Entry Level Formula Car

[S Lathrop]

I think that a common design for things like uprights and other components is the way to go. I see the rules as having proper drawings for various components. Anyone can make the part. It must conform to the drawing. Over time, I think the
"market" will produce a lowest cost supplier. But any one can produce the parts if that is their desire.

Stan's idea of F600 built to FF rules is the idea that I have in mind. You got to love the sound of the engines.

I think a "spec" shock, manufacturer and model, but open valving is the way to go. Indy Lights has such a rule and I think it works well. The shock has to remain stock. Something like a Penske 8100. Or one of the Penske with out a canister. Single adjustment only. All four shocks would be the same.

Standard fuel cell.

The final drive would be open differential. How that is laid out will be a design challenge. The open diff with the drive sprocket cantilevered over the out put flange is desirable but can it be made at a price that will fit the class?

[veefan]

You missed the point of the exercise. Go back and (re)read Steve's original post. FV is a dinosaur using 50-year old car parts, and FST is an uprated version. Not that I don't love those classes, but you have to be realistic here. They are old and outdated technology that doesn't apply to any other class of race car setup and design.

Sorry if I'm confused,

Doug, I read Stan's post again, I didn't miss the point at all, entry level class means low cost period. Don't like the 50 year old VW tech aka front bean and transaxle: . Re-engineer the VW components; develop an a-arm suspension that uses the VW ball joint disk brake spindles, FST/CF wheels and current FST, CF and FF slicks. FST racks. The rear, use a motorcycle motor with sequential gear box mounted to VW IRS rear axles and VW IRS outer hubs with VW disk brakes.

All the VW parts are available, cheap and you could use many of the FV/FST chassis to build it around. A talented home builder sourcing used parts and an old FV could be in a car for $7,500 -$10,000.

That's Entry Level.

[problemchild]

The problem with this discussion, as with most of the low-end formula class discussions, is that people have totally different views as to what constitutes "entry level".

For example, to me, entry level is what FV, SM, and SR (as in SRF) once were, and still may be at the casual regional level. It is all about low cost! I don't care about shocks/springs or grippy tires. Rubber pucks and spec street tires are just fine. Canadian FV(F1200), FST, F600 and Banshee all could fit within my definition.

To others, entry level is about training new drivers to move into faster cars or pro cars.

To others, there are all these ideals about transmissions, shifters, hp targets, engine sounds, "proper" components, etc.

There is no right and wrong. Just an impossible task to mesh all the entry levels..

[nulrich]

Interesting discussion, and something I've also thought about a lot (as I'm sure all race car designers have).

The Radon Rn.10 F2000 car costs $66k for a roller. A blueprinted Zetec engine is north of $16k, blueprinting a gearbox can cost $5k (at a minimum), dampers start at $5k, data can easily run $8k...that's $100k without spares or extras. I mapped out a strategy and designed the parts and tooling that would allow us to sell an Rn.10 roller for $37k. It would require about $150k in tooling investment and a fair bit of working capital to buy parts in larger quantities. That still results in a $71k race car with engine, dampers, and data.

I agree with others here that the ONLY way to get the cost down and produce an attractive car (to new racers, not the current aging population) is with motorcycle engines and gearboxes. A blueprinted Zetec and LD200 is north of $25k. How much is a 600 cc drivetrain with an open differential?

I've designed and made many thousands of unique parts in my career, most produced in quantities of at least hundreds, some in the millions. Race cars are very different since they are generally hand built in very small quantities. Assuming good design, the single biggest driver of the cost of a chassis is production volume. If volumes are high enough, I know how to make $60 wishbones and $40 uprights. With a tooling investment, I can make wings for $25 (I have the quote if you doubt it ).

A $25k entry level race car is not only feasible, it's quite easy to achieve WITH sufficient production quantity.

