F500 and the Concorde Agreement

[Amon]

Purple Frog,

I'm from Missouri, so please show me where $10,000.00 FV motors are the norm?

Thanks!

Mark

[jim murphy]

For size, remember that the class rules have a maximum width of 55". IF, and only IF, that rule was kept, what do the engineers here say is the optimum wheelbase for this 55" maximum width? Looking for the optimum wheelbase given the 55" outside maximum width so start crunching.

TIA,
Jim

[cory mcleod]

The 1997-2002 Red Devil chassis had a large cockpit. That was also the last Red Devil design with fuel cells in the side pod. The 2003 on Red Devils have a smaller cockpit and fuel cell under the seat.

[jim murphy]

Steve Lathrop: "FF and FV are also entry level classes. So how does F500/F600 stack up when all three classes are compared to each other."

I am sure that others here will get into the technical side of this comparison but here is what we heard from the people in the paddock (many were outsiders - not club members) who talked with us over these many decades about F500 needing a MC drivetrain and this is their perception/opinion, paraphrased heavily, so here goes:

"FV's are too slow and a little scary when run with faster classes, they are not pretty with their skinny tires and steel wheels and they have really old technology that I don't want to have to learn from scratch . . . . ." My opinion - I still have hope for the FST.

"FF's have gotten way too expensive, even back in the 1980's, if you want to be competitive . . . . "

"F500 has the speed for a relatively lower cost and they are not hard on the eyes and they are not too sophisticated to work on for a rookie . . . "
Note - Look at the top of this forum page, that F600 is not hard to look at.

Jim

[nulrich]

55 inches ~ 1400 mm. That's pretty narrow.

FF/FC have a maximum width of 1850 mm. I believe the Radon Rn.10 has the longest wheelbase out there at 2650 mm (about 3 inches longer than a late Van Diemen) for a wheelbase/width ratio of ~1.4. Not sure that is optimum but it has no problems with tight corners.

Formula 1 cars have a maximum width of 1800 mm (yes, that's narrower than an FF/FC car!). I believe the wheelbase is now up to 3300 mm for most designs, so a ratio of ~1.8. Their wheelbase is dictated primarily by packaging and safety considerations (minimum distance of driver's feet behind front bulkhead, position of front bulkhead, packaging of KERS, etc).

The chassis dynamics would be more concerned with track width to wheelbase rather than overall width, so tire width affects that. There is a design guideline that suggests using the Golden Ratio (~1.6) for wheelbase to track ratio but I don't think it's based on any engineering analysis. A wheelbase up to around 2250 mm (89") should be dynamically just fine, but Jay may have some thoughts.

Personally I think the ratio is less important than other factors in the design. Increasing wheelbase usually increases overall weight, but sometimes that's an acceptable tradeoff, especially if you are trying to achieve a particular weight distribution or aerodynamic characteristic.

F600 is one class where I could actually afford to buy a car and race it regularly. I'm sure I'll be flamed for saying so, but I would never be interested unless it used a "conventional" spring/damper approach, independent rear suspension, a differential, and was allowed to be more like a FF than a F500. I don't care for the look of the current cars (no offense to anyone, you are building to a set of rules). None of the young kids I've talked to, many coming out of karting, like them either. They all want something that looks like a Formula 1 car. That's just anecdotal, of course, but although the 600cc motorcycle drivetrains have energized the class I don't see hundreds or even dozens of drivers flocking to F600 currently.

Production volume is by FAR the biggest factor on car cost. Just look at the sophistication of a 600cc motorcycle drivetrain and how little it costs. If the class had universal appeal and drew new drivers into the class as well as many of the existing FV and FF drivers then sales volume would increase enough to dramatically reduce cost. Ask Jay how much the sales price of his car would decrease if he could order enough parts for 50 at a time. That would likely mean a completely new class with rules similar to FF, but with strict control on costs (spec damper, mandated step in the floor, etc). No reason a complete car WITH conventional suspension couldn't be sold for $25k. Not going to happen unless there's a coup and a formula car dictatorship emerges.

I'm 6'5" and 210 lbs and fit comfortably in the Radon Rn.10 and the Citation. I can squeeze myself into a late Van Diemen but wouldn't be comfortable racing one. I wouldn't be happy driving a car in anger unless I could get my size 12 feet well behind the front wheel centerline. That's probably closer to a 95 inch wheelbase than 80 inches, depending on the packaging of the drivetrain.

Why is there a limitation on wheelbase at all?

Nathan

[Jnovak]

55 inches ~ 1400 mm. That's pretty narrow.

None of the young kids I've talked to, many coming out of karting, like them either. They all want something that looks like a Formula 1 car. That's just anecdotal, of course, but although the 600cc motorcycle drivetrains have energized the class I don't see hundreds or even dozens of drivers flocking to F600 currently.

Production volume is by FAR the biggest factor on car cost. Just look at the sophistication of a 600cc motorcycle drivetrain and how little it costs. If the class had universal appeal and drew new drivers into the class as well as many of the existing FV and FF drivers then sales volume would increase enough to dramatically reduce cost. Ask Jay how much the sales price of his car would decrease if he could order enough parts for 50 at a time. That would likely mean a completely new class with rules similar to FF, but with strict control on costs (spec damper,

Why is there a limitation on wheelbase at all?

Nathan

Multiple good points Nathan. The most important is the look of the car. They definatly do not have the visual appeal that would draw in the Karting kids.

Technically the cars would be much better with more conventional technology but they would cost a lot more than they do now. Frankly the biggest cost advantage is the solid axle and technically this is not a problem. Our cars are consistently seeing 2 G's lat accel with the right drivers in them and you certainly do not need more to have a great racing experience. A more consistent car with repeatable setups is the key.

You are totally correct in that a complete car could be sold in the area of $25K if the quantities were such that you could buy parts in quanties for 50 cars. This would be so dramatic it is crazy.

First of all I love the class and want it to be the premier low cost open wheel car. That will never happen without a market for the cars and IMO the rules are defining a little niche market.

This is simply the way it is folks.

I like your question about the wheelbase Nathan. Frankly if left alone the cars would grow a bit.

Maybe the simple thing would be to have a higher min weight for the bigger car then you can do what you want.

Frankly weight is not a problem as we can build a car that needs 50 lbs ballast with a 200lb driver now.

How about a car that not only sounds like an F1 car should sound but even has some very cool open wheel looks?

[Daryl DeArman]

I like your question about the wheelbase Nathan. Frankly if left alone the cars would grow a bit.

Maybe the simple thing would be to have a higher min weight for the bigger car then you can do what you want.

Wouldn't that take us down the path that DSR took some odd years ago?

As to the wheelbase/track ratio and what's optimum...it is my understanding (don't even play an engineer on tv) the lower that ratio the better the cornering, the higher the ratio the better the straight line stability. That's first approximation level generality, then you take into account aerodynamic concerns, inability to get the lateral load transfer sufficient for the tires utilized, and fore/aft load transfer and rake sensitivity.

[BLS]

Why is there a limitation on wheelbase at all?

It was set at a length (in FV) to keep me out

But it's not working.

It's a good question. I've never understood the WB restrictions.

[allof6]

A modern shifter kart has a max width of 55 1/2 inches.

A totally new set up will run you 12k-15k for startup and possible more depending on choices.

Just FYI.

[clint]

I would like a better "look" than what we have BUT I would rather keep costs down than have the look. That's just me. I like the more traditional "pointy" nose formula car but the fact is that the sports car nose is faster so that's what I prefer. Most potential drivers that I have talked to doesn't care about having a sports car nose or a pointy nose as long as its the fastest body work available. As in all forms of racing, the majority of racers will take unconventional looks with the win over nice and pretty with a loss. Example: Look at this years F500 runoffs. The car in second place is mine. Its not very pretty to look at but its the fastest 600 in the country and the body work is very effective. When I'm driving the only thing I'm looking for is the finish line and as long as the body work is doing the job I don't care what I look like going across it. Some drivers may care some may not. The ones that do care about looks instead of speed most likely wont be in it for the competition anyways, but rather are there at the track for the "wine and cheese" portion of the weekend. The ones that are there for the competition will drive the fastest car they can put together regardless of how it looks............after all its a RACE TRACK not a social party event......... .

