Sounds a lot like an update to Allan Staniforth's Terrapin. Used Mini components. Most cars were run in hillclimbs:Originally Posted by SEComposites
Sounds a lot like an update to Allan Staniforth's Terrapin. Used Mini components. Most cars were run in hillclimbs:
Like everybody else on this thread, I've been thinking on the question for the past 20 years...
Time and again one option jumps out at me: think no-wings FB with 1 liter m/c engine choked down to 150-ish hp at 1000 lbs (?). Pick a restrictor size...say 28mm and stick with it even if there is an engine of the year or if power creeps up a little, and require two year old or older engines. Reinstate the 95cm width rule. Flat bottom with no diffuser or undertray aft of the firewall. Forget the Hayabusa...production is too low to sustain lots of cars.
Hard FC tires. Soft, sticky tires drive the cost in formula cars by rewarding stiff chassis and high-dollar dampers. Get rid of them and costs go way down. Consider no anti-roll bars, no-rocker outboard front suspension, and a spec chassis design.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
I like all of that but I really do think treaded tires (Toyo) are a must. If this is to be a budget class then spending another $1000 on a set of wets makes no sense to me. A spec engine is probably the way to go too. Maybe update that every 5 years to keep things fresh.
Hi Ben,
I've been reading the responses to your question, and there are some great points made by people with the experience to back them up. I've been involved in professional Motorsport since 1978 and am deeply saddened by the decline of the sport. I think there are a number of social and economic reasons for the decline, and this sport is probably an example where diversity, in some ways, has not been to the benefit of all. I believe the advent of 'single source' series was the beginning of the slippery slope, that ends with 'spec series' being the only commercially viable model. The concept of motor racing was always, for me, a full team sport including every step from the design, manufacturing, development, running and driving of the car, not just a drivers competition. When I got involved there were probably a dozen manufacturers in the UK who 'made a living' building Club level racing cars, none have survived, as it I think it's almost impossible to make a commercially viable business with the traditional business model in the current environment.
I've had similar thoughts to yours, although with some differences. I think the car should be a 'real race car', well developed and with real racing components. The only way this can be commercially viable is for the expensive parts to be 'spec' to allow for sufficient numbers. But this shouldn't mean that all parts have to be 'spec'. I've long had this idea for an 'Open Source' car where some parts are 'single source', some are 'spec' but can be built by anyone to a readily available design, and some are completely open. I feel this could be a workable business model, while keeping some individuality to the cars, and sufficient quantity to the expensive (single source) parts to keep the prices reasonable. Obviously a carefully crafted framework and set of regulations would need to be put together.
In my opinion, the days of FF1600, SF2000 and S2000 in the '70's and 80's represented the high point of entry level Motorsport that bred many drivers that went on to higher levels, and is a good basis for any new thoughts, albeit with modern engine, safety, materials etc.
I would be very interested in any thoughts and possible improvements to the concept of an 'Open Source' car.
Ian
SoCal
Stan, I agree tha the larger mc engines have a more limited availability than the 1000cc motors but the 1000cc motors break a lot more often than the bigger motors. Not sure that it is possible to fix this other than a low rpm rev limiter.Like everybody else on this thread, I've been thinking on the question for the past 20 years...
Time and again one option jumps out at me: think no-wings FB with 1 liter m/c engine choked down to 150-ish hp at 1000 lbs (?). Pick a restrictor size...say 28mm and stick with it even if there is an engine of the year or if power creeps up a little, and require two year old or older engines. Reinstate the 95cm width rule. Flat bottom with no diffuser or undertray aft of the firewall. Forget the Hayabusa...production is too low to sustain lots of cars.
Hard FC tires. Soft, sticky tires drive the cost in formula cars by rewarding stiff chassis and high-dollar dampers. Get rid of them and costs go way down. Consider no anti-roll bars, no-rocker outboard front suspension, and a spec chassis design.
A spec chassis is a must IMO.
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)
I said hard tire, but I really agree with your treaded tires (Toyo) comment.
