More fuel for winter debates eh...
The parts would be built to specfied drawings. Anybody could build them.
More fuel for winter debates eh...
The parts would be built to specfied drawings. Anybody could build them.
Not going to happpen!
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
When I used to run FF and could choose whatever tire I wanted for a given race/track/weather, the thought of running a spec hard compound tire really turned me off.
Having run in Club Ford out here in the SF Region now for a few seasons, where we run on American Racers (a very hard compound tire), I have completely changed my mind on this subject.
When I first started running CF I bought a new set of AR's for every race. I took the $550 price tag as a bonus over $900 GY's. My assumption was that new tires every race made sense because of the old adage that a tire's best lap was its 3rd lap on the track and no matter what, it was downhill from there.
Lately, I have gotten my cars setup dialed a little (a continuing work in progress), so I turned my attention to my tires. One of the things that stood out to me in the class was the perennial front runner in our region Chuck Horn ran his tires almost until the rubber was gone, so I wondered if I could achieve the same results?
It has taken me this whole season so far to get a handle on this goal. I have tried a number of things and now have my process to a point that I can safely say I can run more than 12 sessions on a set of tires with little in the way of degradation in lap times. Last race at Thunderhill I ran within a tenth of my personal lap record at this track on 12 heat cycle tires. I now realize buying new tires every race is not required and in some ways desirable (and not just because it costs more).
What does this mean to the reduction of annual costs? Well, if you buy a set of GY's for each race that is roughly $900 per race. Figure 10 races a season (in the SF Region); you are at $9000 per season for tires, more if you do any significant testing.
By running American Racers, at a minimum, that cost is reduced to $5500 per season on an apples for apples comparison (a new set each race). On the other hand, I believe my actual out of pocket expense for running up front in the SF Region on AR tires will likely by closer to $2500 a year, once I get my procedures totally sorted. I think $6500 a year savings in a highly competitive region/class is significant.
Now with the entire above well in hand, I know there will never be a hard compound spec tire in FF. The irony of the Fit hullabaloo is that as much promise as the engine has to reduce per lap costs in the long run, it pales in comparison to what mandating American Racer 133 compound tires would do for the annual expense budgets in FF.
And there are competitive FSTs out there with 20+ heat cycles on Hoosier R60s, but that's supposed to be saved for the winter, Bill!
Winter stuff in the summer, gack!
Oh Oh, sorry, I just got carried away.And there are competitive FSTs out there with 20+ heat cycles on Hoosier R60s, but that's supposed to be saved for the winter, Bill!
Anytime the word "spec" is discussed, the thread spirals into a semantics argument. As has been pointed out many times before, FF has "spec" engine parts. "Spec" isn't necessarily a bad word.
The concept of standardized parts is used in FV and F500. I'm not suggesting that we go back to VW straight axles or Spitfire spindles. As Steve Lathrop stated, he could cut the cost per corner of a new formula car significantly with standardized parts. In 2003 or 2004, I recall a conversation with Steve L. and Richard P. at the ICP seminar in Atlanta about standardized components. I was curious if Steve had a revelation on how to implement that in an existing class like FF.
The goal of "spec" or standardized parts is cost containment. IIRC, couldn't you have the finest FV on the planet for under $25K? Certainly no one would argue that the racers and racing in FV are top notch. Again I understand the difference between an FV and FF.
As Larry and Richard point out, $70K is not unreasonable to build a first class FF using the current approach. But as Russ points out and I agree, the market is limited at that price. Is there not some middle ground between a $70K FF and a $25K FV?
How do you define "standardized"? If that word is just a euphemism for "spec", then my impression is that it is not really possible. After all, if The Extraordinary Committee for the Standardization of Formula Ford Parts chose the Citation upright with the Piper chassis and the VD bellcranks, we'd end up with quite possibly the worst FF in history.
And why does anyone think this approach will result in lower costs?
Hint: give it up. It won't work and efforts to impose it will just piss everyone off.
Were you still hung over at at 10:00 AM on the 7th? That is a rough response to Steve's post.
Eariler this year I asked myself the question: could we make a significant reduction in the cost of FFs if we tried to make greater use of common components among the builders of FFs. I then drew up a front upright assembly (upright, through wheel) to see if I could design something that could be built for about $500.
During the hay days of FF sales, the Zink Z10 and the Lola 342 series of FFs used the same front uprighes. As such we could have interchanged the entire front upright through the wheel between a Lola 342 and a Zink Z10 (wheels, brake calipers, rotors and uprights). Other Engilsh manufacturers could have done the same thing when they were using the Triumph uprights. The aircooled SFV class was based on each manufacturer using the same basic components (including uprights, brake calipers, rotors). The idea here is that we look at using the same design vs using the same actual part. Over time I think that the individual parts would be produced by the lowest cost producer. But each manufacture could choose to buy or build as it suited. This was the idea that was being discussed and the inspiration for that idea.
The Lola 342 sold over 200 cars. The Zink Z10 sold over 90 cars over the same peroid.
Concurent with the rise in the cost of a new FF from about half of the mediun income of the time to double and more than medium income was the tendency of manufacturers to build their own components in an effort to achieve higher levels of performance.
Stan: you also have confused the term "spec" meaning single source with single design. I think that single design is consistant with the idea of a "formula" class -- a set of rules to which we build race cars.
Last edited by S Lathrop; 08.07.09 at 10:11 PM.
Agreed. Using standardized components could result in real savings in a class where lots of new cars are being built each year, but that hasn't been the case in FF for a long time. Cars built new for that year account for what, about 2% of the grid at nationals each year? The number is even smaller for regionals. I'm not sure that we need to tinker with the rules to encourage more people to buy new cars by reducing the price of new cars by a few thousand dollars when there are plenty of competitive used cars available. IMHO, if someone wants to get into the class and the price of a new car is too steep (whether it's $45k or 70k), there are enough used DB-1s, DB-6s and late model VDs out there that they can make an educated decision about the $$ vs. speed equation without having to relegate themselves to a completely uncompetitive car.How do you define "standardized"? If that word is just a euphemism for "spec", then my impression is that it is not really possible. After all, if The Extraordinary Committee for the Standardization of Formula Ford Parts chose the Citation upright with the Piper chassis and the VD bellcranks, we'd end up with quite possibly the worst FF in history.
And why does anyone think this approach will result in lower costs?
Hint: give it up. It won't work and efforts to impose it will just piss everyone off.
Were you so drunk at 10 pm last night that you failed to recognize the use of hyperbole when it smacked you in the face?
See how juvenile my response looks, Steve? That's how yours looked when I read it this morning. So I suggest you reign in your ego and stop prefacing your arguments with inflammatory insults. They do nothing to advance your argument and make you look like an ass.
Moreover, I led off my comment with the word "if" and ended it with a huge "winkie" to take the sting out of what might otherwise have been misread as an overly "rough" statement. I was using outrageous exaggeration to make the point that trying to impose "standardized" parts on several tiny manufacturers, each of whom puts out a highly evolved and distinct product, is doomed to failure and will have negative unintended consequences (i.e., pissing everyone off).
The answer to your rhetorical question is an emphatic No!, and your example of the upright is a perfect example of why not. First of all, you are (IIRC) an accountant by training, not a mechanical engineer, so I have absolutely no confidence that your design is worth the computer screen it was drawn on. What alloys are you spec'ing? Heat and/or surface treatments? Bearings? Will your design accommodate all of the popular wheels out there? The brakes? The offsets? And most importantly, how do we know that it will comply to the chassis and suspension design requirements of Piper, Mygale, Carbir and Van Diemen, et al? Or are all of those designers going to have to redesign their $70,000 cars to comply to your $500 upright? Where are your savings now?Eariler this year I asked myself the question: could we make a significant reduction in the cost of FFs if we tried to make greater use of common components among the builders of FFs. I then drew up a front upright assembly (upright, through wheel) to see if I could design something that could be built for about $500.
They're in never-never land, that's where they are. They're the vaporware of a half-baked idea that flies in the face of reality.
Listen up people, 'cus I'm only going to say this once and it's the key to this issue. Standardized parts only save money when they are designed into a product from the outset. The LD200 is the standard gearbox not because some committee decreed it so, but because every FF design intended for the American market for the past 20 years has incorporated that design into its basic structure. Steve and Richard's LD19/20 clones are the defacto standard brake calipers for the same reason. In constrast, any time we force a designer to retrofit some "standardized" part for which his car was not designed from the outset, it COSTS money, not saves it. And that cost will have to be passed on to you the customer.
So give up on the notion that there are magical savings to be made by standarizing parts, because where it makes sense parts are already standardized. For example, Steve isn't designing a unique battery design into his Citations...he is using a standard commercial racing battery, and Van Diemen, Piper and Mygale are doing the same thing. But where they are not standardizing parts is in those components of their designs that make them unique...chassis, uprights, bellcranks, a-arms, body panels, etc.
Finally, and here is the irony, there is nothing to prevent Steve posting the CAD files for his universal upright on his website, free for the downloading. Maybe it IS a good design, and if it were freely available future FF designers might incorporate it into their designs because using it saves time and money. THAT is how parts in an open formula class become standardized. Not by some committee imposing them from above.
So Steve, the ball is back in your court. When I see the CAD files and complete specs up on your website, free for the downloading, then I will know that you are serious and not just posturing for the readers. Until then, I will continue to consider your idea seriously flawed and a waste of time.
Regards, Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Stan- please link to where Steve says that we should go ahead with changing the rules and standardizing the parts. All I have seen so far is a sidebar talking about something that might make future cars cheaper or would have made cars cheaper if it had been implemented years ago. Nothing there is worthy of your extreme over reaction.
After working with Steve, I have no doubts he would be able to properly choose all of the things you named, as he already has. The man has decades of success behind him, which is something that no one else in this thread has, including you. Don S. does not have an engineering degree either and I will always listen to what he has to say. Experience is the most valuable thing in situations like this.First of all, you are (IIRC) an accountant by training, not a mechanical engineer, so I have absolutely no confidence that your design is worth the computer screen it was drawn on. What alloys are you spec'ing? Heat and/or surface treatments? Bearings?
Steve is also incredibly forthcoming with his designs and has been happy in the past to hand over drawings to people who would like to build his designs for their own use, so you really don't know what you are talking about.
Otherwise- I believe you are correct that the horse is out of the barn and it is likely too late to do anything about it.
The only way to really control car costs is a completely spec class. And even that isn't a sure thing--look at how much some people are spending in SM for marginal gains.
There will always be a big discrepancy in the money racers are willing to spend. Reducing the upright cost to $500 doesn't help much if someone can drop $12k on a set of dampers.
That said, there are always ways to reduce unit cost. One way is to use standard parts where the design and tooling cost has been absorbed in very high volumes elsewhere. That's why we can get low-cost and high-performance bearings, batteries, tubing, electrical components, and now perhaps engines. Another is good design for manufacturing practices--unlike the traditional English "kit car" approach. That unfortunately requires upfront investment in engineering.
I like the idea of a true "formula" class like Formula Ford. It allows creativity in design, engineering, and setup and rewards innovation in those areas. If cost control is your main concern, then there is always FE or SRF.
A properly designed new Formula Ford would require thousands of hours of engineering effort. There is no question that significant gains are possible, but it would require:
(1) An aerodynamic program to reduce drag and maximize downforce production within the rules. This would involve CFD studies, wind tunnel development, and on-track testing. Guessing at what should work or what looks "right" isn't engineering. The aero development requires not only significant aerodynamic expertise and CFD experience but also the proper tools. Using low cost CFD programs (like COSMOS/SolidWorks Flow Simulation or FloWizard) won't work with a formula car, you need much better control over the meshing, boundary layer analysis and consideration of viscosity effects.
(2) A real effort in suspension design and development to improve mechanical grip. To do it right you need to generate the tire curves for each tire you want to run. It is likely that each brand would require different suspension geometry and settings (I confess to ignorance about which are the best tires in FF right now).
(3) A comprehensive on-track testing program with complete data collection and analysis. That would require both a consistent driver who gives good feedback and lots of hours of track time (with many sets of tires).
Amortizing that cost over a few car sales per year would add tens of thousands of dollars to the purchase price even with a very long payback horizon. It's no wonder car development in FF is stagnant, and a car like the Swift is still competitive. If I recall correctly, it was the result of a real engineering effort by some very bright designers including David Bruns and Ken Anderson and included lots of wind tunnel testing.
That doesn't mean new cars won't be developed. Racing isn't all about making money, or I would be spending more time on my day job. With the possible introduction of the Fit engine, and hopefully a revitalization of the class, it looks like several manufacturers are taking a new look at Formula Ford. And although we are focused primarily on our F2000 development program, we are seriously considering a follow-on version of the chassis for Formula Ford.
In my opinion, there does seem to be some momentum growing for FF. The addition of the Fit engine is crucial, as is adoption of a rules package like that recently proposed. Although not perfect, I believe it is a step in the right direction.
Nathan Ulrich
Radon Sport LLC
WOW! I guess I better stop racing right now, because all those parts Steve designed for my car are flawed and about to break...
While Steve is not perfect, he has a better feel for how to design things than most of the degreed engineers I have known. If I were not driving a Citation, I would not be able to afford to be as competitive as I am with a 15-year-old car.
I really want to say more, but that would only make things worse. Please, both of you, try to refrain from the personal attacks.IMO, they only demean the attacker.
Last edited by DaveW; 08.08.09 at 3:24 PM. Reason: Biting my tongue...
Dave Weitzenhof
Wren, I make it clear above that I recognize two varieties of "standardization". The first is the natural result of designers settling on a single or small number of sources for those parts of the car which are not unique to their design...gearbox, batteries, etc. The second is where a single design and/or source is mandated, irrespective of its applicability to a given design.
For years Steve has advocated that several parts of the FF should be standardized to lower costs, and it has always been clear to me from the context of his comments that those specific parts would be mandated in future cars to the exclusion of other designs. If that is not Steve's intent, then let him come right out and say so (but notice that in his comments above he doesn't deny this presumption of mine.)
I have shown why his suggested upright cannot be standardized among the existing FF manufacturers, and why it therefore cannot result in any savings. If you or Steve, or anyone else thinks I am wrong, then show me how. Accusing me of "extreme over reaction" or being hung over is not a counter-argument, it's just a personal attack.
Shame on you, Dave. That's not what I said and you know it. Instead of attacking me, why don't you try showing how Steve's standardized upright can be fitted to the other designs without requiring an expensive redesign of those cars?
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Stan, I appologize for that. But you DID say, verbatim:
"First of all, you are (IIRC) an accountant by training, not a mechanical engineer, so I have absolutely no confidence that your design is worth the computer screen it was drawn on."
That said to me that you thought all parts he designed might be flawed. How would YOU have taken that if you saw it for the first time?
Again, I think we ALL (including me) would be better off discussing things w/o slamming the other person(s).
Dave Weitzenhof
Apology accepted, Dave...and point taken.
Now, please put the shoe on the other foot and ask yourself how you would react if you got up and the first thing you read on the internet was Steve accusing you of being hung over? That was no humorous aside from a friend. There was no winkie or other softening of the blow. There was only a blunt personal attack written at 10 PM on a Friday night.
But to answer Steve's question, no...I was not hung over. I'd been drinking Glenfidich the night before, and it doesn't do that to me.
The cheap California boxed red wine, on the other hand...
Last edited by Stan Clayton; 08.08.09 at 4:40 PM.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
That's why I also included Steve in the plea to refrain from personal attacks......Now, please put the shoe on the other foot and ask yourself how you would react if you got up and the first thing you read on the internet was Steve accusing you of being hung over? That was no humorous aside from a friend. There was no winkie or other softening of the blow. There was only a blunt personal attack written at 10 PM on a Friday night...
Let's stick to the matter at hand.
Dave Weitzenhof
Stan:
One of the very best race car engineers I know was only a high school teacher.
Obviously some of us don't know our proper place in this world.
I am sorry that I offend by trying to rise above my education and station in life
As a point of clarification, I first sent drawings on this subject to 2 of my fellow car builders / competitors to get their input and to see if they thought the idea had any merit. That was last December. And we have exchanged drawings.
This had nothing to do with rules but a lot to do with trying to see if we can get the cost of new cars down. I think this was part of the topic of this thread.
That's not what offended me and you know it, Steve, so quit trying to weasel out of it with this pathetic red herring of an rebuttal. Instead of debating the merits of your claim, you simply offered me a gratuitous personal insult.
We'll have to share a lot more quality Scotch or Canadian Rye before we're good enough friends for you to feel free to insult me. Got it?
If you can talk your competitors into adopting your corner pieces, then fine. And if you can save $1500 a corner with competitive pieces it might even become the defacto standard in FF, like your ICP calipers. OTOH, setting aside consumables, I remain adamantly opposed to mandated single-source spec components outside the engine bay.As a point of clarification, I first sent drawings on this subject to 2 of my fellow car builders / competitors to get their input and to see if they thought the idea had any merit. That was last December. And we have exchanged drawings.
This had nothing to do with rules but a lot to do with trying to see if we can get the cost of new cars down. I think this was part of the topic of this thread.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Whew, it's a full moon, isn't it?
Let's take a bit of a break from this and cool off a bit, eh? This is getting WAY out of hand, all around. Chill out, guys.
I think Steve was very rightly offended by your inane comment that you would have "no confidence that his design was worth the computer screen it was drawn on." That is honestly one of the meanest, dumbest, classless, most inane comments we have seen on here in a long time. Then you tried to weasel out of it by lying and saying that it isn't what you said. I don't know what anyone would be thinking to write that to such a successful chassis builder, designer, and race engineer. You should have known better.
Steve throwing around ideas with other competitors/designers with his own time is completely different than someone actually trying to get the rules changed. Calm down. I'm willing to bet that Steve understands all of the issues much, much better than any of the rest of us, you included, who have never designed and built a car.
Ok, that's enough.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
