The DauntingNovaTation

[Jnovak]

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 pro-built SM is at least $35k, a new SRF3 is $50k, a new FF is $70k. This car new should be around $30k. A good used SM is $25k, a used SRF3 is $35k, a used FF is $30k, and this car used would be about $20k.

Operational costs: SM is $166/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.

my days as a driver are long gone. But i am very serious about the future of this endeavor. I know what it takes to build low cost cars and i certainly do not have the resources to get this project off the ground.

I like Steves idea of spec suspension bits but imo this concept will add a minimum of $10K to $20K in tooling costs for fixtures and body tooling for each new design, thus raising the end cost. Perhaps the better process is to design a very simple spec car that any competent builder can build. I would love to collaborate with another designer to work on this project. Then we can have the best of many worlds, low cost for everyone, the ability to buy from several suppliers to keep competition for sales alive and well and best of all a $30k to a $35k rocket ship OW car that many can afford to race.

[holmberg]

Jay, how much do you think it would add to the car's price for an option to modularly add body-work to the formula car to convert it to a sports racer? Like this one from DOLeary built on a Mygale FC/FB.

[S Lathrop]

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

Enterprises had a single product, SR. Jeep Sports Renault spent untold amount of money before SCCA took the program over and formed Enterprises.

If you go back many years and look at annual statements for SCCA, you will see entries over a number of years in the footnotes to those statements about the investment in Enterprises. The value of the investment in Enterprises was adjusted downward several times. $2.5MM is close to what the collective adjustments came to. Now it maybe that Enterprises has increased in value to recover all the downward adjustments. That I do not know.

[Jnovak]

Enterprises had a single product, SR. Jeep Sports Renault spent untold amount of money before SCCA took the program over and formed Enterprises.

If you go back many years and look at annual statements for SCCA, you will see entries over a number of years in the footnotes to those statements about the investment in Enterprises. The value of the investment in Enterprises was adjusted downward several times. $2.5MM is close to what the collective adjustments came to. Now it maybe that Enterprises has increased in value to recover all the downward adjustments. That I do not know.

i doubt it. $2,500,000/1000 =$2500/car

[S Lathrop]

i doubt it. $2,500,000/1000 =$2500/car

It may not be fair to attribute all the write offs to SR. But I think my numbers are close to right. It was over several years that the write offs occurred. Again, it is not on the financial statements but in the auditor's notes to the statements.

[holmberg]

Well, regardless of the financial history of SCCA Enterprises, another way to ask the same question is:

1. How many cars would need to be built to reach economies of scale sufficient to get the construction costs down to a level that would permit a price on the car low enough to sell a bunch? Say, $30,000 ready to race. Or you tell me the target price, and then the number of cars required to hit that price.

2. What investment would be necessary to build this number of cars efficiently? Where would you have it built? In the US?


Greg

[Lotus7]

In the context of affordable and economies-of-scale and off-the-shelf parts, how is it we're talking about hopefully getting this car down to $35k, when Dwarf and Legends rollers brand new are $9995?

They come with tube chassis, seat, instruments, suspensions, dampers, uprights, brake systems, fuel cells, steering racks, wheels and tires, etc etc, all fully assembled, all you add is a MC engine as far as I can tell.
Sure, they are by no means elegant, but again, this thread seems to want affordable and fun for the masses, no?

Could Humpy do a "next gen FF" for 10k plus MC engine?

[ChristopherBernard]

The Legends and Dwarf cars are... Should we say quite "agricultural" to say the least. Also produced in numbers that no road course cars will ever sell in here I the states. Everything circle track has less finess, more weight and is cheap by comparison.

[holmberg]

A better comparison for paved road racing would be to the Legends Thunder Roadster. 1500 lbs with driver, Yamaha XJR 1250 (138 HP, 86 ft-lbs), 96" wheelbase, 61" wide, and a treaded street tire. A minimum of $20,000 new, not including the "SCCA option". A little bit faster than a Spec Miata--2:04 at Thunderhill. FF is about 1:54.

I don't think even Humpy Wheeler could build a car that does FF lap-times (safely) for less than $30,000, no matter how primitive the chassis and suspension.

I think Jay and Steve know how to build this car cost-effectively. I have confidence in them.

[lance3556]

In 1992, the officials at Charlotte Motor Speedway began noticing a great need all across North America. This need was very simple: an affordable racecar with a unique design that requires little maintenance time and cost. This was brought about because many short tracks have allowed the cost of their competing racecars to escalate out of control with "loose" rules.

Car counts began to drop drastically, and at that moment, track officials estimate that 30% to 40% of the racecars in North America were not in competition because of cost. After further research, track officials noticed that when car costs went over $20,000, participation dwindled. Tracks featuring cars in the $10,000 to $15,000 price range with low maintenance expenses (cost of racing a car per race) had significantly increased car counts.

As a result of this research, in January 1992, US Legend Cars International, Inc. was launched and so began a highly-accelerated R&D program of a new racecar that would be affordable, race on smaller tracks and have low maintenance costs.

Nice quote from the legends web site about the history. It will take a consortium to do something like this. The one thing that has increased over the last decade is the number of available racetracks to host events. Almost every state has at least one new Race-park open in the past decade even though "racing participation" has been dropping. It does not need to be an all in by a limited number. Rules should be tight and use existing supply chain. Why not have SCCA enterprise do the shocks, maybe a big manufacture would support an engine thru a secondary supplier like Legends or SCCA enterprise, 8-10 gentleman tracks offer a series or race ready track day car (kicking in a small investment each for a well designed chassis). Open up the body work to a spec dimension so any producer could build/buy a mold to sell parts. Use a little crowd sourcing, basis of the of the 21st century economy. Maybe you could even UBER a track day car, possible it would start out driving itself and you could turn off driver aids as your experience improved!

[holmberg]

In 1992, ...

After further research, track officials noticed that when car costs went over $20,000, participation dwindled.

Interesting. $20,000 in 1992 is $35,000 today. I think we're on the right track. So to speak...

[S Lathrop]

Interesting. $20,000 in 1992 is $35,000 today. I think we're on the right track. So to speak...

Your analysis is very helpful. Thanks for all your effort.

[holmberg]

Steve, speaking of analyses, what did you think of my analysis of tires in post #18?

In summary:

A set of all-fronts Hoosier FF-spec radial tires costs $306/weekend and weighs 64 lbs.

A set of all-fronts American Racer bias-ply tires costs $196/weekend and weighs 42 lbs.

Very close to the same lap times.

Tires are more than half the operational costs of the car we're talking about, so this is an important decision.


Greg

[S Lathrop]

Steve, speaking of analyses, what did you think of my analysis of tires in post #18?

In summary:

A set of all-fronts Hoosier FF-spec radial tires costs $306/weekend and weighs 64 lbs.

A set of all-fronts American Racer bias-ply tires costs $196/weekend and weighs 42 lbs.

Very close to the same lap times.

Tires are more than half the operational costs of the car we're talking about, so this is an important decision.


Greg

Designing the car around a bias ply tire would be an easy change. The lower weight would be very helpful.

One thing that is not an easy option is changing tires. That change can lead to a lot of other things that have to be changed.

My only reason for choosing the Hoosier Radial was because it is the spec tire for FF in SCCA. And I was interested in having the performance of this car and a FF as close as possible.

Picking the tire is something that has to be done very early in the design process. And given the cost differences, I sure can not argue against the AR choice. Thanks again for your insights.

[DanW]

Designing the car around a bias ply tire would be an easy change. The lower weight would be very helpful.

One thing that is not an easy option is changing tires. That change can lead to a lot of other things that have to be changed.

My only reason for choosing the Hoosier Radial was because it is the spec tire for FF in SCCA. And I was interested in having the performance of this car and a FF as close as possible.

Picking the tire is something that has to be done very early in the design process. And given the cost differences, I sure can not argue against the AR choice. Thanks again for your insights.

Steve,

Using the AR fronts is attractive because of in-first cost. We have been using them here in SF Region for more than 10 years. They were originally designed for mini stocks running on pavement with a 220degF+ running temperature. Our operating tire temps are usually in the 140 to 160F range. On a Crossle 25/30/32/35/40 etc., they will last 12 to 15 heat cycles. If the tires sit for more than a month or so between heat cycles, they seem to turn purple and lose grip. The fronts usually go away before the rears. The fall off is about 1-1/2 seconds between the first and the 12th heat cycle. I have had as many as 15 cycles and they were really done. Most guys use 11 to 14psi in the fronts and 13 to 16 in the rears. 13 psi in the rear feels like the back of the car is about to fall over during the first few laps until the pressure and temp comes up.

The rears are a very soft cantilever design that move laterally 2-1/2" or more within the wheel. Going down the straights they grow in diameter like taking away an extra gear tooth or two from the driven gear. The rear ride height increases accordingly. Somewhere I have video of a CF on the dyno that shows the tire growth.

The Hoosier R60 fronts might be a better choice?

From my fellow run group guys in FF, the spec FF Hoosier radial seems to hold its performance better until the rubber is gone almost to the cords. They tell me they get 20+ sessions.

[holmberg]

Dan, thanks for the detailed, first-hand information--very valuable.

I guess I should update my spreadsheet for Club FF. I had the AR tires down for 20 heat cycles based on what you said here. But the number was my interpretation of what you said--"3 weekends". Since my scenario is 8 sessions per weekend (three practice sessions on Friday; practice, qualifying, and race on Saturday; and qualifying and race on Sunday), I converted "3 weekends" to 24 sessions (heat cycles). Which sounded optimistic to me, so I rounded down to 20.

From what you're saying, the AR's are only competitive for 15 heat cycles.

If so, that would really change the cost of the AR tires, from $196/weekend to $261/weekend.

I have the Hoosier FF-spec tires down for 20 HC, and so $306/weekend.

If this is all correct, then the AR's aren't saving nearly much as I thought they were. Now total operational cost for this car would be $439 with the AR tires, or $484 with the Hoosiers. Only $45/weekend difference, or about 10%.

If the AR tire creates the problems you describe, then maybe the $45 savings is not worth the hassle.

On the other hand, the AR's are quite a bit lighter than the Hoosiers.

What are you thoughts on the trade-offs here?

The lap-times look about the same to me, based on Thunderhill lap-records. FF is 1:53.815 (2016-5-14 Chuck Horn in a 1993 Swift DB6 with Honda engine), and CF is 1:54.787 (2011-4-9 Denny Renfrow in a 1972 Crossle 25F). Just 0.972 second difference. I assume FF in 2016 would be on the Hoosier FF-spec tire, and CF in 2011 would be on the AR tire. Since the Swift DB6 has much lower drag than the Crossle, I think the 1 second difference should be the cars, and the tires appear about equal to me.

Is that right?

Thanks,


Greg

[Jnovak]

Dan, thanks for the detailed, first-hand information--very valuable.

I guess I should update my spreadsheet for Club FF. I had the AR tires down for 20 heat cycles based on what you said here. But the number was my interpretation of what you said--"3 weekends". Since my scenario is 8 sessions per weekend (three practice sessions on Friday; practice, qualifying, and race on Saturday; and qualifying and race on Sunday), I converted "3 weekends" to 24 sessions (heat cycles). Which sounded optimistic to me, so I rounded down to 20.

From what you're saying, the AR's are only competitive for 15 heat cycles.

If so, that would really change the cost of the AR tires, from $196/weekend to $261/weekend.

I have the Hoosier FF-spec tires down for 20 HC, and so $306/weekend.

If this is all correct, then the AR's aren't saving nearly much as I thought they were. Now total operational cost for this car would be $439 with the AR tires, or $484 with the Hoosiers. Only $45/weekend difference, or about 10%.

If the AR tire creates the problems you describe, then maybe the $45 savings is not worth the hassle.

On the other hand, the AR's are quite a bit lighter than the Hoosiers.

What are you thoughts on the trade-offs here?

The lap-times look about the same to me, based on Thunderhill lap-records. FF is 1:53.815 (2016-5-14 Chuck Horn in a 1993 Swift DB6 with Honda engine), and CF is 1:54.787 (2011-4-9 Denny Renfrow in a 1972 Crossle 25F). Just 0.972 second difference. I assume FF in 2016 would be on the Hoosier FF-spec tire, and CF in 2011 would be on the AR tire. Since the Swift DB6 has much lower drag than the Crossle, I think the 1 second difference should be the cars, and the tires appear about equal to me.

Is that right?

Thanks,


Greg

i am personally in favor of bias ply tires mainly for the cost and weight over radial tires. I think that bias ply tires may be more robust on setup.

[problemchild]

i am personally in favor of bias ply tires mainly for the cost and weight over radial tires. I think that bias ply tires may be more robust on setup.

Bias tires seem like a strange choice for a 21st century car for the masses.

Also, there seems to be 3 funding options.
1) Wealthy hobbiest investors
2) Automotive companies
3) Tire companies
Considering how tire companies are competing to be spec tires, particularly Cooper and Pirelli, it would be logical to build a car that could accommodate a variety of standardized modern tires. Tire style may or may not actually be the most critical decision in making this project be successful, but I throw that out there. Does an arguable technical benefit take precedence over conceptual and marketing benefits?

[S Lathrop]

There is a big difference in the way you build the front suspension for radial (especially the Hoosier Spec FF front) and bias ply tires. By choosing a bias ply front FF or FC sizes, we will have a lot more options and I think getting really good handling will likely be easier.

That choice opens up the market for tires choices a bunch.

One of the things Jay and I discussed was reducing the maximum width of the cars by 4 inches, 68" vs 72". And we had a maximum wheel base of 94" , that length was chosen because to the exhaust system with a transverse engine. The wheel base is longer than what was common with a 1970's FF but the width is much closer than the cars today. The extra wheel base makes the same tire idea more doable. Because this car will be much closer to FV weights, the tire life should be better than what the same tires get in CF and FF.


I would like to mention that in the early days of FV and FF, there were no big sponsors underwriting the development of the classes. The cars were priced right for the market of people who thought they would like to race. Even though the cars were evolving very rapidly, the demand was strong enough to make it possible for those who wanted to , to upgrade their equipment every few years. This had 2 distinct advantages over any spec class: car manufactures were able to sustain production over much longer periods and there was a good supply of used cars for people entering the classes. And the cost of entering the class was relatively low because of the supply of good used cars.

With FV, the evolution of the cars moved slower than FF. So the pressure to upgrade was not nearly as strong. And because of all the common parts, upgrading often meant taking the parts from and existing car and using them with a new car kit. If you had a crash, repairs were relatively inexpensive because a lot of the parts were the common VW parts.

With push rod suspension, the cost of building the control arms is very low if they are build from round tubing. The shocks are not vulnerable to crash damage as they are on all CF. And tubular control ares are a fraction of the cost of building rocker arms for rocker suspension.

I think that the evolution of cars in this class will be much more like FV. The technology is much more stable than it was in the 1970 - 2000 period. And like FV, we are trying to lock down many of the components to a common source or design.

Greg; thanks again for you contributions.

[B Farnham]

What about doing the cars in solid works? You can have part numbers for every tube on the frame and can in a way mass produce the cars.

Having prebent tubing would cut down on production cost and if there were to be damage to the frame it would be easy to repair.

I know of someone with an FV that currently does this and it sounds like a great idea to me.

[S Lathrop]

What about doing the cars in solid works? You can have part numbers for every tube on the frame and can in a way mass produce the cars.

Having prebent tubing would cut down on production cost and if there were to be damage to the frame it would be easy to repair.

I know of someone with an FV that currently does this and it sounds like a great idea to me.

We currently have the frames of the Citation FF/FCs pre-bent and coped. They are delivered to us with a part number on each tube. And yes, they can be done in any quantity we order. The same company supplied the tubes for the fuselage of the airplane I am building.

The kits are very cost effective and the improvement in accuracy is amazing. Welding distortion is not even close to what you get in a hand coped joint. The gap for every joint is exactly the same.

I am thinking about gas welding the frames with the same process used for English built tube frames. TIG is too time consuming and I have not had good experiences with MIG welded frames. Getting the correct rod is a bit of an issue but everything else with the process is easy enough.

[FVRacer21]

Couple of Misc Comments:

1. $35K as the current goal. I think the goal should be around $20K or less for an assembled car less tires. Why?
Other costs - travel, entry fee, safety gear, fuel, and a host of others are now the driving force along with competition from other concepts. Take a $35K car, tools, trailer, tow vehicle and storage, safety gear, dues, tires, and entry and you are looking at minimum $50K ante. Now if someone has the choice between that an a state of the art virtual racing setup for $20K, how many do you loose? Yes karters may actually save money - but the goal is to keep cars racing, and every dime on the car is money that does not go for entry fees.

2. Car design - we need to break the mold. A commercial 5 gal square fuel cell under the driver's legs ( sit like current F1) would provide space for battery and other things like master cylinders, instead of custom multi geometric cells that we have now. Maybe even does not have to be traditional fuel cell if performance is acceptable. More stressed panels may eliminate the need for overly complicated chassis - no not advocating monocoque construction but stiffness from stressed panels can make it safer - we don't have to follow the FF rules exactly. Maybe use more aluminum than fiberglass where you can for body work - much easier to cut if flat pieces - check out current Irish FV (and early 80's FF).

3. Marketing and financing. Again the entry cost is very high - if it can be spread out over many years, the better - Think racing on a bank loan is impossible? What do you think that credit card that you use is - at a MUCH higher interest rate. Whether promoted as a kit, complete roller, complete car (actually, all of the above is the best model) you have to lay out the entire package (safety gear etc) and lay it out in easy monthly payments. Of course if a big car company or sponsor wants to help subsidize......

4. I do have a question about inboard shocks vs outboard - Again initial cost vs running cost. Most of the crash damage we saw in the SBRS race series when we ran outboard Crossles - we really lost very few complete shocks. If the shock is easily repaired by owner, that cost is less that the complexity of inboard setup. The ability to get back on track is faster with inboard but with proper use of shear plates and rod end sizes - damage can be localized. This is also a push for front radiator for simplicity, although if you go with the fuel cell under the driver's legs, a mid mounted radiator might be more practical.

So I guess my comments are simplify, simplify, simplify.

How about an air cooled motorcycle engine?

ChrisZ

[Pi_guy]

I am thinking about gas welding the frames with the same process used for English built tube frames. TIG is too time consuming and I have not had good experiences with MIG welded frames. Getting the correct rod is a bit of an issue but everything else with the process is easy enough.

Have you thought about MIG brazing?

[Jnovak]

Jay, how much do you think it would add to the car's price for an option to modularly add body-work to the formula car to convert it to a sports racer? Like this one from DOLeary built on a Mygale FC/FB.

the issue is really tooling costs. If you can purchase existing parts that can be trimmed to fit i estimate $5k-$7k. If new parts need to be designed and tooling made that would add at a minimum $6k for a total between $11k-$13K not counting wings.

Call Stan Clayton he knows.

[LenFC11]

Fellas..

I follow this thread with interest as I am always on the fence regarding a return to racing.

I don't think a 35k car will sell.. keep in mind you can buy many very nice cars for far less and race in existing class.. a zetec or mzr car can be had for 25k these days.. same goes for FF..

Imho if want to sell this car is has to be 20k.. maximum 25k.. but still for 25k I'd buy an mzr and race f2k series... Think about it.. 25k you get modern FF or FC with existing class structure.. what is the benefit to this new car that a very few of you are proposing? Just reading the thread it is clear about 5 people are interested in this new class

[Jnovak]

What about doing the cars in solid works? You can have part numbers for every tube on the frame and can in a way mass produce the cars.

Having prebent tubing would cut down on production cost and if there were to be damage to the frame it would be easy to repair.

I know of someone with an FV that currently does this and it sounds like a great idea to me.

both Steve and i use Solid modeling software. I have been using Solid Works for every part on my cars for 15 years.

[Daryl DeArman]

Tire style may or may not actually be the most critical decision in making this project be successful, but I throw that out there. Does an arguable technical benefit take precedence over conceptual and marketing benefits?

That would depend if you are talking to an engineer or marketing guy.

Those Legend cars were racing on dirt and pavement for many years on a spec BF Goodrich Radial T/A and they sold thousands of those cars.

It doesn't matter (to me) how optimized the suspension geometry, or gear stack, or aero package is if we are all dealing with the same limitation and the racing is good.

Think of all the limitations in a SM, SRF or a Legend and look at their numbers. Take a look at FV and their numbers. Now, contrast that with FA or FB and the relatively extreme performance and few compromises.

I'd argue it is not about the money either. Guys are campaigning SM, SRF's and Legends with $100K+ tow rig setups. They clearly could chose to spend the same money elsewhere and get a faster car. It's about the quality of the racing that determines how/where they decide to spend it.

[holmberg]

i am personally in favor of bias ply tires mainly for the cost and weight over radial tires. I think that bias ply tires may be more robust on setup.

Besides the AR bias-ply, there is the Hoosier Club FF bias-ply tire. Price is between the AR and the Hoosier radial--$656 for a mixed set (56 lbs), and $596 for all fronts (40 lbs--lightest set of all!). Uses the same R60A compound as the Hoosier radial. If it gets the same 20 heat cycles as the radial, then cost would be $262/weekend for the mixed set and $238/weekend for the all-fronts. That's the best so far, if the AR's only get 15 HC, as Dan says. Perhaps the Hoosier's wouldn't have the same distortion problems as the AR's?

Greg

[S Lathrop]

Have you thought about MIG brazing?

No. I happen to have gas torches and a flux/gas system.

My MIG experience is decades back. I did own MIG equipment and did build a few cars using MIG. The Z10 Zinks were MIG welded. Also the MIG process gives me concern when used with 4130 steel because of the heating and cooling process with MIG vs. TIG

[holmberg]

Also, there seems to be 3 funding options.
1) Wealthy hobbiest investors
2) Automotive companies
3) Tire companies

I would add two more possible funding options to that list:

4) Track owners. Same financial model as the Legends.

5) Driving schools.

Edge Engineering (Gary Hickman) was once contacted by an unnamed driving school to explore the possibility of building an un-winged, MC-powered formula car, so this one seems like a real possibility.

For an order of 20 cars, Gary claimed he could get the price down to $22,000 in 2012 (turn-key with data logger, no tires). In today's dollars, that's $24,000. Of course, if you ask him today about a one-off, it's twice that price.

Regarding 2) Automotive companies, Stan said Honda is interested in supplying crate MC engines. Honda has certainly been very good to the Formula F community. Maybe this car becomes "Formula Honda"! Or "Formula Fireblade".


Greg

[Jnovak]

No. I happen to have gas torches and a flux/gas system.

My MIG experience is decades back. I did own MIG equipment and did build a few cars using MIG. The Z10 Zinks were MIG welded. Also the MIG process gives me concern when used with 4130 steel because of the heating and cooling process with MIG vs. TIG

ventilation!!!!!

[S Lathrop]

Couple of Misc Comments:

4. I do have a question about inboard shocks vs outboard - Again initial cost vs running cost. Most of the crash damage we saw in the SBRS race series when we ran outboard Crossles - we really lost very few complete shocks. If the shock is easily repaired by owner, that cost is less that the complexity of inboard setup. The ability to get back on track is faster with inboard but with proper use of shear plates and rod end sizes - damage can be localized. This is also a push for front radiator for simplicity, although if you go with the fuel cell under the driver's legs, a mid mounted radiator might be more practical.

So I guess my comments are simplify, simplify, simplify.

ChrisZ

Doing inboard shocks is not very expensive. I have been doing them since 1987 and I would not even consider outboard. Now I was changing over from rockers and they were expensive to build. Frequently, with my cars and inboard suspension, we will break the rod ends and the suspension arms will survive intact. I had one car where the entire suspension on one side was removed and all the control arms survived.

The cost difference with outboard shocks is not as great as you would expect. At the rear especially, clearing an axle shaft with a shock adds a lot to the structure at eh rear that is not necessary with a push rod, inboard system. The front of the frame is easier because there is more flexibility in where you take the suspension loads from the damper and the wheel. Not to mention how much more room you can make for the driver's feet.

Also with Inboard you can disign around a common shock for all four corners as lenght is not restricted as much as with outboard. And you can get the motion ratios chosen to optimize the characteristics of the shock. This is very important in setup.

Is there not a possibility that when kids look at these cars, they may not even know what a shock looks like and wonder what all that stuff is between the wheels and the chassis? What are they use to looking at and what do they expect?

My experience with the Zink Z10 and the Z16 was that we broke a lot of shock shafts and that was the most expensive part, the shock. In all likely hood, when you bend a shock shaft, you will damage many more parts than just the shaft. The shafts are very hard to with stand the friction on the upper bearing. The bodies are very thin where the upper bearing / cap is mounted. Now the Bilsteins I am looking at may be like those that we used on the Z10 and Z16 with a relatively small diameter shaft and a significant under cut at the top fitting, where they would frequently break. The Bilsteins are the least expensive shock I could find and by a significant margin.

[S Lathrop]

ventilation!!!!!

That might be a second use for a paint booth.

[Jnovak]

Lots of comments that the target price should be around $20k. These comments must be from people who have never built a run of cars. Unless your building in quantities of 100 at a time there is simply no way a business can do this.

Any China contact out there?

Perhaps a guy could build his own one off for somewhere around $20k but he is not paying any labor cost to himself.

My business partner and i have built and sold around 50 cars and or kits in the last 10-12 years and i can assure you that it cannot be done for $20k. Period.

[problemchild]

That would depend if you are talking to an engineer or marketing guy.

Those Legend cars were racing on dirt and pavement for many years on a spec BF Goodrich Radial T/A and they sold thousands of those cars.

It doesn't matter (to me) how optimized the suspension geometry, or gear stack, or aero package is if we are all dealing with the same limitation and the racing is good.

Think of all the limitations in a SM, SRF or a Legend and look at their numbers. Take a look at FV and their numbers. Now, contrast that with FA or FB and the relatively extreme performance and few compromises.

I'd argue it is not about the money either. Guys are campaigning SM, SRF's and Legends with $100K+ tow rig setups. They clearly could chose to spend the same money elsewhere and get a faster car. It's about the quality of the racing that determines how/where they decide to spend it.

I believe the only way this can work is to start with the marketing/financial end and work backwards from there. We know there are lots of people who can design the car, and thousands of US fab shops that can handle the production and assembly. What is needed is a million dollars and a couple hundred subsidized engines. If we cannot have that, then a couple hundred grand, and an affordable engine source.

Many of the technical concepts being discussed here would be great for $35k cars built in low production quantities. I cannot help but think that building 100s of cars at a $20k price point will mean they will have to be simple frames tig-welded together in a few hours. As suggested here on numerous occasions, this car for the masses will likely be a turn-off for most of us. If these future OW cars are to be winning program then they need to be aimed at a target demographic that is not us. There are not enough of us for the cars we have now. As Len points out, we can just go buy $25k FF, FC, FE, FB cars and race them, and spend days working on them for every hour of track time.

For those that think my view that we work backwards from getting money and marketing is unrealistic, how long will this take for a handful of obsessed but unfunded SCCA car builders to get from concept to production. We literally need to produce as many cars in the first year as all our people have sold together in their entire life. It would make more sense for these great people to put their efforts into supporting our existing classes for the current SCCA OW enthusiasts.

[Marty Nygard]

Lots of comments that the target price should be around $20k. These comments must be from people who have never built a run of cars. Unless your building in quantities of 100 at a time there is simply no way a business can do this.

Any China contact out there?

Perhaps a guy could build his own one off for somewhere around $20k but he is not paying any labor cost to himself.

My business partner and i have built and sold around 50 cars and or kits in the last 10-12 years and i can assure you that it cannot be done for $20k. Period.

Jay is probably right. A dozen years ago I built a self designed DSR for about $13,000 including body and aero molds, limited use jigs and a trailer. I doubt it could be done for less than $20,000 today. The odd thing, however. is that I cannot think of a single performance capping measure advocated in the above posts that would have reduced my costs.
M

[lance3556]

I follow this thread with interest as I am always on the fence regarding a return to racing.

I don't think a 35k car will sell.. keep in mind you can buy many very nice cars for far less and race in existing class.. a zetec or mzr car can be had for 25k these days.. same goes for FF..

Imho if want to sell this car is has to be 20k.. maximum 25k.. but still for 25k I'd buy an mzr and race f2k series... Think about it.. 25k you get modern FF or FC with existing class structure.. what is the benefit to this new car that a very few of you are proposing? Just reading the thread it is clear about 5 people are interested in this new class

With this thought, put a price on a corner that needs to be rebuilt when you have a shunt. The car may be less expensive because it is used but the repair parts are still the cost of a 70K car baseline. Now do the same exercise for a baseline car that cost 35K new. I believe a lot of people buy into SRF because the "do it yourself" type has a source of parts readily available, a vendor readily available for the big repairs, and good sense that most are driving around with the same parts as you. In that price range may open up some arrive and drive programs like the SRF crowd has. Pretty hard to sell the arrive and drive with a 70k car, the ROI is not so good

[LenFC11]

Jay

You don't have to build a car to know what is available at different price points..

The likelihood of getting this car built for 20-25k is minimal.. hence my point.. when it comes down to someone plunking down actual cash.. they will look at what is available.. at 25k you have a lot of options for cars and series to run in

[S Lathrop]

The observation that you can buy a FF or FC for under $30,000 is absolutely correct. But when it comes to repairs, you are not driving a $30,000 car, you are driving a $70,000 car because the parts will be at today's costs.

If we can build a car in the $30,000 range, the cost of parts will be such that cars can built $30,000 cars. And spare parts will be priced accordingly. We are talking about a design that results in much lower parts costs than anything out there now.

And at the end of the day, if we can't pull it off it ain't going to happen

VW did not make FV happen. Some guy in had an idea for a race car and he went out an built one.

Also there ain't no sugar daddies out there that will help us with our racing addiction. If this car is to be a success, it has to stand own its own. Only then will the chance of support be possible because those giving the supporter want to be a part of this program.

[Jnovak]

Jay

You don't have to build a car to know what is available at different price points..

The likelihood of getting this car built for 20-25k is minimal.. hence my point.. when it comes down to someone plunking down actual cash.. they will look at what is available.. at 25k you have a lot of options for cars and series to run in

racers are also buying $75k FF cars. If we can build a car that is faster and lowere cost to maintain and prepare for $30k-$35k. I think they will want to be a part of such a class.