Which is why I suggested a small inlet restrictor. Reducing their revs is the surest way to reduce engine failures and extend their TBO. Have a look at this dyno sheet. Restricting a liter engine to 150-ish hp means knocking 3000 RPM off the top end. It will still sound great at 10,000 RPM, but it won't break nearly as often.
Oh, and I'd be happy to build a spec chassis...
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Ian I have been trying to build very low cost race cars for a couple of decades. We have been very successful in most aspects except in making much of a profit and picking the right class.
It is my very firm opinion that an "open source" business model has the potential to survive. Now my idea of open source may be, I suspect, different from yours Ian.
Here are a very few of my thoughts of what the open source model would look like for a low cost open wheel race car.
1. A spec design very simple mild steel chassis. There could be multiple builders but 1 single design. Even the car owner can build his own chassis I doubt that this would happen very much as the available low cost chassis can be purchased at lower cost than building your own.
2. A similar spec on suspension bits but with enough latitude to have reasonable adjustments that are BUILT INTO THE CHASSIS DESIGN.
3. All wheel bearings, hubs, brake rotors, drive shafts etc are spec and hopefully from a single source production car. No center lock anything. Suspension uprights out of simple flat aluminum plate where the bearing hubs just bolt on. Lots of TBDs that must be defined by the design team such as wheel specs etc. a big list.
4. Control arms must be bullet simple and made out of a single size of ROUND Dom steel tube. Chromoly not needed for anything on this car.
5. Same thing for the body. One design several suppliers. There are some brilliant designers out there who know how to make it beautiful, simple and low cost.
6. MUST CREATE A BUSINESS DESIGN TEAM. THIS IS NOT A ONE MAN TASK.
Now I am certain that there are many great thinkers out there who want to be a part of a project like this but the FIRST need is for someone with a good business and organizational brain to volunteer to lead the team.
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)
Stan, that dyno sheet while very interesting does not effectively lower the RPM. I know no details of the restrictor used but I do agree that a single inlet restrictor, if properly sized, would work. The downside is that an SIR is difficult to implement as this means a totally sealed airbox is required. Other than that I am all for it.I said hard tire, but I really agree with your treaded tires (Toyo) comment.
Which is why I suggested a small inlet restrictor. Reducing their revs is the surest way to reduce engine failures and extend their TBO. Have a look at this dyno sheet. Restricting a liter engine to 150-ish hp means knocking 3000 RPM off the top end. It will still sound great at 10,000 RPM, but it won't break nearly as often.
Oh, and I'd be happy to build a spec chassis...
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)
The chart is to simply illustrate that 150 hp is well down from the top of the engine's available RPM range. To get their we'd have to require restrictors like those used in F600...simple, cheap and effective...NOT an SIR.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Without getting to bogged down in the details this really needs to be a spec motor. I wonder what the touring bike motors would be like? Slightly bigger capacity and perhaps not as highly tuned? Maybe they're not made in high enough numbers?
Got it Stan. I believe that might work.
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)
The challenge is that m/c manufacturers generally build a given engine for about 3 years before moving on to the next iteration, which would leave any selected engine an orphan pretty quickly. OTOH, if you look at dyno sheets off the internet you will see that the engines all make about the same 150 hp at about 10,000 RPM, so requiring inlet restrictors that cap the RPM at that level means that most engines will make about the same hp and tq. Not exactly the same, of course, but let's not let the pursuit of perfection get in the way of 'close enough'.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Great ideas. I think we are kidding ourselves though. Please, somebody prove me wrong.
I race communist race cars.
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling, there are rules." - Walter Sobchak
Funny you mention that, because I'm having a couple of sidebar conversations making a related point: for this (or similar ideas) to be viable there has to be a business in it for someone. Not a committee. Not jostling for advantage with someone's favorite engine/chassis/dampers/etc. None of that, or you'll have death by a thousand cuts. Just look at the blowback from trying to lower the cost of FB.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Jay, I have the utmost respect for your opinion. You've been there - done that!
