to existing f500s.

Let's get it done!

Jerry

[Jnovak]

I think a really good looking car can be designed for F600 and we are now working on it.

Thanks ... Jay

[connersportsracers]

Are the rules from the November 2011 Fastrack meeting the general outline of the class??

Is the cockpit opening 14" wide over a 17" long, as the rules say or is it 17" wide over 14" long because that is +/- what a Sports Racer opening is, I know you formula guys are a bit thinner than full body car drivers.

I think they are overall good, I do not like the intake restrictor's at all. I sent a crb ?? a letter saying any bike motor less than 8 years old shall be stock and over 8 years old may be modified but keep the stock fuel injection, an 8 year old motor may need reuilding anyway.

I plan on building a car very soon & getting a bike from Copart . com

I am looking for suspension parts, not sure about the pucks & the friction damping, I'll take the 50 lbs. for shocks.

[johnnewcomb62]

I think a really good looking car can be designed for F600 and we are now working on it.

Thanks ... Jay

Jay,

How about posting a CAD drawing or sketch when you get a base done? I for
one would love to see what you have in mind!!!

Happy Holidays all,
John

[mbrandt1402]

Former F440 guy here. IMHO, outsiders stop looking at the class when they see the rubber suspension. If F6 doesn't get shocks, you are severely limiting your potential audience. Racers may know better, but that isn't the deal. It is about attracting new people.

I'd make the shocks a claiming item @ ~ $1200 for the set. The small bodied AFCOs look interesting. Also allow 2x2 pucks.

[Mark Filip]

5 Reasons I never even considered F500

1. No shifting did that in karts when I was 12
2. Sound
3. No suspension
4. Small
5. Not the most attractive bodies

I like the 600 bike engine deal but would never even think about the car if the other 3 things stayed the same.


That's just what I think but I'm sure there are others that feel this way.

To keep the cost down is there any reason this would not work?

1. Choose 2 inexpensive shock packages from 2 companies like the AFCOs and what ever else is around the same price. I think a set of 4 would be around $1000. This way everyone has a choice and it will keep pricing stable.

2. 2 different tires to choose from. Hopefully something that looks good (wide like other formula classes not like FV which is one thing I believe pushes people away from FV)

3. Motorcycle brake calipers maybe 4 piston fronts and 2 piston rears. These can be recycled from crashed bikes pretty easy these days with every clown crashing 4 times a year.

4. Factory ECU and air box

5. No wings

6. Little heavier for the fat guys I'm not saying so heavy that the little guy has to add 200 lbs of lead but something a little easier for the 225lb driver to make weight.

7. Maybe a few people could make uprights maybe a few make frames maybe a few make bodies or exhausts. Kinda like a joint effort so everyone supports everyone. Someone must be better at machining just like there are better chassis guys. but everyone is required to make there parts to be used with the other guys parts. We don't need the best of the best just make a good fun reliable car that does not cost the same as a house weather the cost thing can happen I'm not sure because I have never made parts.

8. This way I could order my frame say I have 2 or 3 to choose from, then the body I like and so on. I could then assembly my own car so I understand how it works or I can have a builder do it for me. All choices none of the I'm going to pay because this is where I have to buy it. This would also allow people to build there car as they can.

I know we could go on and on about what each one of us would like but these are just a few that I think about.

There are so many well educated car designers and builders on here a great class could be formed to meet most of our needs and costs.

[Offcamber1]

1. 2 inch pucks. (Even with a spec shock there will be expensive optimisation going on.)

2. 10 inch wheels for now.

3. Solid axle.

4. Longer wheelbase to accommodate motor package and weight challenged drivers.


My thought is make it easy to convert older F440/F500 cars. Make it appeal to former Karters. Make it easy for F500 guys to move into the fun world of shifting.



One more thing: Jay, I still say a de-Dion rear is actually a solid axle. Why rule out a hopeless heavy, complex, and outdated idea?

Merry Christmas all!

Kip

[Mark Filip]

Make it appeal to former Karters

Maybe it's just me but I can't see in anyway those cars would appeal to a Karter.

