Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 277
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    01.11.05
    Location
    Zionsville, Indiana
    Posts
    3,169
    Liked: 1395

    Default Entry Level Formula Car

    What would a modern day entry level formula car look like?

    I am thinking about a formula car racing class modeled after FV where cars are built using a box of standardized parts, with a price point of 50% or less of US medium income, and with a performance level between FV and FF. A class where home built and factory built cars are the norm; a class that emphasizes engineering, ingenuity and mechanical skills; a car that develops good driving skills as does FV.

    I don’t think a collectivist, or spec car approach is the way to go. But that is my prejudice.

    FV has been a great class for well over 50 years. Is there a car design that can be that successful going forward?

    I started studying this concept by designing a front upright assembly that included wheels, brakes, and upright that could be built for under $500. Recently I ran the idea by an employee of one of the performance shops and he shot back with something the guys in his shop thought could be done for under $25,000.

    I know that F500/F600 are close to the price point but I am thinking about a car closer to FF in design concept. For whatever reason, F440, F500 and F600 have never come close to the numbers for FV or FF. Both FV and FF have had fields of cars approaching 100 at places like Elkhart Lake and Daytona.

    Maybe the car could have 13” dia. by 5” wide wheels and street tires. Just an idea.

    I am proposing this as an academic exercise only. I think it will be fun to see what might be possible if enough people study the problem.

    There are way too many SCCA classes now. Another class won’t solve anything.

  2. #2
    Contributing Member TimH's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.13.10
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,625
    Liked: 1100

    Default

    I'd start with 14" tires. Options keep getting more limited with 13". I'm on record as a big fan of street radials.

    The big problem is that everybody wants aero these days, partly because it looks faster and partly because it is. Suddenly that puts you on a steep development curve.

    One could ask, though, why a new class is needed when CF and FV are still around?
    Caldwell D9B - Sold
    Crossle' 30/32/45 Mongrel - Sold
    RF94 Monoshock - here goes nothin'

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    11.01.09
    Location
    Indianapolis, In
    Posts
    462
    Liked: 30

    Default Formula 4

    Steve,
    There was a class like that and it ran for years at waterford hills, it was call F4 and they ran 750cc Bike motors i believe.

    http://www.formulafour.com/index.htm

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    01.11.05
    Location
    Zionsville, Indiana
    Posts
    3,169
    Liked: 1395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TimH View Post
    I'd start with 14" tires. Options keep getting more limited with 13". I'm on record as a big fan of street radials.

    The big problem is that everybody wants aero these days, partly because it looks faster and partly because it is. Suddenly that puts you on a steep development curve.

    One could ask, though, why a new class is needed when CF and FV are still around?
    I thought about wings. At first I rejected the idea but when I thought about using a small street tire, maybe the wings might be necessary to get the cornering speeds up.

    If you allow wings how might you control the level of down force?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    01.11.05
    Location
    Zionsville, Indiana
    Posts
    3,169
    Liked: 1395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allof6 View Post
    Steve,
    There was a class like that and it ran for years at waterford hills, it was call F4 and they ran 750cc Bike motors i believe.

    http://www.formulafour.com/index.htm
    F4 has a long history. Problem is cost control. You arte talking about F1000 with 250 cc less.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Neil_Roberts's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.08.11
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    618
    Liked: 102

    Default

    One possible starting point is a quad bike. Keep the drivetrain and suspension, toss everything else and connect the dots with your own inventions. If you want a wing, put one one top like a sprint car so that it isn't an expensive bumper.

  7. #7
    Contributing Member
    Join Date
    01.14.08
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    98
    Liked: 79

    Default

    Great topic...

    I'm sure you're aware but what might help is to remember what really instigated people to make FV and FF so affordable and approachable.
    With FV it was the idea that most of the hard to design and manufacture parts such as the transaxale and entire front suspension, were essentially modular. Remove from a donor Beetle then mount to a tube frame chassis. This kept the cost down.
    FF drivers were OK with spending a little more to get a proper suspension and more power but the open suspension design allowed more fancy, expensive engineering.
    Unfortunately there is no modern equivalent of the Beetle. Maybe some good powerplants but the bolt on suspension and transaxle which were key, don't exist today in any modern affordable cars or donor vehicles.

    I would suspect that some of the circle track components such as this for instance http://www.smileysracing.com/shoppin...?i=9936&c=1564
    and this
    http://www.smileysracing.com/shoppin...i=18786&c=1560
    could be used to make an affordable front suspension but we're still stuck with the powerplant to transaxle dilemma. And you already figured the front suspension out anyways

    What are some ideas for a motor/tranny?
    Supposing a solution is found, maybe the bug transaxle mounted to a Harley Davidson style twin for example, or some other motorcycle motor and tranny combo, will there be enough surplus parts to feed the class with low cost and robust solutions that are user friendly? This is always a big question.