However, I think we have a difference of opinion on the desired end result. I have in mind something more like the F4 concept, but with more freedom and lower cost. I have long believed that that at some level the technology and 'cool design' are part of the attraction of the overal package. My belief is that purpose designed parts, made in sufficient quantity, can be made very cost effectively without the compromise of using road car parts, and still maintaining the integrity of a pure race car.
The main purpose of my post was to float the concept of an 'Open Source', or partly open source business model. I feel a complete car should be designed and built, so that the benchmark can be set, and then pre-decided areas opened up for fully free design and manufacture, and also free manufacture to approved design. Competitors could then choose to buy parts from the manufacturer, or build their own on a part by part basis. Licensed manufacturers could also build parts, contributing to the free open market price competition. The combination of options could be fascinating!
Ian
SoCal
And all of those businesses will fail. Just like they have all failed in the past. Simply not enough $$ to go around and the cost of the car will never stop climbing with update after update.
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)
In an ideal world that would be great. However I started this thread with the open wheel Miata title because I didn't want to loose sight of what the end goal is. Those of us who are single seater drivers might be a bit blinkered as to what we want. I've already caught myself doing the same. Wouldn't it be cool if...... The bottom line is this has to be an entry level super reliable, super robust car. Non that means it can't look good, it just can't have billet machined parts everywhere and triple adjustable dampers etc etc. As much as I would like a 50/50 split on spec and open it just doesn't fit the brief. My brief that is!
Having said that all input is still welcome
You are probably correct!
Times have changed and I have a hard time accepting the reality of the current situation.
Ian
SoCal
Of course you are correct Stan. There has to be a business that can turn a profit for the concept to survive period.
The difference I am proposing is that there should be a small group of experienced and capable designers and those with race car building experience that define the targets and the spec of the car NOT THE SPECIFICS OF THE DESIGN. Then the design can move forward and a prototype can be built with solid targets and goals to aim for. I think such a process will have a much better chance for a business success. Just my opinion.
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)
For the record, I've spoken with three FB guys who contacted me because they were interested in moving to the FE class because they felt the costs in FB are getting ridiculous. Two of them currently have their FB's in the classifieds section.
I got killed for even querying about why FE has not become the "SM" of the open wheel spectrum. Cheap to buy ($20-25k), cheap to maintain, cheap to run, completely spec so the average 9-5er doesn't have to spend time that they don't have developing a car. With all the classes past and present in open wheel racing I find it hard to believe that none of them fit the bill for the majority out there. It's a personnel problem, not a hardware problem IMO.
I race communist race cars.
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling, there are rules." - Walter Sobchak
Why wouldn't the Miata make the perfect donor car?
Transaxle needed. A hewland is getting expensive.
How about a Subaru gearbox?
“Racing makes heroin addiction look like a vague wish for something salty.” -Peter Egan
I like Jay's 6-point proposal and have a thought that might (if practical) expand the potential market for the car he's suggesting: offer two body configurations -- open-wheel and sport racer.
I currently race an old Radical ProSport with a private club. We don't allow open-wheel participants due to perceived safety concerns. Occasionally, I also run my ProSport in open track days -- for testing, for fun, and for driving practice. None of the open-track day groups I run with will allow open-wheel cars either.
All of the attributes sought in this thread for a reliable, quick, modest cost (initial and ongoing) open-wheel car will be attractive to folks like me, as well. Except that I need some bodywork to cover the wheels. So equipped, I, and my brethren, can increase the number of cars produced and sold. That will help everyone.
I've owned and race two SMs starting in 2009. I sold the last one in mid-2014 and have absolutely no desire to go back racing SM.
Here are my thoughts:
Pros:
1. Dead nuts reliable and servicing between sessions typically is limited to adding gas, checking fluids, checking toe, & adjusting tire pressures. Maybe rotate the tires.