[RobLav]

It seems the train has already left the station. CRB and BOD say no FB-lite. So we try to revive the F500 thing... and now with FA, FB, FC, FE,and FF all with a Pro schedule (and FV/F1200), the formula racing community becomes more fractured and SCCA Club (and rules) even less important. SCCA Club used to better thrive when it was a feeder for Pro series. We talk about alining rules and programs between Club and Pro as being important to both organizations. The Pro series have generally tried to align their rules with Club and have deviated from those rules when it makes more sense. At some point, SCCA Club should align their rules (and cars and programs) to match and feed the Pro series (rather than always the other way around). Otherwise, SCCA Club becomes even more meaningless.

Putting 600cc bike engines in a F500 chassis just does not make any sense to me. Newer F500 engines are becoming available. And I don't see how F500 would be a smart step in the feeder system to Pro. There are other, much better options. It surely makes sense in Club for it to remain as a "fun" type class. So why complicate it with 600cc bike engines?

[Jnovak]

One more thing: Jay, I still say a de-Dion rear is actually a solid axle. Why rule out a hopeless heavy, complex, and outdated idea?

Merry Christmas all!

Kip

Kip, a DeDion may fit your idea of a solid axle, however would not fit within the definition of a solid axle by our rules as it still has axle joints control arm links and lots of other bits and will be much heavier and more expensive than our hopelessly outdate axle system. I even like a DeDion, however an F600 axle will weigh a lot less than a De-dion and be less expensive too. That said I have never designed or analyzed a De-Dion so my head might be in a very dark place.

Here is what our axle parts weigh:
1. 50 mm steel axle tube - 9.01 lbs
2. 2 rear bearing carriers - 2.2 lbs
3. 2 50mm double row axle bearings - 2.9 lbs
4. 2 rear wheel hubs integreated with rotor hub - 4.05 lbs
5. sprocket hub - 1.25 lbs
6. Brake rotor - 2.8 lbs
7. Brake caliper - 2.4 lbs

Let's see, our outdated complete axle assembly weighs in at 24.61 lbs. This is over 57 lbs lighter than a totally independent suspension design for the same chassis and about $5000 less expensive.

PS: If I wanted I could get about 2 more lbs out of the entire axle at the expense of long term durability.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Jnovak]

Hi Rob, the only real problem with F500 is that it is loseing drivers. 15 years ago F500 had over 175 drivers attending races. in 2011 there were 51 drivers who raced in F500 in the US. The SCCA needs a modern very low cost open wheel class for a lot of racers to get started in. FV is the only other low cost open wheel class available right now and it is in a similar boat in that there are very few new racers going to FV.

I think the 600cc MC engines will rejuvenate F500/F600 and it could become the top low cost open wheel class. It will NEVER be a feeder class to the pros in my opinion but not everyone wants to be a pro, some just want to have fun with a realtively limited budget.

I know that an F600 car will be as fast as an FF car at way less than 1/2 the cost. This is a great incentive bring new racers to the SCCA.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Stan Clayton]

Here is what our axle parts weigh:
1. 50 mm steel axle tube - 9.01 lbs
2. 2 rear bearing carriers - 2.2 lbs
3. 2 50mm double row axle bearings - 2.9 lbs
4. 2 rear wheel hubs integreated with rotor hub - 4.05 lbs
5. sprocket hub - 1.25 lbs
6. Brake rotor - 2.8 lbs
7. Brake caliper - 2.4 lbs

Let's see, our outdated complete axle assembly weighs in at 24.61 lbs. This is over 57 lbs lighter than a totally independent suspension design for the same chassis and about $5000 less expensive.

Jay, while I agree that an F500 rear axle assembly is cheaper and lighter than many of the alternatives, your example here looks suspiciously like you compared your latest F500 design against the heaviest and most expensive IRS example you could find, so how about listing the IRS components you use by name and their weights so we all know what we're dealing with?

I happen to know that the IRS rear axle assembly for the AMAC DSR is roughly the same weight and cost as a Novakar live axle assembly for F500. It may be a bit more of each, but your post looks like scare tactics.

[RobLav]

Thanks Jay,

Overall, I believe we all agree that an entry level formula class is the right thing to do. But we are not agreeing on the F500 platform as the basis. With a 600cc bike engine, the car will be quicker than a FF. So it seems to me that the same safety requirements (rollhoop, bracing, chassis requirements, attenuators, etc) must at least meet the FF requirements. The F500 platform is not even close. It's more like a FSAE car rather than a road racing car. And I really don't like running my B or C cars on the track with them at the same time.