    Also, among the many reasons FV has remained so popular, I feel one is that the speeds have remained easily adaptable to almost anyone. Allowing folks to continue racing happily into their retirement years. Most racers know you don't need to go 160MPH to have good race. So I like your idea of keeping the performance between a FV and FF. No Wings....They're just something else to break off and cost money.

    I would think the price point of a new Legends car ($10k to $13K? hmm) would make it hard to refuse for a good number of people and a good target. Of course that's half of what you were thinking. But if the fancy bits are kept to a minimum, maybe it's possible in kit form

    AP

  8. #8
    Global Moderator Bill Bonow's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.18.02
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    2,663
    Liked: 190

    Default Here's a crazy idea......

    How about an updated FV?
    Last edited by Bill Bonow; 08.01.16 at 12:39 PM.
    Bill Bonow
    "Wait, which one is the gas pedal again?"

  9. #9
    Contributing Member
    Join Date
    12.24.08
    Location
    Cedarburg, WI
    Posts
    1,950
    Liked: 86

    Default

    With some reasonable aftermarket upgrades the CV-style VW transaxle can handle more than enough power for an entry level speed car. Can you design a suspension that works with the modular upright concept?
    Matt King
    FV19 Citation XTC-41
    CenDiv-Milwaukee
    KEEP THE KINK!

  10. #10
    Administrator dc's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.24.00
    Location
    Chicagoland, Illinois
    Posts
    5,526
    Liked: 1417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S Lathrop View Post
    I am proposing this as an academic exercise only. I think it will be fun to see what might be possible if enough people study the problem. There are way too many SCCA classes now. Another class won’t solve anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by TimH View Post
    One could ask, though, why a new class is needed when CF and FV are still around?
    Should they be or are they both vintage classes?

  11. #11
    Contributing Member Jnovak's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.08.07
    Location
    Dearborn, Michigan
    Posts
    3,787
    Liked: 896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Carter View Post
    Should they be or are they both vintage classes?
    This concept has merit. The limiting factor is the powertrain

    Find one that will work. A production 6 speed manual transaxle and 200 hp.

    Lathrop and I will design and build it. Steve and I have talked about this for quite some time.
    Thanks ... Jay Novak
    313-445-4047
    On my 54th year as an SCCA member
    with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)

  12. #12
    Contributing Member problemchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.22.02
    Location
    Ransomville, NY
    Posts
    5,718
    Liked: 4303

    Default

    I don't see how anyone can meet any more objectives for an entry level formula car at the $25K price point than Jay has done with the Blade F600.
    Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
    F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
    2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
    2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.

  13. #13
    Contributing Member Rick Kirchner's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.24.02
    Location
    Tehachapi, CA
    Posts
    6,480
    Liked: 1462

    Default

    I second Bonow's post - what's wrong with FST? Not sexy enough? those parts will be around for a long, long time.

    for an update, what about a subaru motor and transmission? Just disconnect the PTO for the center diff.

    It's all about parts count and touch labor. got to keep both to a minimum.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    01.11.05
    Location
    Zionsville, Indiana
    Posts
    3,169
    Liked: 1395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by problemchild View Post
    I don't see how anyone can meet any more objectives for an entry level formula car at the $25K price point than Jay has done with the Blade F600.

    Jay and I had a discussion about the car I am asking about. My regret was that the F600 was not closer to FF as a chassis. We agreed that it would be fun to see more sophisticated chassis with the F600 power plant.

    Decades ago I built a DSR that Ed Zink designed. We used a Yamaha TZ750 bike engine. The final drive was the differential from a Hewland MK 9, the side plates and the out put flanges. I built an enclosure to surround the differential (to hold lubricants) and a box the mount side plates. I could have used an IRS VW Beetle for the same parts. The ring gear was replaced with a chain sprocket. There is no reason that we could not find a differential and out[put flanges from some current production car and do the same thing. Even get all the rear drive components.

    Believe me, control arms are not expensive to produce, especially when you stay with round tubes.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    01.11.05
    Location
    Zionsville, Indiana
    Posts
    3,169
    Liked: 1395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner View Post
    I second Bonow's post - what's wrong with FST? Not sexy enough? those parts will be around for a long, long time.

    for an update, what about a subaru motor and transmission? Just disconnect the PTO for the center diff.

