When did F500 get so fast?
I obviously haven't been paying much attention to the F500 cars for a while, when I look at the Runoffs results today, the F500 race has a car that hit 141 MPH in the speed trap. Holy smokes! When did they get this much straightline speed?
I mean, it was probably in a draft, but still, they're running faster than FF cars now? I wondered why they were grouping for quali with FF instead of FV like I remembered.
They've edged up incrementally over the last decade. I seem to recall the trap speeds at Daytona were pushing 150 if not over 150.
Originally Posted by Bardahl77
F5 has been substantially equal to FF in terms of speed/lap times for quite some time, more than a decade.
Even 20 years ago the fast F5 and FF times at the RunOffs were less than 2% difference.
I don't know that F500/F440 was ever as slow as a FV.
Those aren’t the “old” f500 cars. Clint and I used to have some fun races back in the day when we had open tires and they ran snowmobile engines. Now we have harder then woodpeckers teeth tires and they have 600cc motorcycle engines with gearboxes. Ain’t the same anymore.
John
PS congrats to Clint on another national championship
Thanks John! Yep, we had some great races! I can recall a couple of time we got chewed out for "Racing on the checkered flag lap" and your excuse was " I was trying to keep my tire temps up so i could record them when i got into the pits" . The cars have come a long ways since we battled it out. I believe the top speed of the race was 143+ this time.
Congratulations, Clint. That was impressive. It's fun to see you do well (deservedly).
Racer Russ
Palm Coast, FL
We managed to catch one full race before leaving a motel today, F500.
“Impressive” is exactly what I thought. Very well done!
In 2015 Cal Stewart officially went over 156 mph at the Daytona Runoffs. Of course we trimmed it out as much as possible. We essentially trimmed it out to the max. Zero Downforce. Our data system showed over 159 mph!
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 watched some serious machinery qualifying and racing from turn 5 last week, with a view of the speed trap board. Amazing how close the top F500 trap speeds are to FC, P2, FA, P1. Bang for buck anyone?
F500 is easily the best and biggest bang for the buck in club racing!
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)
When I told people at the vintage races I was into my car for $5,200 including the new fuel cell I put in it, they were stunned.
F500 are the cheapest of the unwinged single seat cars as well as the fastest.
And the functional cost of a front running f500 car is about 1/3rd the cost of a front running FF 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)
How do competitive F500 costs compare to Formula Vee?
A very good question imo.
I think that mid pack vees and f5 cars are pretty close in costs. And i think that front running F5 cars cost a bit more to race at the front than a top running Vee?
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)
Thanks, Jay, they’re the two classes we’re most considering.
I love Vees for history, and aligning with our VW passions. But I suspect the quick motors are more prone to failure, and coming from karting, F500 just seems an easier mechanical curve.
(then again, I sleep a foot above a Wasserboxer...)
I also find the speeds of F500/600 more enticing when my last kart would be roughly ten seconds quicker than a Vee at say Blackhawk — like it was at a similar track in Colorado (Second Creek Raceway, RIP).
I’ve said since I was 12 that “The longer it takes me to go racing, the more likely it’ll be in Vee,” referring to the ageless Harvey Templeton. I’m 60 but still have both fire and reflexes, a day’s test in both will tell me if I waited too long for the more-frantic nature of driving F500. Gut says No, but only one way to know...
Regardless, as a class forever and normally great racing (I’m “blaming” yet respecting a certain M. Varacins here...), we’d sure be happy in Vee or F500. I do wonder about compared class participation in maybe three years.
V-Dubbers are a hard group to beat (double-entendre intended) but F500 guys remind me of karters. Fine either way.
Last edited by E1pix; 10.18.20 at 12:47 PM. Reason: I misspelled “a” ;-)
In my opinion, F5 needs to address tire costs. $730 for a set that lasts only 8 heat cycles is a bit excessive, if you ask me. The spec FF tire costs about the same but will be competitive for about twice the number of heat cycles.
Engine costs in F5 are also significantly more than FF. The motorcycle engines in F5 cost a lot less than the 2-strokes to operate, but still more than the Honda engine in FF (although both are less expensive than a Ford Kent to operate).
On the other hand, gearbox operational costs on the F5 motorcycle engine are practically zero.
Crash repair is a whole different question, and costs there are completely unpredictable. I'm sure it costs a whole lot more to repair a modern FF than an F5 after a crash. Similarly for purchase costs, with a new FF costing over $70,000!
However, overall, if you don't crash it, an FF will cost about half of what it costs to operate an F5 with MC engine.
Formula First is even cheaper than FF to operate.
spreadsheet
Greg
@E1pix I just turned 58 this week, 60 is not old or late to start. 3 weeks ago I was on track with someone who is 81 years old, he only started racing 10 years ago. Also note he is not slow.
I would agree.
I'm guessing that would depend a great deal on what your competition looks like. An area with strong competition in either class will have a much greater impact on costs to compete. Running a "front running" F5 car at Majors on the West Coast probably considerably cheaper than running a "front running FV" at MajorsAnd i think that front running F5 cars cost a bit more to race at the front than a top running Vee?. Doing that same with an F5 in an area where their participation/competition is strong is a whole 'nuther nut to crack.
That's making the huge assumption you are running a spec tire and a Fit in the FF. Open tire and a Kent is a different story.
Please see your Spreadsheet!!!!
Please explain the Gearbox Rebuild Cost for a F500 2-Stroke Powered car in in cells AK18, AL18, AM18 on your Spreadsheet.
Cell AL18 of your Spreadsheet states that the Life of a 2-Stoke Gear Box is 3-Hours. Cell AK18 of your Spreadsheet states that it cost $227 to rebuild a 2-Stroke Gearbox. Cell AD2 states that one race weekend is 3.33 hours. Cell AM18 combines all these cells (AK18, AL18, AD2) on your Spreadsheet to get a 2-Stoke Gearbox Cost/Weekend of $227.00. Therefore, your Cost Spreadsheet claims that a F500 Racer with a 2-Stroke power car is rebuilding the Gearbox on a 2-Stoke powered car after every race weekend at a cost of $227.00/Weekend.
There are three different Rotax 2-Stroke Engines in the F500 class (Rotax 494, Rotax 493, & Rotax 593). Since you’re out posting costs on an F500 Forum and making cost claims about F500 2-Stroke Powered cars please explain all the 2-Stroke cost numbers on row 18 of your Spreadsheet that claim to be the cost for a Rotax 494 Powered F500 car based on your costing criteria. Also, how the costs on row 18 of your Spreadsheet applies and compares to the cost of the other Rotax 2-Stroke engines (Rotax 493, & Rotax 593) in the F500 class.
I'd guess his gearbox numbers are amortized costs of clutch/CVT maintenance. Numbers based on the data he collected from participants in the class that chose to respond to his queries about such costs.
If this is the case, then it sounds like this Cost Spreadsheet is a really a set of Survey Results that was based on the subjective opinion of the people who responded to the Survey! What hard data and facts were used? Then all I see is the results of a Survey!!!
Your math is correct.
I am not an F500 owner, I just started a conversation in the F500 community, and then put down in the spreadsheet what they as a group agreed to. As I remember, in the case of F500, this column included clutch and CVT costs.
I was going to give you a link to the discussion at formula500.org that produced this number, but it appears that that website is no more. I'm sorry, I can't trace the number back to the community discussion.
I seem to recall that much of the F500 data came from Clint Dewitt. Perhaps he can clarify the $227 number for you.
Sorry I can't offer you more. I moderated a lot of discussions on operational costs in over 25 classes/communities, and I can't remember all the details. I just reported what people told me.
Greg
Last edited by holmberg; 10.19.20 at 2:02 AM.
I really have no interest in discussing or arguing costs with anyone inside the F500 class or outside with any of the other open wheel classes in SCCA. The F500 class is a good class! Anything related to F500 costs in my opinion can be very subjective. Some people have lots of money to spend and don't care or need to be cost effective. Other have smaller budgets, and have to be cost effective to be able to race. I'll focus my cost arguments and energy on letters to the CRB that try to increase F500 class participation (the focus of my last letter).
I think all the hard work you did on the Cost Spreadsheet is useful!! But there's a lot of subjective opinion, and personal views involved. Cost Models are difficult to come up with!!!
Regards
Scott
Last edited by sathorp; 10.19.20 at 3:39 AM.
Try $960 for a set of tires mounted and balanced at the Runoffs (including the disposal fee for the old tires)! I agree that the cost has gotten totally ridiculous. Not sure if even Hoosier would be interested in a spec 10" tire based on how many they sell each year.
One positive is that the new(ish) harder compound (R35B) performs much better than the previous versions and has a longer life.
Hàveing been racing for well over 50 years. I can tell you with 100% certainty that you cannot go faster for less $$$$ than F500.
I can also guarantee that the cost of the MC engine combination is less than 1/2 the cost of the 2 stroke combination to run at the front of the field when you consider all the required costs to run at the front with a 2 stroke.
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)
Thanks, Cory. That's useful information.
What was the price of the tires before mounting, disposal, and tax?
I believe that the compound that Hoosier uses in the spec FF tire is their R60 or R60A. Maybe they would be open to injecting the F5 tire mold with that existing compound? Don't know--I don't own an F5 car. But maybe someone who does should give them a call.
Greg
A lot of great input, Thanks everyone!
It’s still hard to decipher hard costs, though, FV vs. F500. I’ll present it this way in hopes of understanding better...
In either class, we’d do:
— a very-well sorted, Runoffs-caliber car and motor(s) straight off. I realize many/most get their feet wet in a lesser setup first, but to me I’d rather spend every minute with a good setup so I can have a benchmark of how *we’re* doing instead of a car or motor. I also like all learning curves in chassis or motor experience be applied to a win-capable car whether I’m peddling well or not.
— we’ve always been pretty good at avoiding crash damage so not a big deciding factor.
— we’re also quite sensitive to equipment stresses, and to tire management
IMO, in racing it’s rarely “cheaper” to have marginal equipment, we’d rather spend more up front and resell a car with more value, too.
I also ask how many *competitive* hours to expect between engine rebuilds, FV vs. F5?
Any further input comparing these classes is very welcome!
Starting with a used car, I'm pretty certain I could purchase/build a run-offs capable winning FV for no more than $25K. I am also confident I could spend less than $15K and have a car capable of finishing somewhere in the top 2/3's of the field.
No idea what that same level of relative capabilities would cost in a F5? 30K/15K?
As to competitive hours in a FV, given your karting experience, the comparison I would make is to that of a PP or Reed valve motor; you aren't showing up to a big race without a fresh top end and crisp reeds. Same thing with a FV and the heads. Bottom ends can go quite a bit longer.
F5 motors that are MC based, probably don't even bother being rebuilt. More expensive parts & labor than sourcing another engine. Especially as newer model engines are likely to make marginally more HP than the model year you're replacing. In other words run it until it blows or no longer competitive.
My question is how is the "suspension" in newer F5 cars compared to the ones I used to see? I've been going to vintage races for the past decade or so, haven't seen the newer bike motor cars run. What I remember is FFF and F5 cars being like karts in the suspension department and looking like the driver needs a kidney belt if the track is not dead smooth. Are they better now? My kidneys are in bad enough shape! :-)
I can speak about the ride quality of the older car as I just ran my 87 Novakar at Buttonwollow 3 weekends ago. The track is very bumpy in places and I was not beat up at all. Note I'm 5' 7" and 145lbs so I'm rather skinny and I'm keenly aware of cars that beat you up (one of the reasons I went with the F500 over a shifter kart). My Datsun beats me up more than the F500 does (mostly becuase I pound the kerbs mercilessly in the Datsun).
As for the engines the bike motor car is going to be cheaper than FV. The 600cc bike motors can be had very cheaply (cuz squids crash 600s often) and given they are performance motors they were intended for this type of work. I know guys with track day bikes 20-30 events before they even look at the motor. Suffice to say you won't be spending the thousands one does on a professionally built FV motor.
How much more power can you get out of a bike motor with a pro rebuild? Are they pretty much maxed out from the factory?
Because the restrictors are so small now the data i have seen shows that a rebuilt newer mc motor makes about 3 or 4 hp more than good low mileage stock motor. Cal stewart won the Daytona Runoffs with a bone stocker engine with adjustments to the fuel pressure as needed to optimize the fuel mixture.
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)
FV: 60 HP, 70 ft-lbs, 1025 lbs with driver. Engine costs $1700 to rebuild, is competitive for 53 hours on track.
FST: 85 HP, 100 ft-lbs, 1125 lbs with driver. Engine costs $1700 to rebuild, is competitive for 53 hours on track.
F600: 107 HP, 48 ft-lbs, 900 lbs with driver. Engine costs $2000 to rebuild/replace, is competitive for 60 hours on track.
Other costs and durations, such as tires, fuel, brake pads, and gearbox are in the spreadsheet.
Greg
The Horsepower Number in your Spreadsheet for a 600cc Motorcycle Engine with the current 28mm restrictors seems to be incorrect. I don't own a 600cc MC Engine so I'm not going to post any Hp numbers. You should talk to someone who does own or has experience with 600cc MC engines that is willing to give you a more accurate Hp number based on the current 28mm. restrictors!!!
I've found Greg's spreadsheet to be very useful, regardless of whether or not it's 100% accurate, it gives a would be racer a very good idea of the costs for various are.
So how quickly could someone make a crash highlight reel by mounting a MotoGP liter engine into an F500 chassis? 18,000 RPM engines are fun.
There is not much to gain from engine internals but lots more engine life. The stock connecting rod bolts in the Suzukis cannot hold up to the way we use the engines. This is my first year with a 4-stroke after 24 years with a 2-stroke. My car came with an uninstalled "low mileage, great condition, bores have been scoped and look great" engine. It lasted 2.5 sessions until one of the con rod bolts let go.
I replaced it with a Moon-built motor. The cost (including a new $900 oil pan) was about the same as a Hulings 2-stroke (minus clutches). So far I've run 3 short weekends plus a few sessions at the Runoffs (DNS the race) and hope to get many more weekends out of it.
Cory
Last edited by cory mcleod; 10.20.20 at 11:01 AM. Reason: clarified first sentence
Pro built Rotax and Suzuki engines are both getting close to 115 hp. Anyone that tells you otherwise is sandbagging.
Just so it's clearly posted based on your numbers!
A Pro Built Rotax 593 (600cc 2-Stroke Engine) is getting close to 115Hp!
Any 2-Stoke Rotax 593 car owner can correct these numbers if they feel they're incorrect!!!
BTW, I now own one Rotax 593 Engine and I take care of my friends car
that's has a Hulings/Rotax 593 Engine Installed.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote