F500 and the Concorde Agreement

[Purple Frog]

This thread is meant just to provoke thought and not as a big flame session. But something Cory posted earlier got me thinking....

I love F500/600. A few years ago when I started seeing Jay's prototypes of new 600 cars and I posted here that was the direction to go with my grandkids. So I dig the class.

That said as an outsider looking in I'll post my opinion of what I now see.

Looking over the 2014 records it appears there are ~50 different F500 drivers. Now in the big scheme of things spread of this whole country that isn't a whole bunch. It appears about 20 of them are driving F600 cars. What that says to me is that would mean that in 4 years or so there have been more new F600 chassis sold than probably any other formula class with exception of probably FF. It also may mean that at that rate F500 may hit a tipping point where there are more 600s than 500s.

Meanwhile the CRB/BOD is working on strategies to lower the number of classes in Majors and the Runoffs. Certainly a class with 50 entrants could conceivably become a target. It happened to S2.

As a side note...The only class that can literally impose a mandatory change seems to be SRF. One of the largest classes in the club. Enterprises changes the engine and then says if you don't change you won't be going to the Runoffs in a few years. Seems draconian, yet the purchase numbers for the conversion kits is very impressive. No other class that I know of could change like that. Sometimes it seems good to just have a king in charge instead of a democracy.

I see the F5 class as possibly one with the greatest potential for growth because of its relative affordability compared to its track speed. To me it is a hell of a lot more attractive than FV with $10,000 motors.

Here is what I see as the primary roadblocks to continuing F500 growth:

1. A typical SCCA clubbie attitude that the imbedded base wants no change unless it favors what they already have. OBTW,This holds true in every class, not just F5.

2. A wheelbase that is too short to safely fit a lot of American drivers into the chassis. It is not a weight problem for 200 pound guys could make minimum weight. Its a size problem. At 6 foot or so you are literally packed in like a sardine. My opinion is the car needs about an 84 - 86 inch wheelbase to be roomier and even more stable. Thus increasing its possible customer base.

3. The guys imbedded with 2 cycle engines love them. And I understand that. But I think its safe to say the average newbie is not attracted to the 2 cycle experience. (Proof of this could be the count of new F600 cars in the last 4 years compared to F500 cars.) If the SCCA makes it so the 2 cycle has a bit of an advantage then the class will not grow and the Concorde Agreement will roll over the class. Somehow everyone in the class has to strive for as much equity as possible. In my opinion if the 593 is certainly dominate or perceived to be so, guys will quit building F600s, and the good growth we have seen the last few years will fall off, stagnating the class. I look at last year's Runoffs and I see Jay Novak put his kid into a 2 cycle car because he didn't see a F600 as having a chance, and that is the very same guy building the most new F600 chassis. That says something to a newbie buyer.

4. On the other hand, I also think that if there were equity, the F600s would within a few years outnumber the F500s. That thought certainly doesn't please the imbedded F500 guys. Yet it is sort of a fact in racing that classes with high participation and growth, cycle out a lot of old chassis. We saw that in the boom years for FC when '95 cars were extinct in '96, and then '96 cars were history in '97., and so on. The old cars were moving down to newbies in regional racing. FV in its history of being one of the most active classes in the club has cycled out a lot of old chassis from the front of national grids. Its just racing.

If I were king I think I would know what to do. But, thankfully I'm not king.

But I do think all the members of the class have to work hard at compromises that will help the class grow.

Just my view. My view is no more special than any other. As always YMMV.

[tedsimmons2]

Just keeping the conversation alive not trying to be combative or argumentative:

If the SCCA makes it so the 2 cycle has a bit of an advantage then the class will not grow and the Concorde Agreement will roll over the class.
Couple of questions regarding this statement:
Is there something in the works at the SCCA brain trust contemplating giving the 2 cycle more of an advantage than it has already? I believe the two engine options are pretty close in performance now. I would favor leaving it alone for awhile and see how the race results turn out. I race a F500 with the motorcycle engine option and the only race I question whether I’ll be on a level playing field is this year’s Runoffs at Daytona. I know F500 2 cycle engines have seen top speeds of 143 mph at Homestead and I predict I’ll need to see 145+ mph at Daytona to be competitive with the 2 cycles.
I’m embarrassed to say I don’t know what the Concorde agreement is or where I can get more information.