But I don't have a direct stake in the outcome of this discussion. So it's not my call.

The real issue, it seems, is trying to revive a dying class. I sort of alluded to the lack of solid leadership (not management) on SCCA BOD/CRB part in a previous post, and it looks to me that this issue falls in the same category. Rather than have a simple yet ineffective measure of performance set at 2.5 cars per National race, they ought to be tracking the number of drivers over a 5+ year period as well as the ages of those drivers. What they need to track are these trends and make decisions before the issue becomes overly critical. The F500 trend of # drivers (175 to 51 in 15 years) tells me the class ought to go to Regional right now. The numbers and age of drivers are more important trends to track rather than simply entrants. There are relatively simple statistical methods to determine when to make the decisions. And this sort of goes back to my thinking while I was Assistant RE of NER - why the hell does SCCA overly focus on # of members? What we want are participants. The Club is focused on the wrong Measure of Effectiveness.

Even though my rant in the previous paragraph may seem outside the scope of our F500 or FF platform for the 600 bike engines, I believe it is really a root cause of many of our issues - this one included. There's no focus. In times of dwindling resources and lost revenue, the Club must also behave like a business (or individual) by "defaulting" on parts that are not adding value. The leadership from the Club is lacking focus, and that is quite evident in lack of focus as to the precise purpose of each National class (and whether or not we should combine Regional and National).

A strong case can be made for an entry level Formula car class - even for those who want to simply have fun (as it should be) and not necessarily feed the upper ranks. But I still strongly question the F500 platform as the basis. As I said, the 600cc bike engines will have the car faster than FF. The platform ought to have at least the same chassis and safety requirements as FF and dump the 10" wheels that tend to launch other cars.

[Jim Nash]

So it seems to me that the same safety requirements (rollhoop, bracing, chassis requirements, attenuators, etc) must at least meet the FF requirements. The F500 platform is not even close. It's more like a FSAE car rather than a road racing car.

I am pretty sure they are built to the same rules. The GCR sets the requirements by weight of the car and both the 500s and F's are in the same grouping. Given the side pod rules the F500 cars could be considered safer.

Having said that, you might "see" them as less safe given the smaller track and wheelbase dimensions, but by the rules, they are the same.

Yes, it is Christmas and I am on Apexspeed. Couldn't sleep. Waiting to open gifts from Santa!

Jim

[Jnovak]

I am pretty sure they are built to the same rules. The GCR sets the requirements by weight of the car and both the 500s and F's are in the same grouping. Given the side pod rules the F500 cars could be considered safer.

Having said that, you might "see" them as less safe given the smaller track and wheelbase dimensions, but by the rules, they are the same.

Yes, it is Christmas and I am on Apexspeed. Couldn't sleep. Waiting to open gifts from Santa!

Jim

Jim is correct. All the structural requirements are the same.

Additionally, you see way less wheel entanglement issues with F500/F600 than any of the other open wheel classes and this is due to the wide sidepods. In Fact I can't remember a "launch" in F500.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[jim murphy]

Jim is correct. All the structural requirements are the same.

Additionally, you see way less wheel entanglement issues with F500/F600 than any of the other open wheel classes and this is due to the wide sidepods. In Fact I can't remember a "launch" in F500.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

Another factor is the increase in the use of sports car noses on F500's - initially to improve aerodynamics but has a small secondary effect of improved safety in increased attenuation and lower probability of launching off of the back of a rear wheel.

Jim

[fatdaddy53]

I have seen two, one at Road Atlanta and one at Topeka at the runoffs. Both were a pretty extreme situation, much more than a close quarter bump.

[Marshall Mauney]

The real issue, it seems, is trying to revive a dying class. [...] The F500 trend of # drivers (175 to 51 in 15 years) tells me the class ought to go to Regional right now.

You're saying this about the 12th-highest entry count national class? Are you equally lobbying to move GT2, T1, SSC, T3, and GTL, out of nationals, or is this just that you don't like f500?

The numbers and age of drivers are more important trends to track rather than simply entrants. There are relatively simple statistical methods to determine when to make the decisions.

Part of the problem is that many classes are regional in nature. Come to a CenDiv race and you'll see whole lot of F500s and FEs; look at the car counts in NPDiv for the same classes, though, and you'll see whole different story. Both, though, are quite healthy in terms of actual nationwide entry counts, even though you might not see them very often in NER.

