Committee Car II

[rgu]

*As you may already know the first Formula First Committee Car was done as a test mule to show that our Formula First concept would indeed work back in 2002.* When it was completed Bill Bonow drove it a few times with very good results. If I recall correctly, Bill got into the 41’s with it at Road America in 2003. So it was a “concept proving” success.

I have been doing a lot of thinking about a Version II which would have very broad appeal to new car builders, converters and up-graders.* Just to be clear I don’t want to be in the car building business at all, but what I’d like to do show how resources can be mustered to end up with a state of the art machine using parts you just buy off the shelf or if you are handy make yourself.

So with a few of my friends we are embarking on building a multi-faceted Committee Car II. I have zero interest in building race cars as a business venture, but I'm hoping the Committee Car II give others some ideas on how to construct an inexpensive small formula car that is also cheap to race. We really need it.

More to come.

[racerdad2]

Intriguing ! We'll be waiting for updates.

[Jeremy Soule]

So this is going to be a air-cooled VW based machine, or ???

[racerdad2]

Perhaps a new production crate motor would be desirable ?

[rgu]

Definitely a Formula First with the mandated AC 1600 VW parts. More to come as soon as possible.

[gbmetcalf]

I am looking foward to the updates!

[provamo]

"state of the art" ?

the ONLY thing this class needs is more participating cars and drivers

[SamF]

[QUOTE=provamo;464034]"state of the art" ?


The term "state of the art" refers to the highest level of general development, as of a device, technique, or scientific field achieved at a particular time. It also refers to the level of development (as of a device, procedure, process, technique, or science) reached at any particular time as a result of the common methodologies employed.

There are both a state of the art anvil and a state of the art F1 car; both are based on the best use of lessons learned at the time of their production. A Formula First is not an anvil or an F1 car but one built using all available lessons learned over the last decade would by default be the "state of the art"

[rave motorsports]

Robert
It would be awesome if it could be complete by April 25/26 when we will be testing the NBA chassis from Campbell Motorsports at Hallett. It would be a blast to let Jared & Rob have it for a couple sessions!

[rgu]

Did I use "state of the art" w/o saying for Formula First? I guess so. Oh well it should have read "state of the art in FST".

Sorry!

Also I'm hoping the new car hits the track mid summer, hopefully, at Mid Ohio.

[provamo]

Did I use "state of the art" w/o saying for Formula First? I guess so. Oh well it should have read "state of the art in FST".

Sorry!

Also I'm hoping the new car hits the track mid summer, hopefully, at Mid Ohio.

i was hoping for carbon tubs at least LOL

[Jnovak]

Now I have to let you know that I am a big fan of both FV and FST. What I would love to see is a BIG HP FST, just to see what would happen.

[gbmetcalf]

Now I have to let you know that I am a big fan of both FV and FST. What I would love to see is a BIG HP FST, just to see what would happen.

Jay do you mean similar to the old air cooled super vees? that would be cool

G.

[provamo]

Now I have to let you know that I am a big fan of both FV and FST. What I would love to see is a BIG HP FST, just to see what would happen.

so what would be BIG HP?

[Bill Bonow]

Ralph,

How about 500 HP?

It's a nice round number and I'm sure it would impress someone out there.

Yet some will still say its just not enough.

[Jnovak]

150 hp

[racerdad2]

Wow ! High powered FST ! Same tires ? You'd definitely need traction control. But a real dragster corner to corner

[provamo]

how much for a cheap 150 hp?

[rave motorsports]

For starters dual carbs would give the most in one step but a good pair of the older Weber 44's will run you about $1,000. We actually have been considering building up an Air Cooled we think would easily put 300+hp to the ground. Years ago we did one for a sand drag car. We would put it in an old 1963 bug that's all patina'd out for a sleeper.

[Garry Sharp]

The FST package as it now has enough HP and tires for both new AND old drivers.

[Bill Bonow]

Just to clarify, RGU's idea is about how to offer the same FST package (rules) in a simpler format. It's not about any changes to the basic FV (1200) upgrade to FV 1600 (FST).

FST (really FV 1600) is an upgrade for an existing class (FV 1200). Take it past that ideal and you will quickly find the need to start from a clean sheet of paper.

[provamo]

thanks for the "clear"afacation

i have raced both FV and FF (DECADES ago)

i have seen FST on board "videos" of both Elkhart Lake and the Glen and found them (the cars) interesting...............especially like the idea of not feeling the need to tweak (suspension, gears, etc) in between sessions..........at this point i just want to sit in a chair beneath a canopy out of the sun or rain LOL

i wish BOTH FV and FST shared the same front beam, steering, brakes, etc. etc....(you get the picture) so one could seamlessly swap (LOL) between the classes

also IT WOULD BE NICE if FST had ENOUGH GRUNT to run with a "typical club/regional/un-FIT FF

as i previously said there just are "not enough cars or drivers" (competition) to capture my interest.

anyway, everybody have fun out there!

[sracing]

Not applicable to the thread anymore, but... a decent legal FST engine (85HP) can be built for under $4000. We have built several ACVW's for bugs 150 to 180 HP and the price w/o induction system was about the same. Not a good idea for FST though. (As SV found out.)