Meanwhile the CRB/BOD is working on strategies to lower the number of classes in Majors and the Runoffs. Certainly a class with 50 entrants could conceivably become a target. It happened to S2.
If the Concorde Agreement is about reducing classes at the SCCA premier events, I’m not sure what justification would be used to exclude the 12th highest driver participation class (2013) from the Majors.

I look at last year's Runoffs and I see Jay Novak put his kid into a 2 cycle car because he didn't see a F600 as having a chance, and that is the very same guy building the most new F600 chassis. That says something to a newbie buyer.
I don’t know why Jay and Brian chose to run the F500 2 cycle car, but I don’t think it says anything to the newbie buyer. If Clint hadn’t had to coble together a noise reduction contraption it may have been much closer. Most of the new motorcycle powered F500 guys I’ve talked to say it’s the engine package that appeals to them. Most of the younger crowd is somewhat familiar with 600cc death machine driven on the streets, creating donor engine at reasonable prices, and the 15,000 rpm sound appeals to them.

On the other hand, I also think that if there were equity, the F600s would within a few years outnumber the F500s. That thought certainly doesn't please the imbedded F500 guys. Yet it is sort of a fact in racing that classes with high participation and growth, cycle out a lot of old chassis.
I saw what I thought was the future of the F500 class and made the switch to the MC engine a couple of years ago using my existing “older” chassis. I find that’s one of the good things about the F500 rules introduced by the SCCA – it allows for conversions of the older chassis from 2 cycle to MC engines without sacrificing competitiveness.

A wheelbase that is too short to safely fit a lot of American drivers into the chassis. It is not a weight problem for 200 pound guys could make minimum weight. Its a size problem. At 6 foot or so you are literally packed in like a sardine. My opinion is the car needs about an 84 - 86 inch wheelbase to be roomier and even more stable. Thus increasing its possible customer base.
While I agree the F500 is a tight fit for the typical American male I fit in my Novakar comfortably (6 foot and ahem more than 200 lbs right now). The fit is much more comfortable than a couple of Formula F and FC cars on "tied"on in the past. There is no way I could have raced those cars with that fit.

[jim murphy]

Regarding size, take a look at the Novakar AND the new DB Wildcat for large cockpit size including a wider foot box. At the PRI show we had several 6'5"+ drivers slide into the Wildcat and were comfortable. Because the F500 has a huge packaging adbantage over FV, FST, FF, FC (and maybe FM) called "large sidepods" (fills entire space between front and rear wheels) and "sports car noses" the F500 can have much wider chassis rails to fit wider drivers (like in the foot box, too) IF more F500 car builders will do this.

I would like to see a little bit longer wheelbase, just for better engine compartment packaging, as one possibility, say 4" to 6" longer at the most.

But IF the FV's, FST's, FF's, FC's were ALSO allowed the large side pods and sports car noses like the F5's have then much bigger drivers could fit in these presently tiny cockpit car classes, thus you have class growth AND you have better safety from wheel entanglements and touching wheels. Better safety means lower insurance premiums and fewer car wrecks - good for all.

Hmmm . . . sounds like the tiny cockpit classes need these two beneficial changes with results of better safety, better packaging and more BIG drivers in these classes - a BIG win/win.

We do want to grow the club, right?

Jim
Been messing with these cars since 1982.

[Jnovak]

Thanks for the very thoughtful letters guys. I do have a few additional comments.

1. With the current rules the 2 stroke has an advantage, it does take perfect clutches and motor combination though, but there is a significant advantage.

2. We could have had either a 2 stroke or a 4 stroke car for the Runoffs. We wanted to win and we did with a 2 stroke that we had for a little over a month.

3. Just like any other class it takes a very top combination of driver and car to win the big races. So there is plenty of room for all levels of racers and cars to race with each other whether you are racing a 2 stroke or a 4 stroke.

4. IMO the 4 stroke needs a 31mm restrictor.

5. F500 will grow faster with 4 strokes being competitive.

6. If F500 does not grow we will be gone from the Majors scene in a few years.

7. IMO the cars do need to be a bit bigger. I plan on building one for show and tell.

[Purple Frog]

I too would like to thank folks for the letters I got.

One in particular from Mark 21 in Wisconsin had a lot of interesting information.

I'll continue my research.

[Jim Nash]

But IF the FV's, FST's, FF's, FC's were ALSO allowed the large side pods and sports car noses like the F5's

These classes are allowed to have side pods that would make their cockpits the same as any 500. No rules says they can't. Having built an FST and looked into building an F500, the F5 wheelbase rule is a significant factor.

Jim

[Jnovak]

These classes are allowed to have side pods that would make their cockpits the same as any 500. No rules says they can't. Having built an FST and looked into building an F500, the F5 wheelbase rule is a significant factor.

Jim

The wheelbase is the biggest package problem. This is also a safety issue too but this is just my opinion.

We will have our bigger car out there this year for show and tell.

[SEComposites]

We got a fair way down the road to designing our own car, but the project made less and less sense the further we went.
The main issues were the wheel base being way too short.
I could live with the solid rear axle but the car needs springs/dampers also. I know they don't 'need' dampers but like it or not the class is too odd ball to attract the masses and more conventional springing would help, combined with the longer wheel base these cars would look so much better. Looking forward to seeing Jays 'stretched limo' car!
At the time i was looking at the project, the in-fighting on the forums was beyond ridiculous and that was the final nail in the coffin.

[Jnovak]

I would actually prefer that F600 be a separate class with separate rules. Regional is fine with me.

[SEComposites]

I would actually prefer that F600 be a separate class with separate rules. Regional is fine with me.

Now that would be something to get excited about!

[S Lathrop]

I would actually prefer that F600 be a separate class with separate rules. Regional is fine with me.

Jay and I have discussed this before. I think a car that is closer to a FF but with the F600 engine package. would be more successful. And by FF I mean something that is closer to the cars of the 70's FF in construction. Maybe 90" wheel base and max width say 10" narrower than FC/FB, something like 62". Say about the width of the narrow 540 Lola, and some other cars of that period.

Sports car noses and wide side pods would certainly have the potential to make the cars safer.

And something besides a solid rear axel. Just my prejudice.

If every builder stuck with certain common parts as the early FFs did, costs could be contained. I think the trick is to use inexpensive designs, that are not tied a production automobile as is FV.

This, how ever, may be a step too far for this discussion. But I think that basic F500/F600 car lacks appeal to ever get beyond its current base of followers. We need a car that is in the $25,000 or less for a new track ready automobile. This would be about the current price range for FF in the early 70's.

[SEComposites]

Jay and I have discussed this before. I think a car that is closer to a FF but with the F600 engine package. would be more successful. And by FF I mean something that is closer to the cars of the 70's FF in construction. Maybe 90" wheel base and max width say 10" narrower than FC/FB, something like 62". Say about the width of the narrow 540 Lola, and some other cars of that period.

Sports car noses and wide side pods would certainly have the potential to make the cars safer.

And something besides a solid rear axel. Just my prejudice.

If every builder stuck with certain common parts as the early FFs did, costs could be contained. I think the trick is to use inexpensive designs, that are not tied a production automobile as is FV.

This, how ever, may be a step too far for this discussion. But I think that basic F500/F600 car lacks appeal to ever get beyond its current base of followers. We need a car that is in the $25,000 or less for a new track ready automobile. This would be about the current price range for FF in the early 70's.

Sounds good to me! Perhaps mandate outboard shocks too?

[clint]

There's basically two things that have kept the cost down in this class. A solid rear axle and rubber pucks for suspension. Sometimes I wish I had the more conventional suspension but I keep reminding myself just how much cheaper a 15.00 puck is compared to a 250.00 or more shock and a 200.00 solid axle compared to a differential that's a minimum of 1500.00 . I have had long, very long talks with a lot of different drivers form all walks of life and racing organizations about what would appeal to them when being able to "build" a low cost high performance car that has low upkeep and maintenance costs for this class. When I asked them about the solid rear axle and rubber pucks the majority (90%) said they didn't really care about those two things when looking at a car for this class. I think most of them would likely buy another car in a few years after being in this class if they wanted to have the more conventional suspension. The biggest thing that did appeal to them is that the class now allows shifting and fuel injection. I think taking a FF chassis and dropping a 600cc MC motor in it would accomplish what youre looking at. Don't know what class it would fall into but it would be interesting to see it perform.

[rave motorsports]

Regarding size, take a look at the Novakar AND the new DB Wildcat for large cockpit size including a wider foot box. At the PRI show we had several 6'5"+ drivers slide into the Wildcat and were comfortable. Because the F500 has a huge packaging adbantage over FV, FST, FF, FC (and maybe FM) called "large sidepods" (fills entire space between front and rear wheels) and "sports car noses" the F500 can have much wider chassis rails to fit wider drivers (like in the foot box, too) IF more F500 car builders will do this.

I would like to see a little bit longer wheelbase, just for better engine compartment packaging, as one possibility, say 4" to 6" longer at the most.

But IF the FV's, FST's, FF's, FC's were ALSO allowed the large side pods and sports car noses like the F5's have then much bigger drivers could fit in these presently tiny cockpit car classes, thus you have class growth AND you have better safety from wheel entanglements and touching wheels. Better safety means lower insurance premiums and fewer car wrecks - good for all.

Hmmm . . . sounds like the tiny cockpit classes need these two beneficial changes with results of better safety, better packaging and more BIG drivers in these classes - a BIG win/win.

We do want to grow the club, right?

Jim
Been messing with these cars since 1982.

We just started assembly on the Campbell Motorsports Evolution FST Big Man chassis. It will accommodate a 6'8" driver with no problem. I will post pictures as we near completion and have a 6'7" 280 lb friend who has volunteered to model in the car

[mmi16]

We got a fair way down the road to designing our own car, but the project made less and less sense the further we went.
The main issues were the wheel base being way too short.
I could live with the solid rear axle but the car needs springs/dampers also. I know they don't 'need' dampers but like it or not the class is too odd ball to attract the masses and more conventional springing would help, combined with the longer wheel base these cars would look so much better. Looking forward to seeing Jays 'stretched limo' car!
At the time i was looking at the project, the in-fighting on the forums was beyond ridiculous and that was the final nail in the coffin.

With your changes - say hello to the $50K+ F500.

[jim murphy]

For size, remember that the class rules have a maximum width of 55". IF, and only IF, that rule was kept, what do the engineers here say is the optimum wheelbase for this 55" maximum width?

And real tall drivers can fit with taller main roll hoops.

Regarding suspension, we have achieved a fairly effective, LOW COST and simple way for the suspension to work as the rubber puck can have different hardnesses, be used to control both compression and rebound, the rocker arms can change the ratio for rate of wheel travel and the pivot bolts can control dampening via friction based on torque settings. IF a coil over shock is ever allowed into this class, even with a cost control spec coil over shock, it will be a slippery slope as the sole supplier will one day soon say, "Sorry, we can't supply this any more at X price, it will have to be X+Y price for this year." Keeping the coil over shock vendors out of this class has kept our car prices lower.

Jim
. . . . . since 1982

[jim murphy]

We just started assembly on the Campbell Motorsports Evolution FST Big Man chassis. It will accommodate a 6'8" driver with no problem. I will post pictures as we near completion and have a 6'7" 280 lb friend who has volunteered to model in the car

Curious to see how you accomplish this - plenty of photos with bodywork off and on will
definitely help show this. Be rooting for you guys.

Jim

[jim murphy]

Steve Lathrop: ". . . But I think that basic F500/F600 car lacks appeal to ever get beyond its current base of followers. . . . " I respectfully but strongfully disagree -

Ever since 1982, we have had people come up to us in the paddock at every single race and say, "We love this class for the speed and low cost but we don't like the snowmobile drivetrain, change it to a motorcycle drivetrain and it would be perfect." That is a LOT of people over 35 years. One of the best potential for new drivers coming into SCCA are the shifter kart drivers. F600 would definitely appeal to them at our low price (Ever see the price for a shifter kart?) and their familiarity with what the F600 offers. BTW, Honda is starting their own "ladder to the Indy cars" (like Mazda's) and they are planning to have Honda equipped F600's as one of their ladder rungs. Check out our pro series website - www.theformula600challenge.com - to see Honda's sponsorship announcement for the F600 Challenge.

Jim
. . . . . . ever since 1982.

[jim murphy]

I would actually prefer that F600 be a separate class with separate rules. Regional is fine with me.

Sort of doing that now with the F600 Challenge Series.

Jim

[Jnovak]

Sort of doing that now with the F600 Challenge Series.

Jim

I know, except for the rules.

I think I must be a cranky old fart.

[jim murphy]

These classes are allowed to have side pods that would make their cockpits the same as any 500. No rules says they can't. Having built an FST and looked into building an F500, the F5 wheelbase rule is a significant factor.

Jim

Then why are there no sports car noses and big sidepods on these cars? Almost rhetorical but needed to start down this path to grow these classes by getting bigger drivers in them.

Jim

[BLS]

Then why are there no sports car noses and big sidepods on these cars?

Sports car noses are not allowed. Big sidepods slow the car down, so until mandated they will not appear. Plus, per the current rules they could not extend beyond the vertical centerline of the center of the front and rear tires.

[Jim Nash]

Then why are there no sports car noses and big sidepods on these cars? Almost rhetorical but needed to start down this path to grow these classes by getting bigger drivers in them.

Jim

You would have to go through all the rules to explain this thoroughly. It's not worth the effort for this thread. My point should have been more about how referring to the bulk of the formula classes as "the tiny cockpit classes" serves no real benefit to increasing the popularity of F5/600.

Jim

[S Lathrop]

Steve Lathrop: ". . . But I think that basic F500/F600 car lacks appeal to ever get beyond its current base of followers. . . . " I respectfully but strongfully disagree -

Ever since 1982, we have had people come up to us in the paddock at every single race and say, "We love this class for the speed and low cost but we don't like the snowmobile drivetrain, change it to a motorcycle drivetrain and it would be perfect." That is a LOT of people over 35 years. One of the best potential for new drivers coming into SCCA are the shifter kart drivers. F600 would definitely appeal to them at our low price (Ever see the price for a shifter kart?) and their familiarity with what the F600 offers. BTW, Honda is starting their own "ladder to the Indy cars" (like Mazda's) and they are planning to have Honda equipped F600's as one of their ladder rungs. Check out our pro series website - www.theformula600challenge.com - to see Honda's sponsorship announcement for the F600 Challenge.

Jim
. . . . . . ever since 1982.

What are the participation numbers for F500/F600 and what is the trend line show?

And what is the annual market for new cars?

FF and FV are also entry level classes. So how does F500/F600 stack up when all three classes are compared to each other.

I do not have answers to the questions I just asked. But I don't think the out look is very encouraging.

[Jnovak]

What are the participation numbers for F500/F600 and what is the trend line show?

And what is the annual market for new cars?

FF and FV are also entry level classes. So how does F500/F600 stack up when all three classes are compared to each other.

I do not have answers to the questions I just asked. But I don't think the out look is very encouraging.

Entries for F500 were 9th out of all classes for 2014. Not bad at all IMO.

FF was 5th

FVEE was 3rd

The other questions will take some more work.

[Purple Frog]

Funny... I can fit in all those "skinny formula cars" but not in a wide body F5.

I don't see taller rollbars as the answer, because who wants to sit up high and not be aero like Clint.

Serious question: Are there any new jet skis or snowmobiles being built as two stroke?

[Jnovak]

Funny... I can fit in all those "skinny formula cars" but not in a wide body F5.

I don't see taller rollbars as the answer, because who wants to sit up high and not be aero like Clint.

Serious question: Are there any new jet skis or snowmobiles being built as two stroke?

Yes there are many 2 stroke sleds. However they are getting fewer every year. The production of 600cc motorcycles is over 10 times the number of all 2 stroke snowmobiles combined.

This is one of the reasons for trying to create F600.

[Purple Frog]

Not much need for sleds down here in Panacea, but my dealers don't carry 2 stroke skis...

[Steve Davis]

Interesting that no one has mentioned... IIRC back about the first HPT Runoffs, I'm pretty sure there was a proposal on the CRB floor for putting 600cc M/C engines into FF .. and it was shot down.

As for making F500 (600) "more like FF",... it doesn't take a wizard to see that top line FF's today are in the 60k range. I don't think that is the market that F5 or FV are shooting for...

I CAN say that the short WB of F5 does present a pretty SCARY ride at times, but it would appear that quite a few have mastered it and can run with 'front running' FF .. even with all those 'wizzy bits' that FF has.. "real" shocks, "real" springs, "real" LIVE AXLE, etc

[Jnovak]

Thanks for the kind words about f500 Steve. The cars have come a very long way in the last 10 years or so. While the specs may sound un sophisticated the are actually quite "interesting" from a technical perspective.

Wrt to lap times check Q3 out at the 2014 Runoffs at Laguna here.

The pole F500 was just .1 seconds behind the best FF of Tim Kautz.

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...es%20FF,F5.pdf

Now the reality is that this is very tough to accomplish as the cars require some interesting chassis work and spot on clutch setups. The chassis is not much different from an FF but a lot more finicky in getting the wheel rates and damping right. There are perhaps a half dozen F500 cars at this level in the country and there were only 3 or so at the Runoffs. This difficulty in consistent setup is because of the rules IMO.

If the rules for F500 were just a little bit different there would be 50% of the cars with a very good setup instead of less than 10%. The cars are very difficult to drive consistently at the limit too and again this is a direct result of the rules.

Hopefully the class can get past the motor issues and grow at a really decent pace with both the 2 strokes and the 4'strokes contending for the wins. IMO they are actually pretty close at the moment with the top 2 stroke being just a bit better than the top 4 stroke at the moment.

There are actually several other 2 strokes that can run with the car we ran at the Runoffs but they did not come. Just my opinion of course but if you look at the Runoffs I think this shows the real deal.

[Daryl DeArman]

If the rules for F500 were just a little bit different there would be 50% of the cars with a very good setup instead of less than 10%. The cars are very difficult to drive consistently at the limit too and again this is a direct result of the rules.

Sounds like an important path to explore with regards to growing the class.


With regards to wheelbase, not sure why it's a sticking point regarding handling. Is it a handling concern because of the packaging required?

The solid rear axle and the lack of "real suspension", I consider a non-issue as well. Could it be made to handle better with other designs? Sure, but it handles well enough, no?

A 250 superkart has similar HP, is stuck with no "real suspension" and a live axle. Its wheelbase is a tiny 44", yet they manage to get around Laguna almost 10 seconds a lap under the RunOffs pole and 6'+ folks can race them. I'd say they handle well enough too.

[Purple Frog]

Even though 6 footers fit in one, ome of us don't want to hit a wall in a 250 Superkart.

[Marshall Mauney]

Funny... I can fit in all those "skinny formula cars" but not in a wide body F5.

Really? Have you ever tried out a Red Devil? My old F500 had a MUCH larger, wider cockpit than my current FE has. It may have been an oddball, but I don't think that the cockpit sizes in F500 are a result of the rules package.

....or maybe I was just thinner then?

[Marshall Mauney]

I CAN say that the short WB of F5 does present a pretty SCARY ride at times, but it would appear that quite a few have mastered it and can run with 'front running' FF

Scary? Not compared to a kart! In fact, I think it's a more natural progression from a kart than any of the other OW classes; if you can hang onto a shifter or TaG at full-tilt, you can wheel a F500 and feel like you're driving a Cadillac in comparison.

[Purple Frog]

Width is not the problem.

[Marshall Mauney]

Width is not the problem.

I'm not sure I understand. I guess I never found the wheelbase to be the limiting factor, either. I sit very flat - a lay-down position - and I never had any trouble fitting in the F500. I would expect that someone willing to sit more upright would have no issue at all.

Again, though, this may have been unique to the Red Devil chassis.

[Jnovak]

I'm not sure I understand. I guess I never found the wheelbase to be the limiting factor, either. I sit very flat - a lay-down position - and I never had any trouble fitting in the F500. I would expect that someone willing to sit more upright would have no issue at all.

Again, though, this may have been unique to the Red Devil chassis.

Most of the Red Devils I have seen have fuel tanks in the side pods. This helps a lot.

For the MC engines the engine package is functionally longer than the 2 stroke so this presents other package issues.

[jim murphy]

[QUOTE=Jim Nash;461130] My point should have been more about how referring to the bulk of the formula classes as "the tiny cockpit classes" serves no real benefit to increasing the popularity of F5/600.


I was using this term ONLY in reference to the complaint by big drivers over many decades that they don't fit in many formula cars so they went elsewhere to get their road racing fun. Thus the need to change the rules with the goal of growing the participation in the formula car classes AND improving the safety measures against touching tires and wheel entanglements along with side T bone impacts. Afraid of going slower? Then increase the HP on cars with sports car noses and sidepods so that their power to weight (new minimum for the added bodywork) ratio is the same as those cars without this bodywork. Allow several years of transitioning, ala SRF Gen3, to accomplish all of this. AND then encourage the big guys to come try a wider cockpit/foot box formula car.

Jim

[Sully]

Really? Have you ever tried out a Red Devil? My old F500 had a MUCH larger, wider cockpit than my current FE has. It may have been an oddball, but I don't think that the cockpit sizes in F500 are a result of the rules package.

....or maybe I was just thinner then?

My Red Devil a tight fit. For the driver and engine compartment. I'm on a weight reduction plan hoping to lose 15 more lbs before the drivers school. I also understand that my car is not a good candidate for a MC conversion either if I'm forced to go that route.

[jim murphy]

Funny... I can fit in all those "skinny formula cars" but not in a wide body F5.

This depends on which F500 that you tried to sit in. I am 6'3" and a wide shouldered 280lbs - think like Rusty Cook. Many cars' cockpits used to reflect the size of their car designer. KBS' Mike Keirnes is about the size of Clint McMahan back in the 1980's so cockpits in KBS cars were tiny even though you could move pedals, steering wheel, seat and down bars on the main roll hoop to help you fit, there was a limit, you could not touch the frame rails, foot box or the interior width of the front roll hoop; I was still too big (hips and shoulders). But the cockpits in the old Red Devils were built to the size of their designer - a big guy like me and I could fit in an older Red Devil much better after moving some stuff around. Nowadays the newly announced DB Wildcat fits me with room to spare as it was specifically built for big guys. The Novakars have had bigger cockpits and footboxes for many years. The sports car nose and wide sidepods allow the frame rails, front roll hoop, main roll hoop and footboxes to be much wider. Go try these two cars.

Jim