2. Easy to work on.
3. Fun to drive.
4. Excellent brakes.
5. Excellent handling, well balanced car. It's a true sports car.
6. Lots of competition.
7. Active community that's willing to share info. Mazdaracers.com is the online meeting place for many SM racers across the USA and, to a lesser extent, Canada.
8. Excellent parts support from Mazda with a racer discount.
9. Some of the best drivers in amateur racing compete in SM. The talent pool is deep, especially within the SCCA SM community.
10. Often used as a stepping stone to higher levels of racing.
11. Excellent formula: cheap donor cars, good performance, fun to drive, non-adjustable suspension that works well, reliable, and easy and cheap to keep running.
12. Good looking car
Cons:
1. Too much "serious business" among too many SM racers. Front running cars going for $30k-$50k is kind of ridiculous, in my humble opinion.
2. Front running cars in your typical SCCA and NASA region almost exclusively have "pro" motors. These tend to be $6k-$7k engines. This is required to stay competitive in those regions. We are talking 115 whp for a bone stock motor vs 125+ whp for a pro motor. For a 2100-2200 lb car, that's substantial.
3. Related to #2 above, this class could have benefited from sealed engines like SSM uses. At the very least, it would have limited the arms race that has become SM.
4. Reputation for "more than usual" car-to-car contact within the class going way back. I think things are better now than a few years back, but SM does have a reputation for aggressive driving and contact. In all fairness, it's not just SM that has this problem.
5. SMs are starting to show their age. The oldest ones are 26 years old and latest ones will be 11 years old in 2016. This includes the 1.6L NA, 1.8L NA, and 1.8L NB Miata generations. Most new builds are of the NB generation (99-05). I don't see the NC generation (06-14) being added to the mix. It's quite a bit different than the NA and NB generations.
6. SMs are cramped inside. For sedan race cars, I find I like BMW 3-Series and Mustangs far better in terms of comfort and internal space to work with.
Anyhoo, that's just my opinion on SMs. Overall, I think they're good race cars but not without their issues. I hope I don't sound too opinionated.
Last edited by Michael_Mustang; 12.28.15 at 2:52 AM. Reason: Added #12
The way I see it, applying the Spec Miata formula to an open wheel race car gives me this:
1. Price point: $20k-25k for entry level kit with all components
2. Good handling
3. Good brakes
4. Formula Ford level of performance
5. Easy to maintain
6. Very reliable
7. Fun and easy to drive
8. Safe
9. Sealed engine and transmission (what SM should have had)
10. Cockpit that can accommodate many different sizes of drivers
11. Tires that offer competitive performance for at least two race weekends.
12. Non-adjustable suspension and non-adjustable aero (to keep costs down and not turn it into a tuner's class)
13. Aesthetically pleasing
Why restrictors? Years ago there was a class that ran at Waterford exactly like you are describing it was I believe called F4 and ran the 750cc bike engines.Like everybody else on this thread, I've been thinking on the question for the past 20 years...
Time and again one option jumps out at me: think no-wings FB with 1 liter m/c engine choked down to 150-ish hp at 1000 lbs (?). Pick a restrictor size...say 28mm and stick with it even if there is an engine of the year or if power creeps up a little, and require two year old or older engines. Reinstate the 95cm width rule. Flat bottom with no diffuser or undertray aft of the firewall. Forget the Hayabusa...production is too low to sustain lots of cars.
Hard FC tires. Soft, sticky tires drive the cost in formula cars by rewarding stiff chassis and high-dollar dampers. Get rid of them and costs go way down. Consider no anti-roll bars, no-rocker outboard front suspension, and a spec chassis design.
Number 10 should be at the top of the list... Make it comfy for big....really big guys.
I seem to recall back when I was in sports Rambo you could actually split the original fiber glass seat and make it even wider.
Also forget the horse power nonsense....concentrate on hp/lbs with a big guy driving....one of the reasons SR/SFR succeeded was they were not directly competing with any one else in a similar hp/lbs range. Somewhere between a FF and an FV is the right place.