[jim murphy]

Would a bigger than 1600cc VW motor be able to produce sufficient HP at a lower
RPM at a competitive price, reliably, so that it will not be much slower than F5/FF's? The goal here is to get FST's in the same speed range so that outsiders can choose between F5/6's and FST's such that this statement applies - "Choose one or the other, they both are about the same speed and price." You have also achieved a safer race group as well.

FST's - the future national class for FV's - upgrade or go vintage racing. Why? Because the OUTSIDER/NEW YOUNG DRIVERS have stated to us in the paddocks over the decades that they are not interested in slow cars with old technology and skinny steel wheels and tires.
I keep hearing from these conversations: "Why pay about the same price to go slower and force me to learn old technology." The old saying applies strongly here: "The writing is on the wall - heed well."

Jim
Note - Capitalization is for emphasis not emotion.

[rave motorsports]

This is not an endorsement of doing so or changing FV. I'm not going there & do not want to stir that pot. More hp can be gained in the 1600cc platform. I believe enough to keep up with the classes mentioned. I am not saying other things wouldn't have to change also and am not really in favor of doing so. Costs would escalate to the level of those classes also. I like the current FST package. Carberation and gearing could get you there the easiest and cheapest.

Would a bigger than 1600cc VW motor be able to produce sufficient HP at a lower
RPM at a competitive price, reliably, so that it will not be much slower than F5/FF's? The goal here is to get FST's in the same speed range so that outsiders can choose between F5/6's and FST's such that this statement applies - "Choose one or the other, they both are about the same speed and price." You have also achieved a safer race group as well.

FST's - the future national class for FV's - upgrade or go vintage racing. Why? Because the OUTSIDER/NEW YOUNG DRIVERS have stated to us in the paddocks over the decades that they are not interested in slow cars with old technology and skinny steel wheels and tires.
I keep hearing from these conversations: "Why pay about the same price to go slower and force me to learn old technology." The old saying applies strongly here: "The writing is on the wall - heed well."

Jim
Note - Capitalization is for emphasis not emotion.

[jim murphy]

This is not an endorsement of doing so or changing FV. I'm not going there & do not want to stir that pot. More hp can be gained in the 1600cc platform. I believe enough to keep up with the classes mentioned. I am not saying other things wouldn't have to change also and am not really in favor of doing so. Costs would escalate to the level of those classes also. I like the current FST package. Carberation and gearing could get you there the easiest and cheapest.

Okay, please post more about what it will take as I am not tied to any particular path. I used the bigger motor as a way to slow the RPM's which can hurt the motor and as a starting point. If you get the FST's much closer to the F5/FF's and make it national then the FST's will become part of the choice that the outsiders will have to evaluate. The result will be growth from the younger generation which is what we all are hoping for.

These components can then become part of the commitee car II.

Jim

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

The current FST (FV1600) rules and performance package is perfect. There is no reason to change it. Speed does not equal good racing. Just watch a SM race some time.

Why would I want to be compared to FF or F500?

There is no comparison between the cost to own/operate/repair a FST and a FF. They are two entirely different classes that appeal to different markets.

We need another class like we need a hole in our head. Let's just leave it alone.........

[BLS]

Jim's post, #23 says it all - $4K for a competitive motor, all new parts. Maybe the kids with unlimited budgets will turn up their noses, but for those of us that desire close competitive racing, FV and FST are classes that make it possible.

[csingletary01]

I agree, why change FST now. We have close racing, look at the Final at Gateway for proof of that all the way trough the field. Would change mean added expense for current cars and new builds? It look like we are starting to build a little momentum with new cars and participants. Part of the reason I was attracted to FST was the stability of the rules. Just my two cents

[problemchild]

The current FST (FV1600) rules and performance package is perfect. There is no reason to change it. Speed does not equal good racing. Just watch a SM race some time.

Why would I want to be compared to FF or F500?

There is no comparison between the cost to own/operate/repair a FST and a FF. They are two entirely different classes that appeal to different markets.

We need another class like we need a hole in our head. Let's just leave it alone.........

Robert's mistake was using the term "Committee Car" to promote his new project. The original committee car was built by a group of people who contributed parts and time to prove a concept. Now that the concept is proven, you need a "Demonstrator Car" or "Experience Car" that outsiders can use to experience the FST program.

Otherwise, you will just get a group of outsiders telling FST guys how they can make their class "better". For those that don't understand the concept, doubling the hp just makes all the affordable understressed components into inadequate or marginal components, and introduces new cost and safety issues.

[sccadsr31]

Since this about someone doing a state of the art FST what if project, in IMHO it should be fuel injected. The car would have to be attractive to the youth of today and if they have to figure out carburetors and do not have an ecu to play with it might not be attractive.

Ignore the engine cost for the time being, it's like FF and Honda, come up with an engine package that will run for 4-5 seasons and factor the initial cost into the long term.
D

[sracing]

Since this about someone doing a state of the art FST what if project, in IMHO it should be fuel injected. The car would have to be attractive to the youth of today and if they have to figure out carburetors and do not have an ecu to play with it might not be attractive.

Ignore the engine cost for the time being, it's like FF and Honda, come up with an engine package that will run for 4-5 seasons and factor the initial cost into the long term.
D

Not even worth considering. Moving to a water cooled engine in a convertible FV or FST frame is all but impossible.
Fuel injection on an existing AC engine would greatly increase the price and make it a maintenance nightmare for any existing ACVW engine.

Injectors and ECU, would require a much larger battery or an alternator.

I could go on, but I think some of the above posts describe what Robert (RGU) was trying to say by "state of the art" for FST. It is NOT a new class at double the price. The FST class is successful as is.

[loadedagain]

op: looking forward to seeing what you're up to. any new fst build is a good build!

as for upgrades and updates to the fst rule set? sure it could totally be revamped to compete with the likes of the more modern formula cars, but is this not in direct contradiction of "the spirit" behind the original vee and then fst idea?

if ag racer needs new technology, sequential gearbox, fuel injection, independent suspension with trick carbon bodywork a decent f1000 can be purchased used without having to sell the house.

[Jim Nash]

Since this about someone doing a state of the art FST what if project, in IMHO it should be fuel injected. The car would have to be attractive to the youth of today and if they have to figure out carburetors and do not have an ecu to play with it might not be attractive.

I hear this a lot on this topic. I'm all for modern tech but at the same time, I've raced in FST for 6 years and other than checking that I have full throttle, have never touched the carb.

Now that valve adjusting, I could do without.

Jim

[BLS]

FI would add nothing to the FST engine. With a street car the wide range of conditions make FI a big improvement. The low output FST engine would see no benifit except an increase in complexity. I can't imagine why anyone would want that.

[loadedagain]

Now that valve adjusting, I could do without.

have hydraulic lifters been considered? not a performance benefit, but could sure help out with the time between adjustments!

[2BWise]

I hear this a lot on this topic. I'm all for modern tech but at the same time, I've raced in FST for 6 years and other than checking that I have full throttle, have never touched the carb.

Now that valve adjusting, I could do without.

Jim

Having been of the FI mentality when I first got into racing I would have to say that no longer holds true. It took some learning on my part to understand the carb and the rest of the components that go with it, but when troubleshooting issues at the track it is much easier to diagnose and/or swap parts. Trying to troubleshoot all the electrical components and wires of an FI system can be a not insignificant effort.

Ditto to the valve comment too

[jim murphy]

Note - Responses in italics just below each statement:

[QUOTE=Diamond Formula Cars;464364]The current FST (FV1600) rules and performance package is perfect. There is no reason to change it. Speed does not equal good racing. Just watch a SM race some time.

Because you are grouped with F5's and FF's at most club races and the outsiders look at you in that context; then there is the safety aspect of too much of a speed differential in this group.

Why would I want to be compared to FF or F500?

Not FF's but FV/ST's are being looked at side-by-side RIGHT NOW with the F5/6's as to which one to choose for an entry level formula car BY OUTSIDERS. The price range is comparable but the speeds/old technology/skinny tires are not comparable. I am trying to get ya'll to start looking at yourselves from the outsiders' point of view. What will make your class more attractive to the outsiders who the club is trying to get as new members - look at the big picture here.

There is no comparison between the cost to own/operate/repair a FST and a FF. They are two entirely different classes that appeal to different markets.

True but not part of my point above.

We need another class like we need a hole in our head. Let's just leave it alone.........

Not a new class but an evolution of the FV class into a slightly faster (roughly 3 or 4 seconds a lap at many tracks) National FST class in place of the FV class. [Quote]

[jim murphy]

Robert's mistake was using the term "Committee Car" to promote his new project. The original committee car was built by a group of people who contributed parts and time to prove a concept. Now that the concept is proven, you need a "Demonstrator Car" or "Experience Car" that outsiders can use to experience the FST program.

Otherwise, you will just get a group of outsiders telling FST guys how they can make their class "better". For those that don't understand the concept, doubling the hp just makes all the affordable understressed components into inadequate or marginal components, and introduces new cost and safety issues.

The poster above (post #25) responded to my bigger motor proposal with the idea of improvements in carburation and gearing to get closer to the F5/6's. I would be curious to see what it would take to get closer to the F5/6's so that FST's become a viable choice for outsiders to consider when they are looking at an entry level formula car.

[BLS]

Jim, the beauty (in my mind) of the current FST engine with the restrictor is the cost factor. With the 1600cc displacement and the restrictor size, you can do all sorts of fancy engine head/manifold development and get, nothing appreciable. This keeps the cost down and the cars competitive. Once you try to increase the power you start getting price creep. As noted, a complete, new engine can be built for under $4k and that engine will easily last a full season if not longer.

You could quite easily get another 25-30hp and put the speed of the cars in the range of FF, but then you will have to have better breathing which will change the nature of the engine development wise ($$$).

I wish I could build a new engine with forged, counter weighted crank, forged rods, etc, with off the shelf parts at low cost for my FV.