I think the other thing that plays into the use of entry counts is the simple accounting math - entries = $$$. Do you want to be the person who tells Milwaukee region that they just lost all the entry fees for F500s at Blackhawk Farms and RA? I know that I wouldn't want to be in that meeting.....

The leadership from the Club is lacking focus, and that is quite evident in lack of focus as to the precise purpose of each National class (and whether or not we should combine Regional and National).

No argument. Seems pretty simple to see, though, that the spec and formula classes (and STU) are bringing the cars out to the track. I think that part of the reason this is true is that there is a clear performance ladder in open-wheel; tintops don't have anywhere near such a clear progression from slow/cheap to fast/expensive. Why can't Touring and Showroom Stock be combined - why do we need two sets of groupings for what are essentially bone-stock production cars?

No, if we look at 2011 results, only the top 15 classes brought out an average of 3 cars to each national race. Below that level, it's pretty clear that the class isn't terribly strong (unless there's a seriously heavy regional bias in one or more of these). Save FB, though, all of those classes are tin-tops or sports racers. The "class purpose" argument makes a lot of sense there, but I honestly don't think it makes sense at all in the open-wheel ranks - we've got the differentiation we need, so let's not mess it up. Tweak the individual classes for modernization? Sure. Wholesale changes? I don't see the need or the value.

A strong case can be made for an entry level Formula car class - even for those who want to simply have fun (as it should be) and not necessarily feed the upper ranks. But I still strongly question the F500 platform as the basis. As I said, the 600cc bike engines will have the car faster than FF. The platform ought to have at least the same chassis and safety requirements as FF and dump the 10" wheels that tend to launch other cars.

What specific safety or chassis requirement differences are you referring to? I can tell you that I would absolutely feel safer driving a new Novakar or Invader than I would driving any of the Club Fords out there with minimal or non-existent sidepods.

[ny_racer_xxx]

Getting back to the original post what would the perfect F600 class need?

First off some club management with there heads not in their posteriors, and basically a F500 with a 600 motor shoe horned in there. That's what I said on the old mailing list back in 2005 and it's been proven by every converted car that hit the track.

This isn't rocket science, you already have the platform, now you need to figure out how to get the SCCA to approve the class. Or screw the SCCA and take it somewhere else...

Those should be the only discussions about the cars.....


CR

[preform resources]

Gee, I dunno, these cars don't look too bad...
Dave Craddock

[Jnovak]

Gee, I dunno, these cars don't look too bad...
Dave Craddock

These are the good looking ones Dave, because you had a hand in all of them!

Thanks for some great bodies ... Jay Novak

[ny_racer_xxx]

I agree 100%, these are great looking cars. Your focus should getting THESE cars approved and work with what's already been submitted...

CR

[Jnovak]

I agree 100%, these are great looking cars. Your focus should getting THESE cars approved and work with what's already been submitted...

CR

The red and black #69 is an F600 and won the 2010 ARRC F600 Championship. It will race in the Great Lakes Division this year an possibly a couple of races in other areas.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[KevinFirlein]

I have an honest question. Phil has clearly stated that the BoD wants to see the bike motors wrapped into the existing 500 class. I realise this wont make the 500 guys jump for joy. I was in the class when the AMW came in. the 94 Runoffs was a bloody disaster imo. the fact the all the then 440 guys( the entire class not just the kaw guys) were kicked out of the standard weekly open wheel town hall meeting and told to come back later at night should tell you something. It was just flat out nasty that very nearly got physical.

But here is my question. I know there are several 600's that have been running for a couple years now. Have they been running with IIR or just wide open ? if wide open it seems like a complete waste of time. I am sure its a blast to drive but its just delaying the process and hurting your own cause. Because of the nature of the snowmobile engine and its CVT engine dyno testing can only get you so far, as if the clutch is tuned right , in theory, the snow mobile wil always make peak power. Thats not the case with bike motors which is of course why this will be so difficult.

I know Atlanta region gives F6 its own class but it seems to me they should al be running whatever IIR and weight , higher or lower, to get the classes merged as soon as possible.

Been through this twice with FC and FF and its hurts during the process and you will lose some but the quicker it gets done the better it is for everyone. Then you can deal with things like 2" pucks and the such. Clear the high hurdle 1st. Just a question and an opinion from a former class member.

[Mark Filip]

How much to build a f600 with the current f500 chassis with one of those newer looking bodies? How big of a driver can fit in the current cars?

Mark

[ny_racer_xxx]

Most of the cars, if not all of them have been running IIR's.

Cost of a build, really depends on what you start with, and what you want to end up with.
If it's a running car that came off the track, the McMahon's will convert the car for the price of a motor kit and $5k I believe. Novak has kits for his cars and KBS/QRE cars.. The body is just a body kit...

How big a driver also depends on what car. I know the Novacars can fit larger drivers and the KBS's/QRE can be modified for larger drivers....


CR

[Jnovak]

Kevin, we ran 1 race without restrictors and that was the 2010 ARRC. We wanted to see how fast the cars actually were. My NovaKar F600 with Glenn Cooper in the car set the lap record for F600 (unrestricted) at a 1:30.9. The next spring Jason Knuteson set a new F500 lap record of 130.2. That said our 1:30.9 was simply the beginning as that was the very 1st race for that car. However for the 2011 season every F600 in the SE division ran IIRs of 30mm or 32 mm in each and every race. The 30mm restrictors were about 2.5 seconds/lap slower that the top F500s at the same tracks although on different days. When we applied for approval we requested that 30mm IIR restrictors would be the starting point. I do not know what the CRB will propose when they do make a new set of rules.

I have to say that I thought that we did everything the CRB asked us to do including dyno testing with 5 different restrictors and track testing with 3 different engine restrictor packages and 2 different weights with a total of 8 different F600s at 3 different tracks. One of the big "problems" is that the 600 fuel injected MC engines are much more consistent that the Rotax 2 stroke engines in that they are essentially not affected by the weather. A 2 stroke can and will slow down as a function of the temperature and air pressure while the MC engine is much more consistant.

I am totally confident that we can make the cars slower than the top F500s for sure. However no one has ever defined what the SCCA definition of parity actually is so we will have to keep on working at it.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[lancer360]

Clint and I have run our F600's at several different tracks together over the past couple of years. I'm very much a regional newbie and Clint is one of the faster F500/600 national drivers. That being said when he chased me through a corner on to the straight away (at a couple of different tracks) there wasn't a damn thing he could do to pass me and I couldn't put any distance on him. We were both running with restrictors. He was running a Honda and I was running the GSXR in different cars with different bodies. Afterwards he commented that he was so happy to see that. The two strokes are very picky when it comes to tuning them and getting the clutch setup. He said it was rare to ever see two different cars so evenly matched in straight line speed. Someone always had an advantage. These restricted EFI 600's let a total newb like me run with the big dogs on the straightaways. Now once we hit the next corner I got schooled! I have much to learn still.

[tedsimmons2]

The ultimate issue and problem: F600 and F500 go fast in different ways and truly equalizing them isn't going to happen. Even if they're doing exactly the same lap times they aren't going to be equal. I have first-hand experience that at a certain point the mechanical efficiency of the manual shift is going to win out on top speed. On a short track this may not show up in lap time or may even be negated by the CVT’s corner exit speed. But whenever running a relatively long track (e.g. Road America, Road Atlanta, Daytona etc) the F600 will dominate beyond that "distance". That distance occurs approximately mid/top of 4th gear at that point the MC engine (manual transmission) will out perform the CVT.

I would make the suggestion a MC engine in a current F500 chassis (called a F600) should be included in the F500 class for National level racing immediately (2012). Without the F600’s racing alongside F500’s at the National level I don’t see how you can prove parity AND prove to regular F500 participants that the F600’s aren’t going to dominate and dilute the F500 experience. Immediate inclusion within F500 should come with a caveat - F600 car count must meet a predetermined number within 5 years or they get dropped from the F500 ranks and are assimilated into Regional racing in FS.

I think including F600’s now will boost F500 class participation numbers and bring about a real in-class rivalry that could be good for the class overall. It will also allow those people who want the shifting experience and high rpm engine sound to have a place to put-up or shut-up.

[fatdaddy53]

That request was made well over a year ago Ted. For some reason, I only see Clint's times discussed in the forums. There are four others running but no mention of them as far as times; we are regional drivers without the experience and talent. You can also see from the results that there was only one national level driver that ran with us in an F5. I fully agree with you and so do several others, maybe we should make our opinion known to the board.....again. I also have to wonder if the board(s) are also focusing on one set of times.

[ny_racer_xxx]

Ted, so you're saying that a 100hp CVT 2 stroke would be at a disadvantage to a 50hp gearbox motor? Your statement totally makes no sense, lap times are lap times.

If you read what the SCCA wants or wanted is NOT parity initially, they want the 600's to be SLOWER and then gradually work them up to parity.

This has all been hashed out 1000 times already, stop preaching to the choir, stop preaching to the atheist's, and get this done...


CR

[ny_racer_xxx]

I would also like to make another suggestion regarding the SCCA. It seems that all the letters to the SCCA have been individual, someone should type up a professional letter and attach names to it. Get a list of everybody that's pro 600 and put real numbers of who's for the cars. That will keep an accurate count on things and also clog the SCCA less with individual letters.

CR

[Jnovak]

That request was made well over a year ago Ted. For some reason, I only see Clint's times discussed in the forums. There are four others running but no mention of them as far as times; we are regional drivers without the experience and talent. You can also see from the results that there was only one national level driver that ran with us in an F5. I fully agree with you and so do several others, maybe we should make our opinion known to the board.....again. I also have to wonder if the board(s) are also focusing on one set of times.

No offense to the other guys in F600 but the reason you only see Clint's times is because he is 2 to 4 seconds faster than all the other guys in F600 at this time. The only guy to go as fast as Clint is Glenn Cooper in the NovaKar F600. The F600 records are slower at every track when compared to the F500 records. This is a fact of life but still not good enough for the SCCA.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Jnovak]

The ultimate issue and problem: F600 and F500 go fast in different ways and truly equalizing them isn't going to happen. Even if they're doing exactly the same lap times they aren't going to be equal. I have first-hand experience that at a certain point the mechanical efficiency of the manual shift is going to win out on top speed. On a short track this may not show up in lap time or may even be negated by the CVT’s corner exit speed. But whenever running a relatively long track (e.g. Road America, Road Atlanta, Daytona etc) the F600 will dominate beyond that "distance". That distance occurs approximately mid/top of 4th gear at that point the MC engine (manual transmission) will out perform the CVT.

I would make the suggestion a MC engine in a current F500 chassis (called a F600) should be included in the F500 class for National level racing immediately (2012). Without the F600’s racing alongside F500’s at the National level I don’t see how you can prove parity AND prove to regular F500 participants that the F600’s aren’t going to dominate and dilute the F500 experience. Immediate inclusion within F500 should come with a caveat - F600 car count must meet a predetermined number within 5 years or they get dropped from the F500 ranks and are assimilated into Regional racing in FS.

I think including F600’s now will boost F500 class participation numbers and bring about a real in-class rivalry to could be good for the class overall. It will also allow those people who want the shifting experience and high rpm engine sound to have a place to put-up or shut-up.

You make a reasonable point Ted but I do not agree about the top speed issue. Tthe only data that I have that is a direct comparison is if you compare the top speed of our NovaKar F500 that won the Runoffs in 2007 and our NovaKar F600 that won the ARRC in 2010. Here is the result of the top speed data from both cars.

F500 at Road America for the 2007 June sprints. Maximum top speed going into Canada corner was 136-137 mph, at a minimum weight of 803 lbs after the race. No draft.

F600 at Road Atlanta for the 2010 ARRC. Maximum top speed going down the hill on the back straight 138 mph, without any restrictors at a minimum weight of 878 lbs after the race. No draft.

I think this is a very valid comparision as the bodywork is exactly the same on both cars. Other data from our car and other cars, in testing and races, has clearly shown that the F600 cars, with restrictors, are several mph slower down the straights in testing and racing.

I also suggest that you look at the top speed of the F500s from the 2011 Runoffs. The top cars are right at the same speed as our car was in 2007 at the Sprints. You will also note that the top speed spread in F500 is HUGE from the top 3 or 4 guys at 136-137 mph to everyone else at 10 to 15 mph slower. Why do you think this is? I can tell you that it is clutch and engine tuning. It is very difficult to get the tuning of both the clutchs and the engines exactly right all the time and only a very few guys can do this cosnsistantly.

Here is a link to the Runoffs data, check it out yourself.
http://www.scca.com/events/news.cfm?eid=3128&cid=50880

I do agree with your other points Ted but I doubt that that SCCA will go that way.

Thanks ... Jay Novak