Inboard, rocker arm suspension, spec shocks....blah blah blah...no aero, tech fit between FV and ff......engine, sealed tranny....with a sportscar nose and side pods for safety
http://superlitecars.com/index.php/nemesis-menu-faq#fit
I've been to their shop. The suspension components are now billet aluminum. Just FYI
Robert
I just stumbled on this thread and although being a FV guy for over 30 years I always in the back of my mind wanted something better. The one thing that always throws the monkey wrench in is that I don't know of any low cost transaxle that is available and after racing a vee I would like cheap HP like a V6 or V8 power with so much power that you can't use it because you are running street radial tires.
Being a chassis builder I like the idea of open source and you could buy or build what ever is your choice but it must be to certain parameters to keep things low cost.
So if you had a chassis made from DOM that was large enough for todays larger guys with a minimum weight high enough that everyone would be competitive without going down the weight saving route which we all know is expensive. Then a readily available trans axle with way to much but cheap HP running on a street based radial not racing made tire that you need to actually drive to go fast.
After running in the Challenge Cup final race this year I really enjoyed the racing on street radials but it is still a legal SCCA class and HP cost a lot of money compared to a small block engine that you can buy at the auto parts store with an exchange for I guess $2K but I haven't looked at them for many years so I could be wrong on the cost. You could make it carbureted and put in a restrictor to cut down or stop rampant engine development.
So if anyone has access to a low cost transaxle that can handle 300HP it could be a starting point to go from. Even though MC engines look attractive their short production runs will make them expensive way to quick versus using tried and true USA built small block V8 HP.
Ed
Years ago, I had a conversation with Jay. That conversation was about what a shame that we could not use something like F600 power plant package in a proper (FF like) formula car. Some time later I did draw up car that I thought could be built and sold for close to $20,000. The performance goal was FF lap times.
Given the reality of mixed class racing, a car any slower than a FF might be an issue.
I started racing FV when we had fields of 100 cars (think Daytona) and moved over to FF when we were adding well over 100 cars per year to the inventory. The biggest FF filed I ever started was 85 cars at Elkhart.
FV and FF in those days had one characteristic, they were cars built from a box of common parts. The FV much more so than FF. But as an example, the Zink Z10 and the Lola 342 shared a large number of suspension components. Especially those components that would survive all but the most extreme accidents.
I got far enough with the design that I was able to do a rendering of what was possible and some feel for what the rules might be like. I did fine a possible donner car or series of cars. Turns out that the Honda Fit and the 1990 - 2000 something Civic use many of the same parts. Virtue here is that parts are available as new and used.
Some of the rules were:
1. 6x13" wheels all around and the same tire (say the front FF tire as spec)
2. Major uprights components interchangeable side to side and end to end.
3. Suspension components made from round tubing and as much as possible interchangeable side to side. Only the front lower a-arm was handed.
4. Maximum width of the car 67" and maximum wheel base 93" 90 was tried but I needed more space for the exhaust system.
5. Minimum weight 900 lbs. post race with driver.
6. Some bike engine power plant with about 100 hp. There just is not any lower cost power plant and transmission available. Anything heavier will raise the cost of the car.
7. Chain drive rear end with an open diff. The entire assembly, hub to hub for the rear end would be derived from a production car and modified to a set of rules and drawings.
8. Many of the suspension components would be governed by drawings that were part of the rules. Any part out of tolerance with the drawing would be illegal.
These were some of the ideas I had as I drew up my design. These rules also imply a business model not unlike how FV and FF were built as classes.
This was my thinking on how we could do a class like FV and FF when they were in their big growth periods and how to translate that to today's realities.
It was a fun exercise last winter when the snow was flying around the house.
No need to re-invent the wheel.
Take the wings off a FM and put on some hard tires ...... add some more muffler. You have the right brand for major support. I can hear the whining already ..... but the key to this concept will be cost and simplicity. That means it will be agricultural and it won't be sexy. As a result, no majority of people will agree on the correct mix of cost and sexy, and nothing will happen.
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.
Hewland quit making the LD200 a couple of years ago, and sold it off to someone who will make them only in batches of 10 with long lead times and a price tag higher than Hewland's JFR.Why wouldn't the Miata make the perfect donor car?
Which Subby 'box? There are lots of them and I don't know anything about them. Thanks.
I suggested restrictors to comply with the brief laid out above calling for stone-reliable engines, and the only cheap, easy and effective way I know of to achieve that is with engine restrictors.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
There...fixed that for you.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Oh, man. Shades of F5000 and Can Am. Now that is something I think we could all get excited about.
This is exactly what I was hoping that F600 would be. However the SCCA refused to allow F600 to be totally separate from F500 thus the current issues within the class.
I agree that the concept we originally discussed might work. The only problem with the above is that the 900 lb weight is too light to manage the big guys. Our current F600 was designed to fit the tiny 80" wheelbase required for F500 and the car weighs in at just under 700lb. That means that at a 900lb min weight the over 200lb guys are too heavy to make min weight. It is also very difficult to make enough room in an 80" wheelbase that is required for F500 so your wheelbase is right on IMO.
I would prefer a higher min weight with a bigger restricted engine. The current 30mm restrictors for F600 motors does make right at 100 hp. I like Stans idea of 1000cc with a tiny restrictor. Easy enough to figure this out. Should make the engines bullet proof and will make 150ish hp.
Say an all up after the race min weight of 1100lbs with a long lived 150hp engine with street radials = monster fun to drive race car.
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)
Subject: FB w/out wings and a restricted motor.
Except for the cost Stan. Has to be a common fixed very simple design. Current Roller FBs cost north of $50K with no spares, data etc.There...fixed that for you.
How much could you sell a redesigned Dauntless/Stohr for, given the direction of this discussion?
I know that I could do a stretched and widened Blade with a conventional FF type body for the target $20K price, but my days as a builder are done and over. I want to get in the seat again.
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)
We have a winnah!!!
For half the price of a SM engine you can have the entire power train from a late model m/c engine.
I prefer a liter engine, though, as we already have F600, which isn't exactly taking the Club by storm. At 1000 lbs it still way lighter than an FF, can accommodate larger drivers, has 2.5 times the power of an FV, and will lap with FCs.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Are you talking an open class or a spec class Stan? What is the target price?We have a winnah!!!
For half the price of a SM engine you can have the entire power train from a late model m/c engine.
I prefer a liter engine, though, as we already have F600, which isn't exactly taking the Club by storm. At 1000 lbs it still way lighter than an FF, can accommodate larger drivers, has 2.5 times the power of an FV, and will lap with FCs.
IMO an open class will simply be another dead end class just as nearly every current open wheel class is.
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)
god the last thing we need in ANOTHER new class to "save open wheel" all the previous iterations have been still born.
In case nobody has noticed, there is a fire sale going on currently for developed capable reliable FCs.
The problem isn't "the right cheap car" these days gents, it's an overall lack of interest in this type of racing and new blood.
Awww, come on guys, it's so simple. Maybe you need a refresher course. Hey! It's all ball bearings nowadays.
Too many options
No one has mentioned that killing off some classes can help add to increased car counts. I keep hearing the great days of the 70's & 80's, how many classes were available to participate in back then?
Miata's aren't the most attractive cars so those saying that as a requirement should change their opinion to making attractive a bonus but not needed.
You already have a new spec F4 class with relatively inexpensive cars being offered with manufacture support...lets wait & see how that works out over time before adding another new formula class.
Also most people are focused on the purchase price of the car, I find the purchase price lower on the list of requirements. Usually whatever you pay for the car you can re sell in a year or two for approx 70% or more then the purchase price for the car you bought (if you bought a used car, new the numbers might be different as they are on road cars as well). So it is a depreciating asset, but still has value. It sure is a smaller cost then the continued operating cost of a car as those are dollars spent & gone out the window not recoverable.
Steve Bamford
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote