The DauntingNovaTation

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl, I have no technical reservations wrt elastomer springs and damping. It is not difficult to do and is very functional.

I certainly agree. I was more concerned with what the potential market might think. Why haven't folks migrated to the F6 cars en masse?

Steve Lathrop: Some tinkering and adjustability is good, but when you open up too many things costs can escalate and the delta between those that have figured it out and those that haven't yet will be even greater (discouraging to attract budget minded newbies and retain folks over the long haul).

I'd rather have a spec shock/spring package with maybe an optional shock/spring that can be run only if rain tires are utilized OR an inexpensive adjustable shock spec'd. Creating a need for 4 different sets of cheap shocks doesn't really solve much. Don't be afraid of the word SPEC. A couple of key spec parts don't make it a spec class.

Re: drivetrains. At the HP/TQ levels being spoken about why not go with belt drive?

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Lots of cheaper racing parts used in heavier cars. Might be able to get these manufacturers to make custom batches.
They could then be replacement suppliers.


Steering Rack: $300-400
https://www.strangeengineering.net/p...ter-12-1.html/
http://www.colemanracing.com/Rack-An...ted-P4194.aspx


Spindles:
https://www.strangeengineering.net/p...ndles-pr.html/
https://www.strangeengineering.net/p...pc-rotor.html/

Expensive compared to:

Uprights? $185 a pair - can use 9.5 and 10 in rotors - so I think they'd fit a 13" wheel. (and no crap about Mustang2/Pinto)
Remove the spindle to make something for the rear.
http://www.jegs.com/i/JEGS-Performan...64026/10002/-1

Bolt together units - lots of options. Alum/steel
http://www.colemanracing.com/Spindle...eel-P3706.aspx
http://www.colemanracing.com/Hub-Sportsman-P3997.aspx

This thing will look sexy !

[S Lathrop]

Steve Lathrop: Some tinkering and adjustability is good, but when you open up too many things costs can escalate and the delta between those that have figured it out and those that haven't yet will be even greater (discouraging to attract budget minded newbies and retain folks over the long haul).

I'd rather have a spec shock/spring package with maybe an optional shock/spring that can be run only if rain tires are utilized OR an inexpensive adjustable shock spec'd. Creating a need for 4 different sets of cheap shocks doesn't really solve much. Don't be afraid of the word SPEC. A couple of key spec parts don't make it a spec class

The Bilstein shocks have a the option of being adjustable in both bump and rebound. That would make the shocks $400 each. About the same price as 2 shocks. I engineered in Indy Lights for many years and several chassis. In one of those chassis we had a single shock but we could run any standard valve stack. There were bump and rebound adjustments as well. I figured there were over 5,000 possible combinations for settings if both front and both rear shocks were set the same. It worked well for every one in the series.

One thing you will have in a class such as I am imagining is competition among the various manufacturers. Each manufacturer will work with their customers to assure that they present their cars in the best light. I have done it for the cars that I have sold and other will do it also. This will be especially true in the early years as everyone sorts through their cars to optimize the performance. I would hate to see that process stopped because of some political type decision that everyone should use this or that. This is not much different in the early years of FV and FF when I started racing. The people selling the cars were just as competitive as those racing their cars.

I took the time to dyno a set of FE shocks. That was a spec, non adjustable shock. I think the springs were spec as well. Bottom line, 2 matched very nicely but 2 did not. Now one of those non matching pair would have been a really good rear shock if I could have found a mate for that shock. And with the matching rears and the original fronts, that car would have had an unfair advantage. As it was, we paired the 4 shocks as best we could and in that we were ahead a bit. The shocks would have appeared very close except for the way I ran the Dyno test. I was looking for the performance at a very specific point in the curve. My suggestion for a shock rule would allow everyone to build that perfect set of shocks.

I remember going through the parts inventory of a VW dealer in Indianapolis looking for that special part that would be just a bit better than the average VW parts we were working with. That is what spec does for you.

You want spec springs, then you have to have a spec bell crank and a spec bell crank setup. And what about bump stops? Are you going to not allow bump stops to protect both the shocks and the chassis because people will use them to tune the suspension?

Just don't go down that road with this class.

[S Lathrop]

Lots of cheaper racing parts used in heavier cars. Might be able to get these manufacturers to make custom batches.
They could then be replacement suppliers.


Steering Rack: $300-400
https://www.strangeengineering.net/p...ter-12-1.html/
http://www.colemanracing.com/Rack-An...ted-P4194.aspx


Spindles:
https://www.strangeengineering.net/p...ndles-pr.html/
https://www.strangeengineering.net/p...pc-rotor.html/

Expensive compared to:

Uprights? $185 a pair - can use 9.5 and 10 in rotors - so I think they'd fit a 13" wheel. (and no crap about Mustang2/Pinto)
Remove the spindle to make something for the rear.
http://www.jegs.com/i/JEGS-Performan...64026/10002/-1

Bolt together units - lots of options. Alum/steel
http://www.colemanracing.com/Spindle...eel-P3706.aspx
http://www.colemanracing.com/Hub-Sportsman-P3997.aspx

This thing will look sexy !

Maybe I should state this more clearly: we are talking about everyone building their cars from a box of common parts. There is no reason that those parts can not be designed specifically for this application. This would be very similar to FV but the parts would be purpose built when that was necessary. If you look at a DB1 and a Zink and Citation cars of the early 1980s, we were using the same parts, VW Rabbit/Dasher. Over time we got the point where a lot of the parts were the same for both cars, wheels, brakes, rotors and other bits. In the mid 1970s, the Zink and Lola shared a lot of parts, shocks, front uprights and rear drive shafts. In this class we are maybe halfway between the FV and early FFs in shared parts.

[Jnovak]

I agree with Steve that we do not want spec springs. I would prefer a simple spec shock that has compression and rebound adjustment.

It does no good Imo to allow for revalving as that leads to moneyed teams having many many sets of revalved shocks.

A simple elastomer spring and damping system would cost about $30-$40 per corner and is easily adjusted for rate and damping.

Just a technical aside. The rules for a very functional elatomeric spring and damping system would NOT be be legal wrt to current F500 elastomer springing rules. It is not complicated at all.

[Daryl DeArman]

I remember going through the parts inventory of a VW dealer in Indianapolis looking for that special part that would be just a bit better than the average VW parts we were working with. That is what spec does for you.

I understand the pitfalls of "parts bin blueprinting".

I'm just throwing out ideas that may help keep the costs down long enough to sell enough cars. So at least when it morphs into a $40-50K car the numbers are there, and people can justify the expenditure.

You want spec springs, then you have to have a spec bell crank and a spec bell crank setup. And what about bump stops? Are you going to not allow bump stops to protect both the shocks and the chassis because people will use them to tune the suspension?

Agreed, that's why I mentioned that in my post above. No sense in having rules that just create a more expensive work around, or can't be easily enforced.

[killerken53]

As a younger guy with no skin in the game, I am going to look at this challenge from a different direction.

What this car needs is not 50 engineers, that part of the equation seems to be solved, at least enough for now. What this new car/new class/new race series needs is a promoter. This isn't the field of dreams. We can design the perfect low cost, fun to drive, and durable race car, but Jim Clark isn't going to walk out of the mist and turn hot laps.

You need someone to be the face of the new Formula Jr. Someone who can find a place for these new cars to find a home. Someone to get these cars into the public eyes. If you only promote within, you become a zero sum gain, just trading drivers within classes. You need someone to get this car in front of new eyes. Get it in front of the Kart kids, here's a real racecar for a budget you can afford. Get it in front of the track day guys, here's a car that turns similar lap times without having to worry about getting home. To get this car on every website and magazine, if you want to have fun and go fast, come try a real car.

This promoter would be the face of the new car. They would secure deals, negotiate contingencies, and try and build the brand. How about cash prizes for podium finishers. Or maybe free or reduced entry fees.

Just a few thoughts.

[FVRacer21]

Just to throw a left turn into this conversation - why reinvent the wheel when we can just update it:

https://silodrome.com/crossle-90f-formula-racing-car/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCQ54kSd53A

http://www.historicracingnews.com/Ne...nveiled-at-HMI

When I find the link to a full article I will post it - but it is basically like the SBRS school cars of 1980 with updated parts.

Rhino gearbox - carb engine, better chassis etc.

I will disagree with one statement - it is not the cost of the shocks and springs - it is the development cost of the shocks and springs.

Sealed dynoed shocks with maybe just adjustable rebound and limited springs available, would greatly cut down on the cost of developing a car.

Now if people say that testing and development is what they want to do rather than racing.......

I do like the concept of spec plans sold to the market - brings me back to the Group 20 slot car days....

ChrisZ

[Jnovak]

I certainly agree. I was more concerned with what the potential market might think. Why haven't folks migrated to the F6 cars en masse?

It is my opinion that the market is not ready for an elastomer springing medium unless the is a perceived advantage such as a weight advantage.

It is also another of my many opinions that the F6 cars are too small for the mass market. That and the 10" wheels and tires are another problem.

[holmberg]

It is my opinion that the market is not ready for an elastomer springing medium unless the is a perceived advantage such as a weight advantage.

It is also another of my many opinions that the F6 cars are too small for the mass market. That and the 10" wheels and tires are another problem.

I agree that the overall car size and the 10" wheels turn people off. It's certainly does me. The elastomer springs I could probably learn to like.

I'm also not crazy about the live axle and all the resulting sliding. I'm too old (56) to be catching a spin every few seconds.

Another thing that turns at least me off about F600 is the cost of super-soft tires. $730 a set and are only competitive for 8 heat cycles. This puts the operational cost of F600 well above FF, SRF3, FST, or FV.

The engine costs of F600 are a bit on the high side too, since the engine is only competitive for about 50 hours.

All together, the operational cost (tires + engine + gearbox + fuel + brake pads + chain) of F600 is about $1,005 per weekend, or $126 per session.

FF is $558 per weekend, or $70 per session.

I think this car we're talking about could get it down to $383 per weekend, or $48 per session.

We have to be careful about what tires we choose in order to get down to this cost though.


Greg

[Jnovak]

I agree that the overall car size and the 10" wheels turn people off. It's certainly does me. The elastomer springs I could probably learn to like.

I'm also not crazy about the live axle and all the resulting sliding. I'm too old (56) to be catching a spin every few seconds.

Another thing that turns at least me off about F600 is the cost of super-soft tires. $730 a set and are only competitive for 8 heat cycles. This puts the operational cost of F600 well above FF, SRF3, FST, or FV.

The engine costs of F600 are a bit on the high side too, since the engine is only competitive for about 50 hours.

All together, the operational cost (tires + engine + gearbox + fuel + brake pads + chain) of F600 is about $1,005 per weekend, or $126 per session.

FF is $558 per weekend, or $70 per session.

I think this car we're talking about could get it down to $383 per weekend, or $48 per session.

We have to be careful about what tires we choose in order to get down to this cost though.


Greg

I am not sure where the 50 hour engine life came from for the 600 cc MC Engines. My good friend Cal Stewart used his first engine for over 3 full seasons before a broken chain cut the case and destroyed the engine. This included winning the Runoffs at Daytona in 2015. Zero maintenance except for oil changes every other weekend.

I do agree about the tire costs if you want to race at the front.

[S Lathrop]

J

I will disagree with one statement - it is not the cost of the shocks and springs - it is the development cost of the shocks and springs.

Sealed dynoed shocks with maybe just adjustable rebound and limited springs available, would greatly cut down on the cost of developing a car.

Now if people say that testing and development is what they want to do rather than racing.......

I do like the concept of spec plans sold to the market - brings me back to the Group 20 slot car days....

ChrisZ

When you start a new class, there is going to be a lot of development that has to be done. The last thing anyone wants is a class that under performs its potential because of limitations placed on the development. No one is racing anything like this package. As an example, I have no idea how the tires I am thinking about will work on this car, even though I have some experience with the tires in another class.

Another point is that the only way older drivers can run with the kids is by being better at setup and development than the kids. You dumb a class down far enough it then becomes an athletic contest among drivers and the kid will end up winning.

I have some experience developing new cars and I can tell you that it takes a lot of time to get things right. As an example, in the development of the Zink Z10, we had springs from 250 pounds per inch when we started to over 1000 pounds at times. And at every stage we managed to go faster. Interestingly, the shocks never changed over most of those years.

At the end of the day we want a car that is easy to drive, forgiving of mistakes, and performs with the other cars on the track with them.

What we don't want is for this class to setup a situation like FC, FE, and FM where the FC is faster in the corners than the other 2 classes but is slower down the straights. FC is usually a bit quicker overall. This car needs to be spot on with FF. I want it to be fun for this class and FF drivers to race each other. FC against the 2 spec cars is not a fun situation.

[Daryl DeArman]

I My good friend Cal Stewart used his first engine for over 3 full seasons before a broken chain cut the case and destroyed the engine.

Another reason to consider belt drive. Lighter too, and therefore a whole lot less energy to deflect/absorb when one lets loose. Save on manufacturing costs and weight.

[Daryl DeArman]

Another point is that the only way older drivers can run with the kids is by being better at setup and development than the kids. You dumb a class down far enough it then becomes an athletic contest among drivers and the kid will end up winning.

I'm okay with getting beat if I am outdriven. I don't like being beat before I even unload the trailer. Give me something the club racer can tune/tweak/adjust in his garage without an engineer on staff There are classes for those that want to engineer and drive their way to the front (nothing wrong with that) but those classes won't attract new blood. If you want to sell more than a handful you must attract new blood.

Give them just enough adjustments to learn the basics and tune around some quirks.

If you used the same shocks from a 250 to 1000 rate spring, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the shocks weren't much different than grandpa's axe.

What we don't want is for this class to setup a situation like FC, FE, and FM where the FC is faster in the corners than the other 2 classes but is slower down the straights. FC is usually a bit quicker overall. This car needs to be spot on with FF. I want it to be fun for this class and FF drivers to race each other.

Admirable goal, not sure how you accomplish such similarity with a high-revving 6sp powertrain. If it handles with a FF it's going to be faster down the straight unless you handicap the power. If you handicap the power it's going to have to corner better (to run similar lap times).

Just make it clearly faster and cheaper than a FF. Don't make it expensive to campaign. It will sell.

[Jnovak]

Another reason to consider belt drive. Lighter too, and therefore a whole lot less energy to deflect/absorb when one lets loose. Save on manufacturing costs and weight.

I have done both belt drive and chain drive and I can clearly state that a proper belt drive will cost at LEAST 3 times the cost of a chain drive and the chain is much more reliable. Now I will agree that an improperly setup chain drive can make a mess but this is simply a setup and a maintenance issue. Use them properly and the failure rate is zero.

[holmberg]

I am not sure where the 50 hour engine life came from for the 600 cc MC Engines.

Clint says 60 hours.

This is the only response I got for the F600 engine when I was taking the survey.

I put 53 hours in my spreadsheet because that's exactly two years in my scenario.

I just updated the spreadsheet to say 60 hours. The new operational cost per weekend for F600 is now $987, or $123 per session.

If you would like to provide another opinion on these two numbers for F600, I'd be glad to work that into the spreadsheet.

Engine rebuild or replace, $: 2,500
Engine competitive hours: 60


The engine scenario is: you've got an engine that's capable of winning a majors (or even the Run-offs) with the right driver, 1. for how many hours does it continue to be able to win a majors race, and 2. when it no longer can win a majors, what does it cost to get back to majors-winning engine (rebuild or replace)?

Sorry for the detour, but it seems important to know engine costs for this new car (600 vs. 1000).

In any case, I think it's safe to say that a 1000cc shifted at 7500 RPM will last a lot longer than a 600cc shifted at 15,000 RPM.

Of course, torque is another issue--50 vs. 80 ft-lbs.

Weight is similar, cost is a few hundred more for the 1000cc engine.


Greg

[Daryl DeArman]

I have done both belt drive and chain drive and I can clearly state that a proper belt drive will cost at LEAST 3 times the cost of a chain drive and the chain is much more reliable. Now I will agree that an improperly setup chain drive can make a mess but this is simply a setup and a maintenance issue. Use them properly and the failure rate is zero.

I've done both as well and my experience is contrary to yours.

There are tens of thousands of Harley Davidson riders out there getting great mileage from their belts. H-D now doesn't even recommend a replacement interval, they only suggest inspection at 60K miles. The previous (pre Carbon-Kevlar-Rubber) had a 60K mile change interval.

When a chain fails it can do a whole lot more damage/injury than tossing a belt. Ask Cal how expensive his chain was

Replacing a chain and sprockets as a set is strongly advised, not necessary with a belt.

Yes, the parts are a bit more expensive initially, but as costs of certain composites have gone down and the cost of many metals have increased you may find the prices and quality aren't what you anticipate.

[Stan Clayton]

If you used the same shocks from a 250 to 1000 rate spring, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the shocks weren't much different than grandpa's axe.

No, the problem is not the dampers. I run Steve's recommended Bilstein build on my Z-10C and they work very well. The problem is that the front motion ratio is just 0.472, and since the equation for wheel rate is motion ratio squared times spring rate, the Z-10's effective wheel rate with 1250 in-lb springs is just 278. These old designs work really well with WRs of about 250 to 350, so I'm right in the ballpark.

[Daryl DeArman]

No, the problem is not the dampers. I run Steve's recommended Bilstein build on my Z-10C and they work very well. The problem is that the front motion ratio is just 0.472, and since the equation for wheel rate is motion ratio squared times spring rate, the Z-10's effective wheel rate with 1250 in-lb springs is just 278. These old designs work really well with WRs of about 250 to 350, so I'm right in the ballpark.

I don't doubt that your wheel rates were squarely in the ballpark. Nor do I doubt Lathrop's ability to engineer a great car/suspension.

My comment was that a damper/shock absorber that is properly valved to to handle a 56# wheel rate and a 278# wheel rate on the same vehicle under the same conditions isn't really the same shock. Even if the body, shaft and ends are the same.

The relevance to this thread/topic is that I don't believe that a one size fits all shock is the right answer unless you spec all the other relevant variables. I also believe you must keep $8000 worth of shocks (if they're that expensive I should call them dampers ) off of a budget class car.

[S Lathrop]

The relevance to this thread/topic is that I don't believe that a one size fits all shock is the right answer unless you spec all the other relevant variables. I also believe you must keep $8000 worth of shocks (if they're that expensive I should call them dampers ) off of a budget class car.

I chose a current Bilstein shocks because they are the least expensive shock I can find and they can be serviced by the customer. The total cost would be less than $800 for the set. They also have options for external adjusters. Even with the added cost of the adjusters these shocks are very cost effective.

The only thing I would have spec is the shocks and that the only parts allowed are those Bilstein builds for the shocks and have published those parts. This was the rule in Indy Lights but we used a Koni shock. I thought those rules worked very well and really did control shock costs for those cars. The down side of the Koni shocks was the cost and they were not really customer serviceable.

The trick will be is getting the motion ratios optimized for the Bilstein shocks at the wheel rates that work best for the tires that will be used.

As I was designing this car, I needed to decide on a tire for the car. I arbitrarily chose the Hoosier radial FF front. Using the same tire that is common in FF was something I thought made sense. From what I can tell, the tire has been well received. It dose present some challenges to get a car working well on the tires but that is to be expected with any tire.

I felt that with a bike engine powered car, we could use the same tire on all four corners. This would be a cost savings feature.

All this is just my opinions on the subject and I am only one person working on this concept. Take it for what it is worth.

[Jnovak]

Clint says 60 hours.

This is the only response I got for the F600 engine when I was taking the survey.

I put 53 hours in my spreadsheet because that's exactly two years in my scenario.

I just updated the spreadsheet to say 60 hours. The new operational cost per weekend for F600 is now $987, or $123 per session.

If you would like to provide another opinion on these two numbers for F600, I'd be glad to work that into the spreadsheet.

Engine rebuild or replace, $: 2,500
Engine competitive hours: 60


The engine scenario is: you've got an engine that's capable of winning a majors (or even the Run-offs) with the right driver, 1. for how many hours does it continue to be able to win a majors race, and 2. when it no longer can win a majors, what does it cost to get back to majors-winning engine (rebuild or replace)?

Sorry for the detour, but it seems important to know engine costs for this new car (600 vs. 1000).

In any case, I think it's safe to say that a 1000cc shifted at 7500 RPM will last a lot longer than a 600cc shifted at 15,000 RPM.

Of course, torque is another issue--50 vs. 80 ft-lbs.

Weight is similar, cost is a few hundred more for the 1000cc engine.


Greg

Thanks for the response Greg. I am much more in favor of a restricted 1000 cc MC engine for this class. I am working hard at trying to get support from a major supplier.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Interesting offerings from Elite - probably too expensive for this project.

http://eliteracingtransmissions.com/...ined-sub-menu/

[Stan Clayton]

Interesting offerings from Elite - probably too expensive for this project.

http://eliteracingtransmissions.com/...ined-sub-menu/

Their 4-sp H-pattern aluminum transaxle (SMT 86/10) is $6751, plus shipping...about half the price of an LD-200. They use Hewland Mk-5 top gears, too, which is nice.

[Purple Frog]

Just to be a horse's ass...

For $6751 one could buy two mc engines which include gearboxes.

[EACIII]

Frog - are those price for a new MC motor and gearbox or used ones that need to be gone through?

Don't we already have a Motorcycle engine formula class - FB?

Ed

[Purple Frog]

OK somebody tell me this is not a deal.

Buy this. Sell the Kent. (travesty)

Install mc.

https://atlanta.craigslist.org/wat/c...363192826.html

As Rand would say, I should buy it for the FF50th...

Free the Garage queens!!!!

[BURKY]

OK somebody tell me this is not a deal.

Buy this. Sell the Kent. (travesty)

Install mc.


https://atlanta.craigslist.org/wat/c...363192826.html

As Rand would say, I should buy it for the FF50th...

Free the Garage queens!!!!

I believe that's Dave Dietrich old car.

[SEComposites]

Looks like it needs a lot of work though. I hate to see these cars in such poor shape. It looks rusty and dirty.

I do do love these early 90’s VD’s though. Great looking cars and as a young kid I remember seeing the RF90 on display at the ‘89 FF Festival and thinking it was the most amazing looking car.

[Purple Frog]

That's a hell of a lot of car for under $10K.
Check out the price of a gearbox and a Butler national engine sometime.
Car has lot's of history in the SEDIV.
James Lee probably knows the car backwards and forwards.
Its probably got the last James Lee setup on it as it sits.
I don't see the "lot of work". At least not like any $10K car I've ever bought.
Jim Morgan would probably get in and race it as it is now. He wouldn't even dust it off.

[Stan Clayton]

Jim Morgan would probably get in and race it as it is now. He wouldn't even dust it off.

Yeah, but he's not 70 yet.

[SEComposites]

Well I guess we all have different standards of prep. I wouldn’t race that car with just a dusting off that’s for sure. The add doesn’t mention a national level Butler or how many you hours are on it. IF it’s a relatively fresh motor then maybe the car is a good basis for a restoration.

[Chris Elwell]

I

Just make it clearly faster and cheaper than a FF. Don't make it expensive to campaign. It will sell.

So what happens to FF and FV if this new class comes about?
FV - new class is much faster and maybe the same cost. Some people will switch to it.
FF - new class is faster and cheaper. Some people will switch to it.

Don't you now take the two strongest open wheel classes (aka the only strong open wheel classes) and divide the entries up into 3 mediocre classes? As well as take entries from the other already poorly attended classes.

Not trying to start the same old argument, just wondering about the bigger picture.

[ric baribeault]

Well I guess we all have different standards of prep. I wouldn’t race that car with just a dusting off that’s for sure. The add doesn’t mention a national level Butler or how many you hours are on it. IF it’s a relatively fresh motor then maybe the car is a good basis for a restoration.

I'd need a tetanus booster just to sit in it. I had one and loved it. But this thing needs a total ground up.

[S Lathrop]

So what happens to FF and FV if this new class comes about?
FV - new class is much faster and maybe the same cost. Some people will switch to it.
FF - new class is faster and cheaper. Some people will switch to it.

Don't you now take the two strongest open wheel classes (aka the only strong open wheel classes) and divide the entries up into 3 mediocre classes? As well as take entries from the other already poorly attended classes.

Not trying to start the same old argument, just wondering about the bigger picture.

You raise valid points form a single perspective.

Think about 10 years down the road. What becomes of FV and FF in ten years? FF will continue to get more expensive and the box of parts that you build a FV from will become more scarce and more expensive as well. When you start producing replacement parts for FV because the stuff available is not suited for racing or just not available, costs go up dramatically. And how many people driving FV today will be driving in ten years.

I will suggest that in ten years this class could be less expensive than FV and FF both. Right now the engine and transmission are possibly less expensive than a FV engine alone. I can remember going to the salvage yard and getting a front beam on Saturday so I could get back on the track Sunday. Not today.

[Daryl DeArman]

So what happens to FF and FV if this new class comes about?
FV - new class is much faster and maybe the same cost. Some people will switch to it.
FF - new class is faster and cheaper. Some people will switch to it.

Don't you now take the two strongest open wheel classes (aka the only strong open wheel classes) and divide the entries up into 3 mediocre classes? As well as take entries from the other already poorly attended classes.

Not trying to start the same old argument, just wondering about the bigger picture.

Done correctly, I envision the new car having the potential to be bigger than FF and FV are now. I don't believe the desire should be to fragment 2 classes into 3 smaller classes, but rather to provide a package that could sell in relative large numbers, resulting in one much healthier class and 2 even smaller classes.

Look at SRF and Spec Miata, look at the legend cars. Huge successes all. They not only took a little slice of the pie, they increased the size of the pie. Done right, this could do the same thing on a smaller scale. If too many concessions are made in the design, as to not step on this toe or that toe we might just end up with another FST or F6. Both great concepts introduced with too much concern about ruffling feathers.

If this turns out to be a 25-30K car I don't see too many FV folks jumping ship, no matter how fast the car. Not too many 30K FV's sold in the last 5 years. If you lose a handful of FV of folks with that type of budget the rest of the class only gets healthier.

[problemchild]

Lots of great ideas here .... but .....

There are two major reasons why our club level formula car racing is in decline and is not attracting the younger generations.
1) Financial commitment
2) Time commitment (our cars are like a full-time lob in terms of preparation, fabrication, engineering, etc).
And that is before the time required to learn all the required skills.

Most of our more serious active racers, either spend massive amounts of time in their shop, or pay some else to do the work. Our target demographic is just too small to support "a formula car for the masses"..

The only way this entry level affordable car will work is it to be a spec car (a formula car version of SRF) which can compete for the demographic that are currently flocking to SM and SRF.

The obvious other hurdle is the the clock is ticking for the people developing this concept. I don't see this concept being developed to the scale (required to be adopted by the masses) in my lifetime ..... and I am 5-15 years younger than most of the people promoting this concept. As pointed out by Chris, during the time required to develop the concept, it will only be subtracting from other classes.

[SEComposites]

Lots of great ideas here .... but .....

There are two major reasons why our club level formula car racing is in decline and is not attracting the younger generations.
1) Financial commitment
2) Time commitment (our cars are like a full-time lob in terms of preparation, fabrication, engineering, etc).
And that is before the time required to learn all the required skills.

Most of our more serious active racers, either spend massive amounts of time in their shop, or pay some else to do the work. Our target demographic is just too small to support "a formula car for the masses"..

The only way this entry level affordable car will work is it to be a spec car (a formula car version of SRF) which can compete for the demographic that are currently flocking to SM and SRF.

The obvious other hurdle is the the clock is ticking for the people developing this concept. I don't see this concept being developed to the scale (required to be adopted by the masses) in my lifetime ..... and I am 5-15 years younger than most of the people promoting this concept. As pointed out by Chris, during the time required to develop the concept, it will only be subtracting from other classes.

I completely agree. This needs to be an SRF/Miata spec type car. As much as I’d like it to be an engineering exercise that’s not what this class should be at all.

[S Lathrop]

I completely agree. This needs to be an SRF/Miata spec type car. As much as I’d like it to be an engineering exercise that’s not what this class should be at all.

Who is going to put up the $2.5M that SRF took to get launched. That is what was spent on that class.

Many of the guys who were first involved with FV and FF died before those classes reached their zeniths.

100 car fields were not unknown with FV and FF in the 1970's. These were the right products at the right price.

Now if you are arguing that racing is dying, you may be right and then this whole discussion is a waist of time.

[holmberg]

There are two major reasons why our club level formula car racing is in decline and is not attracting the younger generations.
1) Financial commitment
2) Time commitment (our cars are like a full-time lob in terms of preparation, fabrication, engineering, etc).
And that is before the time required to learn all the required skills.

Most of our more serious active racers, either spend massive amounts of time in their shop, or pay some else to do the work. Our target demographic is just too small to support "a formula car for the masses"..

The only way this entry level affordable car will work is it to be a spec car (a formula car version of SRF) which can compete for the demographic that are currently flocking to SM and SRF.

1. Financial commitment is very important. I think you are correct about competing with SM and SRF for drivers, and I think this car can easily be much cheaper than those classes.

Purchase costs: comparing apples to apples (purchase new, ready to win), a new FF is $70k, a new SRF3 is $50k, a pro-built SM is at least $35k, a new F600 is $30k. This car new should be around $30k.

A used SRF3 is $35k, a used FF is $30k, used SM is $25k, a used F600 is $20k, and this car used would be about $20k.

Operational costs: SM is $166/session, F600 is $123/session, SRF3 is $106/session, FF is $70/ session, and this car should be $47/session (if we're careful about the tires).

In short, there's nothing in the current SCCA line-up that even comes close to this car for financial commitment. Well, maybe FST...


2. Time commitment. SM is not a low-maintenance car. They're hard to work on. Engines are only competitive for 50 hours.

SRF3 is lower maintenance, and will be harder for this car to compete with. Both have very long-lasting engines and are easy to work on. FF is also easy to work on, and has a long-lasting engine (Honda).

I agree there needs to be some level of common parts, and transferable knowledge with these cars in order to reduce the time commitment. I personally would share everything I learn about set-up with my car. The technical secrecy culture of SCCA racers drives me crazy--I'm an open-source kind of guy. Sharing technical information is one way to reduce time commitments.


In addition, I think that in order to attract new drivers we have to make this car very safe. It's the top concern of sports-car racers and track-day drivers about formula cars.

The car also has to look like a sexy modern car to attract the younger set. I think the sequential gearbox and paddle-shifter will help to attract the younger video-game-playing crowd.

[SEComposites]

Who is going to put up the $2.5M that SRF took to get launched. That is what was spent on that class.

Many of the guys who were first involved with FV and FF died before those classes reached their zeniths.

100 car fields were not unknown with FV and FF in the 1970's. These were the right products at the right price.

Now if you are arguing that racing is dying, you may be right and then this whole discussion is a waist of time.

Can you break down that $2.5M so I can understand where that money goes.
Thanks!