Nathan

[jim murphy]

- their wheelbase, track and bodywork rules are too restrictive to produce visually attractive and exciting cars - Fix it by adopting the FF rules

One of the reasons for the smaller size was a cost reduction as a bigger car costs more - not huge difference but enough to be significant back in 1980.
However, I personally would like to see a little bit longer wheelbase so that we can have a straight back chain drive and still have a lay down chassis - is 6" increase enough to achieve this? Of course, with wheelbase increase comes an increase in track so that it remains optimized regarding track/wheelbase ratio for good handling. Bodywork MUST retain the sidepods as they accomplish two things - safety in side impact and wheel entanglement and a MUCH welcomed advantage in packaging like radiators/oil coolers/battery/other stuff that we really enjoy as compared to FF/FV/FST/Banshee. We think that they should have side pods, too.

- their 10" tires make them look stumpy compared to an FF - Fix it by adopting FF/FST tire/wheel rules

Back in the beginning 10" tires/wheels were available and much cheaper than FF wheels/tires so naturally that was chosen. Today, there would be a major cost to change over as not only the wheels/tires but I suspect a re-work of the suspension
push/pull rods and clearancing of the bodywork for the taller FF tires along with a gear change. And we would be giving up some tire grip due to narrower tires. However, I wonder if the FF tires/wheels might not "look" so good after all this is done. "Beauty is in the eye . . . . ."

Jim

[S Lathrop]

Here is what I did a few years ago.

As I was preparing this today, I would not do it this way. While this works for the front, it does not work for the rear as easily. There should be the maximum interchange of parts, front to rear.

But it is something to start with.

[jim murphy]

How much is a 600 cc drivetrain with an open differential?

A used but good condition, recent year GSXR600 with everything on it to run from Ebay
is about $1K delivered to your door. They are not available new from the bike makers.

The one piece tubular axle with sprocket is the simpliest (sp?), cheapest way to go. This just requires a slightly different driving style in the corners to be fast.

We were told awhile back that the only reason that a major race car builder did not start building F600's is the rubber puck - if even a spec coil over shock was ever allowed, they would be building their idea of what a F600 should be and, of course, their much higher hourly labor rate would have to be passed on to the consumer. The rubber puck with its push/pull rods, bellcranks and friction dampening pivots has evolved over 30+ years to work quite nicely.

Anytime that you go away from simplicity the costs go up.

Jim

[S Lathrop]

Interesting discussion, and something I've also thought about a lot (as I'm sure all race car designers have).

A $25k entry level race car is not only feasible, it's quite easy to achieve WITH sufficient production quantity.

Nathan

Demand for cars is what we had in the early days of FV and FF. There were 90 Z10 chassis produced and Zink was a small manufacturer. Lola sold 150 342 FF in a single year. The biggest race I ever won was June Sprints in 1974. I only had to be faster than 85 other guys with the same idea.

The Daytona FV races in the late '60's had over 100 cars starting the races.

The question is "what is entry level"? The cheapest and slowest. FV and F500 occupy that space today.

The idea I had in starting this thread was to see if collectively we could get that level of interest and participation back in a single class.

[fitfan]

funny - over xmass we were discussing that FV is really not relevant anymore (as the vow's are worth more as VW's and not donors) since they are not classics, not just old available cars... so what would a "modern FV like car look like?

we didn't come up with any brilliant ideas... the donor engine? the transaxle? the front uprights, steering box and such? we even discussed that now, its probably cheaper to build a glass/carbon composite tub then to weld up a steel tube. unfortunately (or not?) we did keep coming back to bike engined. since you get the clutch less , sequential like shifting - which we agreed was "required" by modern standards. clutch pedals are irrelevant in todays world... its all about the paddles

so maybe the diner quad act idea mentioned is a good one... that would fit in the old FV sense of a cheap and available donor... it would be nice if someone fabricated a more real transaxle, chain and sprockets just don't seem right to me in the kind of class steve proposes (something ford or fv like) but... i dunno.... maybe the answer is that after all - consider it a "radical" feeder series? any reason you can't turn a bike engine around 90deg and put a real diff on it Steve?

to do what your suggesting it needs to offer "something" that isn't out there now - it can't be "just a bigger f5/600" it needs to have some kind of gotchya attraction cool gee wiz thing on an affordable scale - like FV had at the time.

if you did "off shore" composite tubs, you could easily off shore wing elements at the same time. and all that would become "spec". and various manufacturers could fab different subframes and bits?

[allof6]

Adrian Reynard has a sports racer they are doing and I believe its all open source.

http://andrecars.com/

[TimH]

Adrian Reynard has a sports racer they are doing and I believe its all open source.
http://andrecars.com/

Fascinating. Depending on price it could be a huge alternative to SRF or anything of that sort.

[nulrich]

At quantity 100 and a $1k engine/gearbox reaching $25k retail cost is feasible. It would require a fair bit of upfront cash (deposits or a few angels with deep pockets) since you not only have to prepay tooling but also have to buy parts in high quantities to get the best pricing.

This would be essentially an FF or FC with a F600 drivetrain on spec street tires (or a subsidized race tire from a major manufacturer). If I were doing it (God forbid) here's how I'd control cost and keep aero development under control:

- Sealed 600 cc engine from one manufacturer. Send out a RFQ for a three to five year contract with a fixed price. (You could allow open engines with IIR, I suppose, but that does allow development and rewards $$$.)
- Spec damper but revalving is free (might have to put SOME limits on what you could do internally).
- Singe source uprights, wheels, drivetrain components. This is probably the only way to keep cost under control since the tooling investment would be quite high. Again, award the contract to a component manufacturer (NOT a race car manufacturer) and allow anyone to buy them direct.
- Open wishbones with strict limits on material and shape.
- If wings are used, a spec profile and spec material.

And lastly, I would do a spec carbon fiber/Innegra tub sourced from a single manufacturer (not offshore). In quantity 100 a carbon tub done without honeycomb or foam core would be cheaper than a full steel tube frame with proper side impact protection. It would also be easy to repair, you could enforce a generous cockpit volume (for our ever-expanding driver sizes ), and most importantly you could mount a plank on the bottom and require every other part of the car to be 50 mm higher than the bottom of the tub, which would drastically reduce opportunities for aero development. Done properly it would also reduce the bodywork cost since the tub itself would form some of the outside surfaces.

Anyone have a couple extra million kicking around they want to invest?

[LenFC11]

a new $25k car sounds great..

wouldn't a 600cc MC engine/ trans with it's lighter weight of say a honda/ford /hewland all else being even make this new car faster then an FF?? i don't see a problem with this, in fact like the idea.. throw some 6" & 8" FC size wheels on it and now you have a great class.. if the unrestricted engine and lighter wight makes it faster then FF why would you want to slow it down??

i like most the other ideas being thrown around.. except for mandating the height at 50mm.. way to high.. takes away from the sex appeal.. car has to look modern, low sleek on the ground like the current FF & FC cars

i have no idea the cost difference between areo or round tube suspension but i can't imagine it would raise cost overall by much, and again the sex appeal thing.. round tube not so swoopy looking..

[provamo]

" have no idea the cost difference between areo or round tube suspension but i can't imagine it would raise cost overall by much, and again the sex appeal thing.. round tube not so swoopy looking"

just throw aero CF "look" aero covers over them LOL

second thought why would anyone want a $25K starter car when you can snag a FE for that price periodically..................gosh darn it you can buy FC's for about $10 any day!

i really think we are looking at answers to questions nobody asked

[Chris Elwell]

One possible starting point is a quad bike. Keep the drivetrain and suspension, toss everything else and connect the dots with your own inventions. If you want a wing, put one one top like a sprint car so that it isn't an expensive bumper.

http://formula-cross.myshopify.com/

[FVRacer21]

For an entry level car, it is not just the specs, but the overall package that needs to be considered.

So how about tires the same size all around so that you need less spares - also same calipers and discs at each end - outboard non adjustable shocks so less complicated suspensions - a transmission with fixed ratios - a 1.6l engine designed to run for several seasons before lower end work

Ooops -I just described the Skip Barber School cars of 1982 - modified Crossle 35F.....

ChrisZ

[Purple Frog]

Sort of tongue-in-cheek.... but for the last 15 years I always thought an "entry level" car was a late 80's Reynard FC you could buy for $10K and go out and turn 1:30s at Road Atlanta. Dollar for dollar no better index of performance than that.

I know Jay had to compromise with the CRB to get the F600 approved, but still in my opinion the right way to go is the F600 concept but, with independent rear suspension, open diff, 13' wheels, and about 8" longer chassis (wb ~101").