    It's all about parts count and touch labor. got to keep both to a minimum.
    FV parts are available now but not at the prices they were several years ago. We are looking at allowing BJ front ends into FV because there might be a supply problem in the future with the current link pin system.

    Staying with VW parts would be like FF being required to use Triumph Harold uprights.

    I think we need a horizon that is well beyond what we might expect to find Beetle parts.

  16. #16
    Senior Member brownslane's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.09.07
    Location
    Markham, Ontario
    Posts
    890
    Liked: 8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S Lathrop View Post
    F4 has a long history. Problem is cost control. You arte talking about F1000 with 250 cc less.
    Steve is absolutely correct. I built a series of F-4 cars. Jeremy Hill used one of my cars with a 1,000cc and raced it as an FC back "in the day". Arguably it was the forerunner of the current FB cars.

    There is absolutely no cost difference between building a FB and a F-4.....except for a slightly more brittle engine and slightly slower speeds. This would not be an economy car..

    Back in the beginning of time (a joke) when FV was born, drive train costs were the lion's share of costs...chassis, wheels, bodywork, etc was cheap. Now you have $50,000 cars in FB with $5,000 engines in them.....just the reverse of the cost structures in the early sixties.

    You need to find a production car that has run down the food chain until used ones are cheap; then spec a class around them.....HEY - WAIT!! That is SM!!

    So, as I see it, you need to be able to buy a chassis/body/roller that costs less than $15,000 and then finish off the car with your own seat, fuel cell, an E-bay type engine/trans and wire/plumb it yourself.....or, buy the car from a "spec supplier" ready to go for $25,000 or so......agreed?

    All four corners need to be an off-the-shelf part...like Mini cooper wheel assemblies; you can buy em for $120 a corner....then you need inexpensive upper and lower suspension arms that can bolt up to cheap sheet-formed uprights....Use OEM brake calipers and OEM rotors. Maybe restrict wheels to a specific OEM size....so you can buy em at junk yards.

    Then the major expense runs to the chassis and bodywork. If all cars were spec'd to run one style body and one chassis, the costs are again reduced. Plans could be made available for home builders who wanted to make their own...again reducing costs.....

    But, the fact remains, you will end up with a heavy, clunky (relatively) looking car that is the exact duplicate of everybody else's....in essence a spec Ford with open wheels.

    Sorry if this note is rambling, I just "dumped data" as I just got in from a long day....

    I absolutely agree that SCCA does not need "new" classes; rather it needs "inexpensive" classes!

    Have a great night! Tom
    Tom Owen
    Owner - Browns Lane and Racelaminates.com

  17. #17
    Contributing Member provamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    05.24.04
    Location
    Amherst, New York but i left my heart in San Francisco
    Posts
    2,647
    Liked: 291

    Default

    sounds great........and then maybe there could be a SR version....TWO MORE CLASSES?

    one needs to analyze why FV and then FF WERE so successful in the sixties and the seventies and see if the demographics that made those popular exist today

    Bill Bonow has a point...........FST already offers performance just between FV and FF
    Last edited by provamo; 01.03.14 at 10:28 PM. Reason: spelling

  18. #18
    Contributing Member
    Join Date
    06.08.05
    Location
    Torrington CT
    Posts
    1,008
    Liked: 478

    Default

    24 years ago I tried to float the idea of the racecar for the 90's. What I thought would be a great car is a 3/4 scale TransAm with a stock V6 motor, solid rear axle, 5 speed transmission - about the same time Legends Cars were launched - just to prove my point......with a twist.

    If we were talking 20 years ago, I agree that FST would be a great class, today I think you would need something else. Design the car so that all 4 corners took the same parts, Has to have a 4 gal off the shelf box fuel cell, try to keep the costs of things like fire systems, brake systems steering, etc to readily available parts.

    For an engine, an aircooled motorcycle engine would probably be the best, but I think you are going to end up with a 1.6l car water cooled car engine, but build the engine bay large as you will be changing the engine about every 6 years with today's technology.

    In the end you end up with something like the first Formula First http://trevorlewincars.com/VANDIEMAN.html

    with a little better body of course. An open wheel Spec Racer

    ChrisZ

    PS Wrote this just as Tom was posting.....no plagerism

  19. #19
    Global Moderator Bill Bonow's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.18.02
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    2,663
    Liked: 190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FVRacer21 View Post
    If we were talking 20 years ago, I agree that FST would be a great class, today I think you would need something else.
    Really? 20 years ago, FST guys would have been burned at the stake.
    The class has been around for 12 years. I'd think much better of those who just say "I don't like it" and move on.

    Now back to our fantasy car thread.
    Bill Bonow
    "Wait, which one is the gas pedal again?"

  20. #20
    Contributing Member Jnovak's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.08.07
    Location
    Dearborn, Michigan
    Posts
    3,787
    Liked: 896

    Default

    Sorry about the hijack but I wanted to let you know a little bit about the F600 history.

    One of my F600 proposals to the club was just what Steve and I had discussed. However the club decided NO MORE CLASSES and that if we wanted F600 to exist at all it would be within the F500 chassis rules.

    I do think that F600 has a ton of potential to be a really great growth class. Now I do not want to take anything away from any other classes, particularly FF as the modern FF race car is a very sophisticated beast and I am a very big fan. However while F600 is not for everyone a top F600 will be as fast as a top FF car at less than half the price. What it will be is a lower cost fast open wheel class and who knows if it will grow to be what FF and FV have rightly become.
    Thanks ... Jay Novak
    313-445-4047
    On my 54th year as an SCCA member
    with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)

  21. #21
    Senior Member Stan Clayton's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.14.03
    Location
    Mooresville NC area
    Posts
    4,157
    Liked: 309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S Lathrop View Post
    Jay and I had a discussion about the car I am asking about. My regret was that the F600 was not closer to FF as a chassis. We agreed that it would be fun to see more sophisticated chassis with the F600 power plant.
    Mine too. During my tenure on the CRB I sponsored an Advisory Committee to explore options to the Kent when Ford told the FF community to pound sand when asked to resume production of the block (to be fair, Ford later did recant and begin making them).

    Anyway, one of the contenders was a stock 600cc motorcycle engine/trans with spool. Think FB without wings and with cheap 600cc engines. The FF guys wouldn't hear of it and the idea went nowhere, but there you have the perfect car per Steve's original post.
    Stan Clayton
    Stohr Cars

  22. #22
    Contributing Member racer27's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.16.02
    Location
    North Eastern NJ
    Posts
    1,879
    Liked: 4

    Default

    Steve:

    Were you thinking of something along the lines of what Banshee Engineering has done with their $13,000 Banshee BTF-1600? Some pics are posted on the older thread below. Was looking for web page with specs, can't find it.

    http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31919
    AMBROSE BULDO - Abuldo at AOL.com
    CURRENT: Mid Life Crisis Racing Chump/Lemons Sometime Driver (Dodge Neon)
    CURRENT: iKart Evo Rotax 125 Kart
    GONE: CITATION 87/93 FC - Loved that car
    GONE: VD RF-85FF , 1981 FIAT Spider Turbo

  23. #23
    Senior Member SOseth's Avatar
    Join Date
    09.08.02
    Location
    Hendersonville, TN
    Posts
    287
    Liked: 7

    Default

    I would think that it would have to have a motorcycle engine, something in the 80 - 90HP range to slot it under the F500/600 in performance. That would eliminate the need for a stand alone transmission and changeable gears. That alone would take $10,000+ off the top of the cost of the build.

    Basic 2 way adjustable shocks but still have the ability to change springs. Might be able to make use of existing FF/FC chassis design.

    Choice of tires would be a key to keeping running costs down.

    SteveO

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10.06.08
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    371
    Liked: 22

    Default Add another class?

    Adding another class is only going to water down the car count numbers of current classes. Your not going to attract hundreds of new drivers with a $10K-$15K car. Add in for a; truck to tow, enclosed trailer, extras and your into $25K - 30K for a new driver??? Game over.

    What.... start a new entry level class and just scrap or let die off all those old FV/FST chassis? FV and FST is the answer. Parts are not an issue with the more modern suspension and many parts are still made new. (check out any sand rail site)

    Want to up the speed, go to the FST model with a removed restrictor plate, want more speed use dual carbs & a new cam, want more speed cheap: adapter plate mount an air cooled motor cycle engine (off the shelf used FB style motors cost $2,000 to $3,500!)

    Novel idea (swap in a new motor) it's brought new life to several classes: Formula Ford to "Formula Honda" F440 to F500 to F600, FC to FB.

  25. #25
    Contributing Member TimH's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.13.10
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,625
    Liked: 1100

    Default Different Strokes...

    We haven't really defined the target market here. Yes, affordable and practical are qualities everybody wants, but the product requirement is quite different depending on how it will be used.

    My personal search was for a genuine race car on a budget I could manage for the indefinite future. I'm an old, slow guy who will never get the pro ride but still wants to have fun. I looked HARD at Spec7 (cheapest entry cost of all if you want any sort of suspension but ding that unibody and you have to start all over) and Legends (fits in a pickup bed - no need for a trailer!). Eventually I decided only open wheel could properly scratch the itch and was delighted the local EFF group had grown enough to provide a community. Much as I respect FST and FV drivers their rear suspensions and transmissions just don't give the same satisfaction as a Hewland and multilinks. I'm just delighted with what I'm driving and see no need for anything else.

    OTOH, an entirely different customer is looking for an "entry-level" car. With sequential semiauto gearboxes in the upper tiers these days there's just not much need for the novice to develop the same sort of proficiency in gear selection that I find so pleasant. The economics of a motorcycle powertrain suddenly make good sense. They also want aero as an early experience. On the gripping hand, these customers will only own the car for a couple of years before moving on..

    Bottom line I'm not persuaded you can develop much of a customer base from either group, and don't see how you can combine them successfully. The only substantial market (and the original impetus for FF success) is the driving schools, and they have all gone somewhat upmarket for their hardware.

    Sorry to be such a downer.
    Caldwell D9B - Sold
    Crossle' 30/32/45 Mongrel - Sold
    RF94 Monoshock - here goes nothin'

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    01.11.05
    Location
    Zionsville, Indiana
    Posts
    3,169
    Liked: 1395

    Default

    Ambrose; The Banshee is probably close to the concept. Having built one or two cars, I question the price tag.

    When FF and FV had really big numbers, new cars were about 40% to 60% of medium income. A college graduate starting a skilled job would make about medium income. With used cars maybe half new cars, a race car was possible for someone making medium income.

    Now a new car, FF, is approaching 200% of medium income. That places the FF competitor in a whole different demographic.

    I did a spread sheet for a new FC, equipped as a top line car would be, because I had heard a number that I thought was ridicules. When I finished, the number I heard was too low by about $15,000. It is very possible that any new FC you see next year will be well over $100,000. A FF is not that far behind.

    This is why I started this thread.

    One thing is the car has to have the correct optics to appeal to the person who is not already addicted to racing. Like it or not F1 is seen as the image to have. FV, FST and F500/F600 struggle with sex appeal. These cars do a good job of addiction satisfaction. Now every one on this forum is already addicted, so we need to think about a time when we were on the outside looking in.

  27. #27
    Administrator dc's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.24.00
    Location
    Chicagoland, Illinois
    Posts
    5,526
    Liked: 1417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by veefan View Post
    Adding another class is only going to water down the car count numbers of current classes. Your not going to attract hundreds of new drivers with a $10K-$15K car. Add in for a; truck to tow, enclosed trailer, extras and your into $25K - 30K for a new driver??? Game over.

    What.... start a new entry level class and just scrap or let die off all those old FV/FST chassis? FV and FST is the answer. Parts are not an issue with the more modern suspension and many parts are still made new. (check out any sand rail site)

    Want to up the speed, go to the FST model with a removed restrictor plate, want more speed use dual carbs & a new cam, want more speed cheap: adapter plate mount an air cooled motor cycle engine (off the shelf used FB style motors cost $2,000 to $3,500!)

    Novel idea (swap in a new motor) it's brought new life to several classes: Formula Ford to "Formula Honda" F440 to F500 to F600, FC to FB.

    You missed the point of the exercise. Go back and (re)read Steve's original post. FV is a dinosaur using 50-year old car parts, and FST is an uprated version. Not that I don't love those classes, but you have to be realistic here. They are old and outdated technology that doesn't apply to any other class of race car setup and design.

    The point is to build a theoretical formula car just like they did in the 60s with FF and FV using off-the-shelf parts and the same components on all 4 corners for cost-savings and parts sharing. There still is a need for a true entry-level formula class that is enticing to young and new racers on a budget. Jay's F600 class is on the right track, but may be harmed by having to be built on a suspensionless chassis like an F500 (I know it has "suspension," you know what I mean).

    The Mini Cooper sourcing has merit, as does the concept of an air cooled motorcycle engine (Harley). We need to be thinking forward, too, and not just what is easily available right now. Hybrid? Electric? E85 fueled?


    As an exercise, there are enough REALLY smart people here to come up with something brilliant. If we can just get past the idea of "oh great, another class..." enough to be able to design and develop a concept, it might yield something interesting enough to build.




    dc

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    01.11.05
    Location
    Zionsville, Indiana
    Posts
    3,169
    Liked: 1395

    Default

    TimH;

    My first FF was a new Caldwell. At the time the car was right in the price range I am aiming at, 50% of medium income and that was what I was making at the time.

    That car probably did more to make me into a race car engineer than anything before or since. It was not easy to drive fast. I have nothing but admiration for Skip Barber when he drove the Caldwell.

  29. #29
    Contributing Member provamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    05.24.04
    Location
    Amherst, New York but i left my heart in San Francisco
    Posts
    2,647
    Liked: 291

    Default

    Steve Lathrop, what is "medium" income........do you mean "median" income?

    Side note: back in the sixties earning minimum New York State wages i COULD have purchased a brand new Jaguar XKE as a teen while "living off my parents"........that can not be done in the current economy..........all the demographics have "shifted"

    Why do YOUNG people go racing anyway? I know i got into it to race Formula One (LOL).............people did race FF (in Europe) and made it into the Big Show, an impossibility on talent and luck alone these days so why even start?

    On the other hand.........if you build it they will come........that is what happened here with the original Vee

  30. #30
    Contributing Member RobLav's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.05.00
    Location
    Somerset, Kentucky
    Posts
    2,914
    Liked: 126

    Default

    Like Stan, and Jay, and probably Steve, I thought the best direction with F600 was to build it on a FF-type platform rather than F500. Seems to be a lost opportunity now.

    Some cost containing proposals follow:
    - round tube suspension
    - common billet aluminum uprights
    - common stainless exhaust (also restricts HP)
    - open diff
    - aluminum wheels - probably FC width
    - constant velocity joints in axles
    - common steering box
    - 2-way adjustable shocks
    - The FB shifters are rather expensive. Are they worth the cost in a "cheap" platform?
    - Group buys on necessities like fuel cells, fire extinguishing systems, electrical items, wiring harness, etc
    - perhaps a common fuel cell

    I've built and rebuilt my car enough times to know what things cost in time as well as money.

  31. #31
    Senior Member chrisw52's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.31.12
    Location
    Santa Cruz, ca
    Posts
    951
    Liked: 182

    Default

    I'm stuck on the driveline.

    For the transaxle, I can't think of any new vehicle that would be suitable. Maybe a small inline 4cylinder with the transverse transmission, but I hate that layout in a formula car.

    A possible alternative that has good world wide parts support would be the Subaru boxer engine and transmission. The regular impreza had a normally aspirated, while the WRX variant has a turbocharged engine. The early models had a 2 liter engine up until 2004-5? and then upgraded to a 2.5 liter engine. Get rid of the AWD, and you are left with a great mid engine layout like the FV. The pre-2004-5 transmissions were a 5 speed unit, but not strong enough to handle the large HP levels of the turbo motor when heavily modified, so the new 6 speed unit if preferred.

    factory five is using the subie engine for their 818 kit car, so there is a lot of support for this driveline.

    beyond that, I would prefer FF construction rules to keep costs down.

  32. #32
    Senior Member Stan Clayton's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.14.03
    Location
    Mooresville NC area
    Posts
    4,157
    Liked: 309

    Default

    I added a few comments and questions...

    Quote Originally Posted by RobLav View Post
    Like Stan, and Jay, and probably Steve, I thought the best direction with F600 was to build it on a FF-type platform rather than F500. Seems to be a lost opportunity now.

    Some cost containing proposals follow:
    - round tube suspension YES
    - common billet aluminum uprights Can work, but who gets the exclusive contract? Open source design?
    - common stainless exhaust (also restricts HP) Won't work, as there is no such thing as a common design to fit all make/model/year of engines.
    - open diff Spool is MUCH cheaper and is easily tuned with some experimentation...just ask the Amac and other(?) DSR guys.
    - aluminum wheels - probably FC width YES
    - constant velocity joints in axles YES...the ubiquitous VW 94mm design is as cheap as $45 retail.
    - common steering box Why a "box"? F500 steering racks are about $300.
    - 2-way adjustable shocks YES, but with additional restrictions...perhaps a spec make/model.
    - The FB shifters are rather expensive. Are they worth the cost in a "cheap" platform?
    - Group buys on necessities like fuel cells, fire extinguishing systems, electrical items, wiring harness, etc
    - perhaps a common fuel cell

    I've built and rebuilt my car enough times to know what things cost in time as well as money.
    Stan Clayton
    Stohr Cars

  33. #33
    Senior Member Stan Clayton's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.14.03
    Location
    Mooresville NC area
    Posts
    4,157
    Liked: 309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisw52 View Post
    I'm stuck on the driveline.

    For the transaxle, I can't think of any new vehicle that would be suitable. Maybe a small inline 4cylinder with the transverse transmission, but I hate that layout in a formula car.

    A possible alternative that has good world wide parts support would be the Subaru boxer engine and transmission. The regular impreza had a normally aspirated, while the WRX variant has a turbocharged engine. The early models had a 2 liter engine up until 2004-5? and then upgraded to a 2.5 liter engine. Get rid of the AWD, and you are left with a great mid engine layout like the FV. The pre-2004-5 transmissions were a 5 speed unit, but not strong enough to handle the large HP levels of the turbo motor when heavily modified, so the new 6 speed unit if preferred.

    factory five is using the subie engine for their 818 kit car, so there is a lot of support for this driveline.

    beyond that, I would prefer FF construction rules to keep costs down.
    A plan like this does nothing to address the escalating costs in FF. It's just another expensive, complex auto engine.
    Stan Clayton
    Stohr Cars

  34. #34
    Contributing Member RobLav's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.05.00
    Location
    Somerset, Kentucky
    Posts
    2,914
    Liked: 126

    Default

    Stan - yes I meant steering rack! Also, I believe a common exhaust can be made to work. The exhaust port spacing and orientation are close enough in a couple 1000 cc engines. I am not certain that is the case in 600 but I'd say highly likely! This would limit the engine manufacturers by design as well. And any common part would be by design and not by manufacturer.

    As Steve Oseth said, that engine and racing gearbox package is a huge chunk of change. That's why I see the 600cc M/C power as having many advantages. And a non dog box just won't be right in a formula car. At least the M/C engine are essentially dogboxes, and being sequential would be popular amongst the youngsters.

  35. #35
    Senior Member brownslane's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.09.07
    Location
    Markham, Ontario
    Posts
    890
    Liked: 8

    Default Bike Engine

    I really believe that the only cost effective, simple, and easily found source of engine/transmission is motorcycle engines. Cheap, powerful, and plentiful. A simple "plug and play" setup that has many sources of already-built setups....so the "home builder" has plenty of examples to copy.

    I am biased, however as I built my first bike powered car in 1979....everybody just LOVED the sound of my two-stroke...and they LOVED the smoke (laughing).

    Light, cheap, strong, sounds great, self-contained engine and trans makes an easy-installation, easy to source. Hard to beat that combination.....This is one of the few race car component that meets all three "racers criteria"...strong, light, cheap.

    I absolutely agree that F600 with a FF-type chassis would have been a hard-to-beat combination. Absolutely agree with the lack of sex appeal about F500/600 and FV. I always felt somehow the "poor cousin" with my F4 car, even though it had high-tech suspension (push-rod in the 1980's), full aero, slicks, etc....that is why I eventually went F2000 racing...

    FE is a great source of cars as is FC...the (relatively) low price of a serious race car belies the fact that they look great, work well and are fast....The only way to duplicate this sort of look, sound, performance but at a lower price would be a bike powered entrant without wings, with a spec tire, common (shared components) like uprights, brakes, etc.

    This describes exactly what Jay wanted to accomplish and what Stan tried to push rules to accommodate.

    let's hurry up and get this new class started! I still have my prototype F4 chassis hanging on the wall !!
    Tom Owen
    Owner - Browns Lane and Racelaminates.com

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    11.01.09
    Location
    Indianapolis, In
    Posts
    462
    Liked: 30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S Lathrop View Post
    I did a spread sheet for a new FC, equipped as a top line car would be, because I had heard a number that I thought was ridicules. When I finished, the number I heard was too low by about $15,000. It is very possible that any new FC you see next year will be well over $100,000. A FF is not that far behind.
    Steve, What is the reason for the increase cost in the FF/f200 chassis?

  37. #37
    Senior Member Stan Clayton's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.14.03
    Location
    Mooresville NC area
    Posts
    4,157
    Liked: 309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brownslane View Post
    I absolutely agree that F600 with a FF-type chassis would have been a hard-to-beat combination. Absolutely agree with the lack of sex appeal about F500/600 and FV.
    This is largely self-induced in F500/600, Tom. IMO, F600 COULD BE the class we're discussing here, had not the Club (read F500 competitors) insisted the new cars have no competitive advantage over existing 2-strokes. In no particular order:

    - their wheelbase, track and bodywork rules are too restrictive to produce visually attractive and exciting cars - Fix it by adopting the FF rules
    - their 10" tires make them look stumpy compared to an FF - Fix it by adopting FF/FST tire/wheel rules
    - on the plus side their 15,000 RPM engines and sequential shifting leave nothing to be desired!
    - even their solid rear axle and compromised damping are not really negatives with decent packaging

    FV is a more complex beastie. I agree that they are unattractive and that FST is a MUCH better looking car, but even it is hampered by a too-short WB to look good - Fix it by adopting the international FV rule of an open WB.

    Continue the mechanical updating process with FST wheel/tire rules; allow racks, BJ fronts, disc brakes, dry sump oiling and eventually 1600cc or even 2 liters (1915cc) engines with EFI and cooling towers/fans with taller R&P's. These changes would allow FVs to run with their race group classes: F6 & FF. IOW, there is no reason FV cannot continue as far and away the most popular formula class in SCCA for many more decades to come. All it takes is some foresight and timely rules nudges.
    Stan Clayton
    Stohr Cars

  38. #38
    Fallen Friend Bud Pug's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.08.12
    Location
    Summit Point, WV
    Posts
    128
    Liked: 18

    Default Entry Level winner

    Steve; The Banshee sells for $14,995.00 and we have sold 6 complete racecars that race in the FRCCA; as the Banshee was developed to compete against the Original Club Ford designed class. Banshee's have won the Championship the past two years. The model number is BTF - 1600 - Back to Future with 1600 CC. I did not try to get it into SCCA because that would drive the cost up. BUT you have the entry level racecar already; just lenghten the Z-10 install the air-cooled engine like you had in the Super Vee days but use the modern parts fron SCAT or EMPI use a center fuel cell - DONE. Another benifit is that there are many Z-10 still racing and if you release a new version with the parts being interchangable all that would be needed is a strict rules package. The idea is to attract NEW drivers, not to cater to drivers that already know they want to race. There are many more expensive classes to race in what is needed is like you suggested - an Entry level class that remians affordable.

  39. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    11.18.08
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Posts
    745
    Liked: 5

    Default

    Old saying: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

    Ya'll give the F600 (maybe name it F500MC) time to develop and grow. Ever since we
    started running a prototype F600 back in 2009 at Road Atlanta, we have received hugely positive reaction from almost everyone who talked with us. Compare this with the almost
    80% negative reactions that we suffered with from 1982 on when we were running snowmobile drivetrains. F440 was developed back then as a cheaper alternative to FF's.
    We really wanted a MC drivetrain but back then the 750cc MC's were bigger/heavier and much more expensive than MC's have become in the last 15+ years. Our numbers never got close to FV/FF's. We now receive far more inquiries than we ever did when we were running two strokes (maybe name it F500TS). The biggest challenge we have now is that almost no one OUTSIDE of our club knows about F600. The club management needs to help with this challenge. In the meantime, the Formula 600 Challenge Series was started a year ago to market/publicize F600 (F500MC) not only within the club but outside the club. We are joining with the Pro dept. to run a couple of Pro race weekends this season (announcements are forthcoming). This is but the first step toward ultimately outside recognition by the general racing public ("Hey, I just saw a SCCA F600 race."). Check out the website - www.theformula600challenge.com

    Jim
    Been messing with these cars since 1982

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    11.18.08
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Posts
    745
    Liked: 5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bud Pug View Post
    Steve; The Banshee sells for $14,995.00 and we have sold 6 complete racecars that race in the FRCCA; as the Banshee was developed to compete against the Original Club Ford designed class. Banshee's have won the Championship the past two years. The model number is BTF - 1600 - Back to Future with 1600 CC. I did not try to get it into SCCA because that would drive the cost up. BUT you have the entry level racecar already; just lenghten the Z-10 install the air-cooled engine like you had in the Super Vee days but use the modern parts fron SCAT or EMPI use a center fuel cell - DONE. Another benifit is that there are many Z-10 still racing and if you release a new version with the parts being interchangable all that would be needed is a strict rules package. The idea is to attract NEW drivers, not to cater to drivers that already know they want to race. There are many more expensive classes to race in what is needed is like you suggested - an Entry level class that remians affordable.
    Will this car pass a SCCA safety inspection? If it does, then all you do is ask the local SCCA regions to allow you to run as a regional only local class with your own set of rules. This is exactly what the F600 group did around the country. The more SCCA races that you run the more recognition that you get toward wider acceptance. I can't think of a single region who would not accept you, providing that you have sufficient numbers, because they are all looking to increase car counts and get your money.

    Jim

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




About Us
Since 2000, ApexSpeed.com has been the go-to place for amateur road racing enthusiasts, bringing together a friendly community of racers, fans, and industry professionals. We're all about creating a space where people can connect, share knowledge, and exchange parts and vehicles, with a focus on specific race cars, classes, series, and events. Our community includes all major purpose-built road racing classes, like the Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) and various pro series across North America and beyond. At ApexSpeed, we're passionate about amateur motorsports and are dedicated to helping our community have fun and grow while creating lasting memories on and off the track.
Social