OBTW, street tires may not save money. Just check out the prices of some of the DOT rubber being used in time trials and solo.


YMMV

[Stan Clayton]

What would a modern day entry level formula car look like?

I am thinking about a formula car racing class modeled after FV where cars are built using a box of standardized parts, with a price point of 50% or less of US medium income, and with a performance level between FV and FF. A class where home built and factory built cars are the norm; a class that emphasizes engineering, ingenuity and mechanical skills; a car that develops good driving skills as does FV.

I keep coming back to this comment from Steve's opening post. And while I don't have a lot of time in entry level formula cars, I do have a solid decade's time on SCCA's rules making bodies, which gives me perspective on what is possible.

Rule # 1: There will be no new class for these cars. Forget it...ain't gonna happen.

Rule # 2: Low cost equals lots of cars sold. Case in point: the Spec Racer Ford kit started out retailing for (IIRC) $6500. The price quickly rose to $9995, then more slowly rose to its current price of $27,500, and nearly 900 have been sold. Second case: when SCCA offered the FE cars at $29,995 they sold some 50 cars at that price. When they raised the price to $35k, sales dropped in half. Then in half again each time the price was raised. Think of it as Moore's Law in reverse.

Rule # 3: There are actually TWO opportunities to revamp entry level formula car racing; FV and F5. If the community can make new, updated cars available for under $25,000 and hold the price there, the classes can and will grow.

I know this thought doesn't sit well with the FV community, but the class needs to start thinking about the coming decades instead of patting themselves on the back about past successes. And by that I mean move into the FST mode with bigger engines, updated VW-based aircooled technology and stricter rules to contain engine development costs. In the past year there has been a little movement in that direction, and I hope it continues. Nobody should have to spend FA rebuild prices to stay at the pointy end of FV.

I've had my say about F5. I think they need to throw out the present paradigm and think bigger to capitalize on the attractiveness of the F-600 engine package. If they don't I fear they will have done too little, too late, and it will have been wasted effort.

[Jnovak]

In today's economy building an entry level $25,000 car is next to impossible unless the quantities are really big. I doubt that anyone is willing to put enough $$ in an up front investment to build say 100 cars out of the box.

We are building our first 5 F600s right now with 3 ready to deliver as rollers in the next week. After fixtures and tooling costs we will need to sell another 10 before the big $$$. Are rolling in (lol)

To make this work we had to go straight into production as opposed to building and racing a prototype for a year. Of course we have built a bunch of F500s and F600s so we have an idea of what it takes to build cars. However, even though we think we know what we are doing it is still taking twice as long to assemble cars as our budget projections allow.

It is not possible IMO to build a race ready car open wheel race car for any class, other than FV, for $25,000 ready to race. The owner needs to final assemble the car to make it cost $25K.

F600 or something like it is the only chance. Reasonably priced springs and shocks would not add much cost to our design and additional wheelbase and track are essentially very low costs.

[Bill Bonow]

It is not possible IMO to build a race ready car open wheel race car for any class, other than FV, for $25,000 ready to race. The owner needs to final assemble the car to make it cost $25K.

Jay,

Completely agree on costs. No way on FV either. A new roller (no engine) is north of $35k. I've heard of quotes for a certain make that was $45k for a roller.

A few purpose built FST's have been sold for under $25k (barely). They were complete "race ready" cars, but they were "deals" and nobody got rich in the process. In all fairness, One Evolution FST that was self assembled where he bolted on every "wizzy bit" he could buy. We estimated that he had $35k in the car when completed.

[Amon]

Bill,

Why would you want to spend $35K+ for an FV roller when there's plenty of national
competitive cars available in the $10-20K range, ready to race! I just picked up an
FV that won three Nationals this year and was second in the 94' Runoff's for way less
than $10K complete, and there were a good amount of spares included, so the cars are
out there....


Mark

[Bill Bonow]

Mark,

The thread topic is about new cars, not used cars.

[Amon]

Bill,

In today's FV racing environment, there are 10 used cars purchased for every new
car built and that's the reality of the class. I'm sure Larry Campbell can build a new
Citation or Lazer for under $25K and the same goes for the Caracal D, but why would
the average driver spend that amount of money when similar cars for 1/3 or 1/2 the
price are available? There have been kits available for much less in the past so you're
not providing the full story when you only mention $35 to $45K for a FV.

Mark

[Bill Bonow]

I'll assume you mean Larry Campbell and he hasn't built a new FV in well over a decade. In fact, Larry sold the Lazer project better than 4 years ago.

I point out again that Steve's thread topic is not about the used FV market, it's about "new" entry level cars.

[Rick Kirchner]

How about a Banshee with a Harley? Talk about open source, harley stuff has a huge manufacturing base, and a built-in "fan" base.

Parts count - if it's water-cooled, it just got more expensive on the buy-in. The trick is to contain the air-cooled performance to keep the running cost in line with something water-cooled (and keep the at-track maintenance down).

Stan - do the cost increases in the spec cars represent the real costs NOW - e.g. was the SCCA allowing the new customers to "buy in" at low cost to get the classes rolling (at the expense of the owners in other classes now less subscribed) and then raising the costs to represent the REAL production costs?

Still can't believe nobody is talking about spec, high-quality rev-limiters. On restricted motors, the only way to get HP is to continue to wind 'em out, and reduce internal losses (usually with a lot of expensive hand-work). One way to severely limit the benefits of both is to limit the RPM.

I have to think there's more to this than just the car. What is the purpose of "entry level"? Is it to teach guys how to drive a proper race-car, tune it, and get used to the aspects of competition? Does "entry level" = "developmental"? It seems to me that there have been some good shots at entry level: FV on the open-wheel side, RSR, SRF on the sports racer side, and SM on the sedan side. However, IMHO what went wrong was allowing these classes to race for a national championship. Didn't SRF START with a pro series? Maybe some pros bashing about for publicity sake, but a pro series for an entry level car???? Is the intent of "entry level" to give people a reason to get into the sport and then move up and into a faster, more expensive, more complicated class?

I'm going to take a lot of flak here, but I'd propose if you want people to get into the sport AND THEN MOVE UP then there has to be a disincentive to staying with the same stuff for an entire career. Otherwise, you just get the stagnant stratification you have in the sport today.

Maybe if certain classes were designated as "developmental" you would get "X" number of races to score points, for LOCAL championships only. After "x" you are just running for fun, and you don't get scored. If someone becomes a true master, I suppose your role becomes that of a reference - giving the new guys a yardstick to measure against.

From the "too many classes" standpoint, when you have a banshee-like FST, FF, F600 in some incarnation, and a new entry level class that's roughly as fast as all the others, why not combine them all and let the "market" win? Personally, I've never understood the need for F440/500/600, whatever, or how they can somehow get big performance increases with new motors when FV is stuck in the 1200 stone age. Really not trying to piss a lot of people off here, but it seems like you can't have your cake and eat it - if you want something"new" to succeed, there are probably going to be some losers along the way.

[Amon]

Bill,

You're proving my point! The new FV aren't selling and I don't see brand new FST's all
over the country, even at your estimated $25K selling point. With this economy and the
abundance of available used FV's, CF's, FST's and FC's, anyone attempting to bring a
new car onto the market will face stiff competition from the used car market across many different classes. Why would anyone sell their $10K (pick your make) FV or FST and buy
a $25K formula car? You're not looking at the correct market and most likely would find
those in the FF, FE or FC classes with newer cars interested in the price range because they're already use to spending that amount.

Mark

[B Farnham]

A new roller (no engine) is north of $35k. I've heard of quotes for a certain make that was $45k for a roller.

Which car goes for $45k as a roller? The only car that would be close to that 35k figure would be a Vortech and that would be the price for a complete car, not a roller.

I bet a top level FV and FST would be very close in price and thats not taking into account that FV is a much more competitive class.....

[S Lathrop]

The FV business model is closer to what I think might work. Nobody building FVs makes a complete car in the sense of a FF car builder. And every FV that exists is a candidate to be cannibalized for parts to build a new car.

If there were enough parts that were shared among all builders, the tooling costs for any one manufacturer would be very low. As I see it, individual manufacturers would be building frames, bodies and suspension arms. Most of the rest of the car would be purchased at a cost below what that builder could produce the part. Or a group of builders could split the production of common components.

The benefit to the customer of such a class is that his risk of buying an uncompetitive car or his car becoming obsolete is just the cost of a new kit.

In the Z10 days (late '70's), the Lola 342 and Z10 had many parts in common. I did use one crashed 342 to build a new Z10. Carl Haas sold me more than transmissions. Swift and the Citations cars had a common design and could have shared some parts. Both D Bruns and I chose to use VW parts for some suspension components. I even share rear drive shafts with the Piper for my current cars. I am talking about taking this concept to the FV level of sharing parts.

From the roll bar forward, all cars are very similar in that they surround the driver and have to meet certain dimension restraints. For me and many others, the tooling to build a car is largely place.

Because of this, I think the brake even point for individual manufacturers will be much lower than has been the case in the past.

Also, the spare parts market is the profit point in the formula car business. If you can brake even producing the cars, you can expect a very significant percentage of spare parts business each year the car is raced. In the past, that business has been close to 25% or better of the value of the car each year it is raced. This spares business is not so much the case for FV because VW gets a large part of the business.

Stan alluded to the problems of supplying new cars over time. This is the big failure of the spec car business. You can supply cars at a reasonable cost initially when the volume is large but over time the volume drops, costs go up and the class stalls.

I think a class has to evolve so there is an incentive to produce new cars. If that evolution is fairly slow as it has been with FV, then there is a supply of new cars and there is also a supply of used cars at very reasonable prices. And at some point, a car is recycled into a new car. This keeps a class healthy and increased the population of potential participants. Notice that there are $10,000 FC and FF when new cars are close to ten times that price.

[Mark Filip]

Like Stan, and Jay, and probably Steve, I thought the best direction with F600 was to build it on a FF-type platform rather than F500. Seems to be a lost opportunity now.

Some cost containing proposals follow:
- round tube suspension
- common billet aluminum uprights
- common stainless exhaust (also restricts HP)
- open diff
- aluminum wheels - probably FC width
- constant velocity joints in axles
- common steering box
- 2-way adjustable shocks
- The FB shifters are rather expensive. Are they worth the cost in a "cheap" platform?
- Group buys on necessities like fuel cells, fire extinguishing systems, electrical items, wiring harness, etc
- perhaps a common fuel cell

I've built and rebuilt my car enough times to know what things cost in time as well as money.

I would agree this would have been the way to go f1000 without wings, maybe with the ability to add wings and a 1000 and move up.

[jim murphy]

Still can't believe nobody is talking about spec, high-quality rev-limiters. On restricted motors, the only way to get HP is to continue to wind 'em out, and reduce internal losses (usually with a lot of expensive hand-work). One way to severely limit the benefits of both is to limit the RPM.


We are already restricting RPM with cheap flat plate individual inlet restrictors on the 600ccMC's. The peak HP goes down from 15K rpm to around 13K rpm on the dyno.

Jim

[jim murphy]

The FB shifters are rather expensive. Are they worth the cost in a "cheap" platform.

The shifter paddle system in the F600 is made for a reasonably low cost - all manual push-pull cable.

Jim

[S Lathrop]

Still can't believe nobody is talking about spec, high-quality rev-limiters. On restricted motors, the only way to get HP is to continue to wind 'em out, and reduce internal losses (usually with a lot of expensive hand-work). One way to severely limit the benefits of both is to limit the RPM.


We are already restricting RPM with cheap flat plate individual inlet restrictors on the 600ccMC's. The peak HP goes down from 15K rpm to around 13K rpm on the dyno.

Jim

There are problems with rev limiters on bike engines. If not properly integrated into the ECU, they can kill an engine. There is work being done on a device that will enforce competitors to make sure they observe a set rev limit. Rev limits only work when you have a single engine or you need rev limits that are engine specific.

I don't think that this discussion is to the point of discussing this topic.

[Mark Filip]

http://www.uslegendcars.com

I think this is the correct formula. Yes I know it's not a formula car but every part on these cars is dirt cheap! I think you can buy a complete brand new chassis for like $800.

Can a formula chassis be designed to use all legends parts or at least most of them? Maybe just design a chassis and body.

In NH, granite state legend series runs both oval and a road course series with these cars and has a full service shop at the track to support the cars both parts and service. This series is expanding quickly. http://www.nhms.com/events/uslci/

I know these cars are pretty crude but that's how they can sell a car for 14k race ready with multiple bodies to choose from.

Just a thought

[LJennings]

The one item that I have not seen expressed during this thread, and what I consider the real jewel of FV is the fixed front and real suspension / drive train package. Big heavy preconfigured hardware that no one would consider optimized for racing.

As long as you are within the set of easily interpreted rules, it can be bolted to anything you want, covered in whatever bodywork that appeals to you the most, and the rules are broad enough to allow you to engineer / tinker. This is what I believe has made it such a popular class.

This is where the Entry-level chassis concept fails. Without a readily available fixed geometry and drive train package, how does one prevent the next Swift / Radon arms race?

I maybe ill informed but looking from the outside, a FV chassis built 40 years ago is still competitive today.

[Amon]

The one item that I have not seen expressed during this thread, and what I consider the real jewel of FV is the fixed front and real suspension / drive train package. Big heavy preconfigured hardware that no one would consider optimized for racing.

As long as you are within the set of easily interpreted rules, it can be bolted to anything you want, covered in whatever bodywork that appeals to you the most, and the rules are broad enough to allow you to engineer / tinker. This is what I believe has made it such a popular class.

This is where the Entry-level chassis concept fails. Without a readily available fixed geometry and drive train package, how does one prevent the next Swift / Radon arms race?

I maybe ill informed but looking from the outside, a FV chassis built 40 years ago is still competitive today.

That's what I've been trying to state in an unsuccessful way that due to the lack of an arms race in FV, where technology is sort of frozen, old Vee's can still be useful and competitive so those looking for cars aren't as incentified to purchase a new car.

[Jnovak]

The real question: aussuming that you can come up with a concept for a very low cost entry level race car, where do you race it?

The SCCA will not allow additional classes to be created. So how can you create a new class of cars that will gain enough momentum without the total co-operation of the SCCA? IMO, this will only happen if a car is built that can race within another existing class and then grow to be the favorite car in that class.

What class can and will accept a new concept knowing that it might eventually supplant existing cars? This has already started with F600 merging with F500. Who knows what the next 5 or more years will bring. There may eventually be rules changes that will make the class more mainstream in the future.

Here is an interesting picture. Make of it what you will. I also suggest that you take a good look at the current ApexSpeed header picture.

BTW, under the right circumstances we might be interested in co-operation with other builders on common components that are very low cost.

[dc]

Here is an interesting picture. Make of it what you will.

Ok, now you're just teasing me.

[Stan Clayton]

Ok, now you're just teasing me.

It "looks" like an F600 with full front suspension. Fess up, Jay!

[Jnovak]

It "looks" like an F600 with full front suspension. Fess up, Jay!

I wonder what the rear suspension looks like?

[S Lathrop]

The one item that I have not seen expressed during this thread, and what I consider the real jewel of FV is the fixed front and real suspension / drive train package. Big heavy preconfigured hardware that no one would consider optimized for racing.

I maybe ill informed but looking from the outside, a FV chassis built 40 years ago is still competitive today.

The early years of Formula Ford were not unlike FV in that most cars were built using commonly available parts in England. The Caldwell, build in the US carried on that tradition. In the mid '70's you had a big change in the tires that were available for FF. That led to the dominance of the Lola 342, Zink Z10 and the Crossle 30 series cars among others. Those 3 cars shared some parts but not as many as earlier cars had. Then came the Swift evolution or Bruns followed his ADF with the even more advanced car. Then cars shared almost nothing and designs became more expensive to build.

A FV works really well in the original configuration. Increasing the tire size and horse power exasperates the short comings of the VW Beetle suspension. But that is the challenge of doing a FST. Parts are available today but down the road, where are they going to come from? We are now making more modifications to the front beam setup. At some point in time, a simplified FF front end will be cost effective with modifying old VW parts. You don't bend front beams at the rate you do front control arms but you do bend them and they cost more and more to replace.

Old FVs have remained competitive, more so than old FFs. But I think that by taking lessons from the past, that problem can be addressed in the formulation a new car.