[Jnovak]

Very well said Clint.

[Purple Frog]

I don't have a problem with the sportscar bodywork. I think it can be argued for in terms of safety. Less wheel hooking, great side impact protection, etc. Sell it to the wives.

Not that the Concorde Agreement will ever happen... but based on lap times the "experts" would combine FF and F5. Talk about a lot of pissed off FF drivers.

[Jnovak]

I don't have a problem with the sportscar bodywork. I think it can be argued for in terms of safety. Less wheel hooking, great side impact protection, etc. Sell it to the wives.

Not that the Concorde Agreement will ever happen... but based on lap times the "experts" would combine FF and F5. Talk about a lot of pissed off FF drivers.

Ooh this sounds like fun. Would not really work IMO because the FF cars handle better than the F5 cars.

I do love it that Brian's F500 lap record at Mid-Ohio that he set in 2007 was just beat by an FF in 2014.

Not being mean just a proud Dad.

[clint]

I don't have a problem with the sportscar bodywork. I think it can be argued for in terms of safety. Less wheel hooking, great side impact protection, etc. Sell it to the wives.

Not that the Concorde Agreement will ever happen... but based on lap times the "experts" would combine FF and F5. Talk about a lot of pissed off FF drivers.

To say the FF drivers would be pissed off wouldnt even be a good start. Riots............thats a good starting point. I like racing with them though. The majority of the FF class has great drivers that know how to race in close proximity . John Robinson and I usually have a "talkin to" by one of the chiefs after a session out on the track together.However, I dont think the majority of both classes would ever accept each other and the differences wouldnt just be a motor change in this situation. I'm not saying SCCA wont push this to shrink the number of classes in the near future, but I'm saying that its most likely not going to go over too well.

[Jnovak]

To say the FF drivers would be pissed off wouldnt even be a good start. Riots............thats a good starting point. I like racing with them though. The majority of the FF class has great drivers that know how to race in close proximity . John Robinson and I usually have a "talkin to" by one of the chiefs after a session out on the track together.However, I dont think the majority of both classes would ever accept each other and the differences wouldnt just be a motor change in this situation. I'm not saying SCCA wont push this to shrink the number of classes in the near future, but I'm saying that its most likely not going to go over too well.

You are right Clint.

[S Lathrop]

To say the FF drivers would be pissed off wouldnt even be a good start. Riots............thats a good starting point. I like racing with them though. The majority of the FF class has great drivers that know how to race in close proximity . John Robinson and I usually have a "talkin to" by one of the chiefs after a session out on the track together.However, I dont think the majority of both classes would ever accept each other and the differences wouldnt just be a motor change in this situation. I'm not saying SCCA wont push this to shrink the number of classes in the near future, but I'm saying that its most likely not going to go over too well.

I think there is a very significant safety issue of racing F500/F600 in the same groupings with FF but to combine the class would be absolutely insane. Having those two classes going at each other as one goes against a fellow class competitor is not something I think any rational person would want to see. Right now they are cutting each other some slack because they are not competitors, they just share the track.

The safety issue I see is that while the wheels of a F500/F600 are mostly covered or otherwise protected, that covering /protection is below the center line of a FF front tire. Thus making an encounter between a FF and the much smaller/lower F500/F600 car a potential launching event.

I had a FV customer get on his head twice in one weekend as a result of contact on a straight with a F440. The same car both times. The class has evolved a lot since then, but we are going a lot faster now.

[Jnovak]

I cannot imagine that the club would ever consider combining these 2 classes. Not a good move IMO.

[nulrich]

Since it's never going to happen within SCCA, no reason to limit myself to existing class structures or worry about offending existing racers! Here's my "dream" entry level formula class, which could serve to replace FF, F500, and FV. The goal is a class that attracts the widest variety of competitors to get sales and parts volume as high as possible, which will increase competition between constructors and reduce cost for everyone. I think it would be a way to attract young drivers who are learning, older drivers who can't afford the more expensive classes (me), and train both engineers and mechanics, so it needs relevance to higher levels of racing.

600cc motorcycle drivetrains with strict limits on modifications and inlet restrictors to maintain power parity OR (my preference) a sealed engine/drivetrain from one manufacturer (like Legends).

Spec hard compound tires, maybe something like the Toyo used in Canada. Same size wheels, probably 6x13 or whatever is cheapest, all four corners. Maybe a spec alloy wheel from one source.

Max width around 1700 mm (67") with side pods of a minimum width and height (safety). No limitation on wheelbase.

Independent rear suspension allowed with a weight penalty. Although I admire the simplicity of solid rear axles, they are a major difference from higher levels of formula car racing, and I believe the cost differential is minimal and could be made up by the increased sales volume.

Spec damper and steel springs. Ideally two-way adjustable?

Wishbones and other links must be round tubing.

No aero devices (wings, diffusers, etc). Center Jabroc plank of mandated length and width. A 50 mm (2 inch) step required between the center plank and sidepod bottoms.

I'd argue for a minimum size for the cockpit which allows our biggest drivers (yes, I have a vested interest in that) and lots of safety features, many of which could be incorporated in the rules in the beginning with minimal cost impact.

Lots of other options, but the goal should be to preserve the idea of a FORMULA to encourage innovation and competition between manufacturers, but with strict limitations on cost. The most expensive systems on an F2000 car are the engine ($16k), gearbox ($15k now?), data system ($3-10k), dampers ($4-6k). The aerodynamic parts (wings, diffuser, etc) are probably in that range. The cost of the chassis itself becomes almost irrelevant in comparison, so strictly limit the cost on those systems, increase the sales volume, and I believe a $25k car is completely feasible.

I thought about a cost cap on new chassis, but I can see all kinds of issues with implementing that. Although I do think it would encourage design creativity.

I have a fireproof suit around here somewhere.

Nathan

[Purple Frog]

If I won the Lotto...(which I won't because I don't buy tickets)

I would move into regional racing in the SARRC series in the SEDIV.
Leave the Majors and Runons behind.
I would have some constructor build a 600cc bike motor car much like a current F600, but with longer wheelbase. I could even live with the existing sportscar bodywork.
But I would want the mc engine mounted with the exhaust ports pointing rearward (I have my reasons).
I would run it as a Formula S and just have fun. And it would be also cool for available track days.
And i'd have a car my 6'2" grandson would fit in with his 35" inseam legs.

And for grins, at some point I'd put Clint in it and stand on the wall at Road Atlanta T1, and watch him pull off his patented massive slide job going up the hill, just to confirm I will never pull that sort of speed off in my lifetime.

p.s. for the record. In my experience the two most impressive drives through T1 have been Brandon Dixon in his Citation FB, and Clint in his F600. Clint's I even witnessed from a distance of 3 feet. Interesting now that I think about it, both were mc cars.

[S Lathrop]

This is close to what I proposed some time back.

Something like this idea could bring back the excitement that was part of the early years of FF and FV when those classes were growing by 50 or more cars per year.

A fun exercise would be for several people to get together and collaborate on a class concept and then actually lay down some designs. Show what is possible and then produce something.

I think this class concept can easily produce what the spec classes promise but fail to really deliver, great fun racing that a person making medium income car afford.

[nulrich]

I think you might have proposed this before, Steve, but if all the constructors collaborated on some "spec" parts it could be dramatically cheaper for all. For example, a common upright/spindle/bearing/wheel/caliper assembly that is produced in high quantity and used on all cars. Could even be sold to the FSAE guys as well. The cost would go WAY down, while still allowing designers freedom in suspension geometry and other aspects of the design.

Nathan

[allof6]

[SEComposites]

Since it's never going to happen within SCCA, no reason to limit myself to existing class structures or worry about offending existing racers! Here's my "dream" entry level formula class, which could serve to replace FF, F500, and FV. The goal is a class that attracts the widest variety of competitors to get sales and parts volume as high as possible, which will increase competition between constructors and reduce cost for everyone. I think it would be a way to attract young drivers who are learning, older drivers who can't afford the more expensive classes (me), and train both engineers and mechanics, so it needs relevance to higher levels of racing.

600cc motorcycle drivetrains with strict limits on modifications and inlet restrictors to maintain power parity OR (my preference) a sealed engine/drivetrain from one manufacturer (like Legends).

Spec hard compound tires, maybe something like the Toyo used in Canada. Same size wheels, probably 6x13 or whatever is cheapest, all four corners. Maybe a spec alloy wheel from one source.

Max width around 1700 mm (67") with side pods of a minimum width and height (safety). No limitation on wheelbase.

Independent rear suspension allowed with a weight penalty. Although I admire the simplicity of solid rear axles, they are a major difference from higher levels of formula car racing, and I believe the cost differential is minimal and could be made up by the increased sales volume.

Spec damper and steel springs. Ideally two-way adjustable?

Wishbones and other links must be round tubing.

No aero devices (wings, diffusers, etc). Center Jabroc plank of mandated length and width. A 50 mm (2 inch) step required between the center plank and sidepod bottoms.

I'd argue for a minimum size for the cockpit which allows our biggest drivers (yes, I have a vested interest in that) and lots of safety features, many of which could be incorporated in the rules in the beginning with minimal cost impact.

Lots of other options, but the goal should be to preserve the idea of a FORMULA to encourage innovation and competition between manufacturers, but with strict limitations on cost. The most expensive systems on an F2000 car are the engine ($16k), gearbox ($15k now?), data system ($3-10k), dampers ($4-6k). The aerodynamic parts (wings, diffuser, etc) are probably in that range. The cost of the chassis itself becomes almost irrelevant in comparison, so strictly limit the cost on those systems, increase the sales volume, and I believe a $25k car is completely feasible.

I thought about a cost cap on new chassis, but I can see all kinds of issues with implementing that. Although I do think it would encourage design creativity.

I have a fireproof suit around here somewhere.

Nathan

Bingo. Sign me up. It seems to me that the F600 forums are generally pretty quiet until a thread opens up into this kind of discussion and interest is aroused.

[nulrich]

Here's a quick sketch of what I personally think are about the right dimensions. 6'5" driver (me) shown in a fairly upright position. Overall width of 1700 mm (67 inch), which seems adequate to get good dynamics and provide enough room for protective sidepods. The wheelbase is 2200 mm (87 inch), which looks long enough to package a 600cc motorcycle drivetrain and keep the feet behind the front wheel centerline, but I don't have any solid models or even dimensions of a drivetrain, so maybe it needs to be longer.

It's fun to spend 20 minutes on, but I have to get back to work.

Nathan

[S Lathrop]

Here is a front corner I drew several years ago with this type project in mind. I have posted this before.

I drew this to cost less than $500, with a caliper, but be something I can use on my cars.

The wheels can be rims with lugs welded on the bolt to the hub. Wide 5 setup from the circle track guys.

[BLS]

Wide 5 setup from the circle track guys.

Hey, we already have a "wide 5" setup. FV

[formulasuper]

I would like a better "look" than what we have BUT.......
The ones that are there for the competition will drive the fastest car they can put together regardless of how it looks............after all its a RACE TRACK not a social party event......... .

Hey, hey, hey! It can be both!

[Jnovak]

We are working on pretty much all of the above. Pay attention later in season.

Will post some pics of our billet parts later tonight.

[formulasuper]

If I won the Lotto...(which I won't because I don't buy tickets)

I would move into regional racing in the SARRC series in the SEDIV.
Leave the Majors and Runons behind.
I would have some constructor build a 600cc bike motor car much like a current F600, but with longer wheelbase. I could even live with the existing sportscar bodywork.
But I would want the mc engine mounted with the exhaust ports pointing rearward (I have my reasons).
I would run it as a Formula S and just have fun. And it would be also cool for available track days.
And i'd have a car my 6'2" grandson would fit in with his 35" inseam legs.

And for grins, at some point I'd put Clint in it and stand on the wall at Road Atlanta T1, and watch him pull off his patented massive slide job going up the hill, just to confirm I will never pull that sort of speed off in my lifetime.

p.s. for the record. In my experience the two most impressive drives through T1 have been Brandon Dixon in his Citation FB, and Clint in his F600. Clint's I even witnessed from a distance of 3 feet. Interesting now that I think about it, both were mc cars.

But Froggy, why fool with turning the engine around when you could just drop in a nice modern 750cc bike engine like some of us wanted to do back in the 90's? And while your at it, bolt on a super charger. After all, we are talking Formula S here!

[Jnovak]

But Froggy, why fool with turning the engine around when you could just drop in a nice modern 750cc bike engine like some of us wanted to do back in the 90's? And while your at it, bolt on a super charger. After all, we are talking Formula S here!

There are about 10 times as many 600 bike sold than any other displacement. This means a lot more low cost engines available in the market.

[clint]

Hey, hey, hey! It can be both!

It can.......for some.

[JerryH]

FS is becoming more and more appealing all the time.....cause a 600 in a FF type chassis is an exciting and tempting idea!

If we could agree on some spec corners, shocks and rear axle and/or dif to keep cost down, it would make a great entry level class. I have talked to Jay and Steve about this several times. It can be done.....and if it took off in FS, who knows where things would end up.

I can't wait to see Jay's newest creation. Guessing a stretched Nova Blade with real springs and shocks.

By the way......I think sports car noses on F5s make great looking cars. More sports racer than open wheel....but what's wrong with that? Give it a 90 inch wheelbase and cheap non adjustable shocks.....that's all it needs.

Jerry

[Bill Butterworth]

Daryl (post 47) has it right on the effects of wheelbase and track on handling. There is no magic ratio but most cars end up at about 1.6:1 +/-. Chaparrals were in this range with wheelbases of 82 to 90 inches - lots of power with short wheelbases.

Regarding high speed instability, I would look at aero stability and rear suspension design as possible culprits. The car needs more side area behind the C.G. than in front of it to be stable in cross winds (think weather vanes). Rear beam axles have bump and roll steer effects. Depending on the design these can be either stabilizing or destabilizing. Combined with compliance in the system, high speed driving could get very "interesting".

Packaging is a major challenge with the 80" wheelbase, but with the SCCA political climate I don't see them allowing a longer wheelbase (it would "disadvantage" existing cars) or a separate F600 class. The message I get is we have to live within the existing rules.

One way to help the packaging is to reverse the engine as has been discussed here and elsewhere. I'm 5'9" and with my design the pedals are 5" BEHIND the front axle line. The seat back is reclined 55 degrees from vertical so the driving position is reclined (and thus long). It will accommodate much taller drivers while keeping their feet behind the axle centerline. The reversed engine orientation also moves the exhaust header away from the driver and fuel cell. It can be implemented inexpensively.

I brought this approach up on the F600 website and sent a letter to the SCCA. Even though it isn't prohibited in the F600 rules, it was rejected because it was felt there was a performance advantage due to the lower engine bay temperature. I have submitted an appeal because I believe this argument is incorrect. Race results do not show an advantage for open engine bay designs over fully enclosed ones. If there really is an advantage, then some smart person will do a better job of cooling the engine bay and gain a competitive advantage. How will the SCCA deal with that? Ban it? it doesn't make sense.

I think this design approach solves a number of the packaging issues with F600 without negative impacts and am willing to spend my own money to demonstrate it in competition. If you agree please support my appeal to the SCCA, letter #16214.

Thanks, Bill

[clint]

The easiest way to do this would be for you to homoligate the car as a FS and then ask SCCA regions for "special" permission to run as FS but with the F500 group. This will accomplish what you're wanting to do while not putting anyone in the class at a disadvantage or take points. Its more or less a way to allow competitors to "put their money where their mouth is" to show its place. This is the approach that we (f600) took to prove out the MC concept. It was VERY painfull and SLOW and you have to endure a lot of people that doesnt have a clue contesting why it wont work. The only other thing I would suggest to you is to put a proven driver in the car for comparison purposes. This will prove whether or not there a advantage with the design. Yes, I know theres 10 million argument points to be made with that statement but the general idea is what you're after.

On a separate note, I say do it if you believe it will work. Don't let people discourage you. We (f600 group) had a ton of people tell us that it wouldn't work, its too expensive, it will twist the frame in two, etc. As you can see, they didn't nor do they currently have a clue. Build it and see what happens. At the worst you'll have a fun reliable car to run in FS.

[Jnovak]

Daryl (post 47) has it right on the effects of wheelbase and track on handling. There is no magic ratio but most cars end up at about 1.6:1 +/-. Chaparrals were in this range with wheelbases of 82 to 90 inches - lots of power with short wheelbases.

Regarding high speed instability, I would look at aero stability and rear suspension design as possible culprits. The car needs more side area behind the C.G. than in front of it to be stable in cross winds (think weather vanes). Rear beam axles have bump and roll steer effects. Depending on the design these can be either stabilizing or destabilizing. Combined with compliance in the system, high speed driving could get very "interesting".

Packaging is a major challenge with the 80" wheelbase, but with the SCCA political climate I don't see them allowing a longer wheelbase (it would "disadvantage" existing cars) or a separate F600 class. The message I get is we have to live within the existing rules.

One way to help the packaging is to reverse the engine as has been discussed here and elsewhere. I'm 5'9" and with my design the pedals are 5" BEHIND the front axle line. The seat back is reclined 55 degrees from vertical so the driving position is reclined (and thus long). It will accommodate much taller drivers while keeping their feet behind the axle centerline. The reversed engine orientation also moves the exhaust header away from the driver and fuel cell. It can be implemented inexpensively.

I brought this approach up on the F600 website and sent a letter to the SCCA. Even though it isn't prohibited in the F600 rules, it was rejected because it was felt there was a performance advantage due to the lower engine bay temperature. I have submitted an appeal because I believe this argument is incorrect. Race results do not show an advantage for open engine bay designs over fully enclosed ones. If there really is an advantage, then some smart person will do a better job of cooling the engine bay and gain a competitive advantage. How will the SCCA deal with that? Ban it? it doesn't make sense.

I think this design approach solves a number of the packaging issues with F600 without negative impacts and am willing to spend my own money to demonstrate it in competition. If you agree please support my appeal to the SCCA, letter #16214.

Thanks, Bill

We did the same thing in 2005. We were only protested by 9 other entrants at the 2005 Runoffs. We were declared legal, but the rules were "clarified" on March 20th 2006 and we only had to cut the back end off of 3 cars in April. At least we got to run the car for 1 season as designed.

[Bill Butterworth]

Clint,

Thanks for your advice and ideas. I hadn't thought of homologating it as an FS in part due to the minimum empty weight of 750 pounds. With F600's weighing around 600 pounds empty how do get a good comparison? What did you guys do? I do plan to use a proven driver in the car. I'm a much better engineer than I ever was a driver (moving chicane is the term that comes to mind) and want to see the car's capabilities. I'm finding the design process challenging because there are no F600's, F500's or people experienced with these cars out here to look at and learn from. I think there is great potential for the F600 class out here if it can just get started.

Thanks, Bill

[Jnovak]

Clint,

Thanks for your advice and ideas. I hadn't thought of homologating it as an FS in part due to the minimum empty weight of 750 pounds. With F600's weighing around 600 pounds empty how do get a good comparison? What did you guys do? I do plan to use a proven driver in the car. I'm a much better engineer than I ever was a driver (moving chicane is the term that comes to mind) and want to see the car's capabilities. I'm finding the design process challenging because there are no F600's, F500's or people experienced with these cars out here to look at and learn from. I think there is great potential for the F600 class out here if it can just get started.

Thanks, Bill

Bill you can get a waiver of the minimum weight for FS. I have done that already.

[Jnovak]

The real issue gents is that the class structural changes that are coming ?? Will cause many classes to be combined and many others will simply become regional classes. So there will not be any new classes for quite some time IMO.

IMO the SCCA will be looking at marketing info to determine which classes will be the Majors 16 or whatever the total numbers will be and the rest of us will be running regionals with the best organizational deals we can manage.

This does not look good for classes that have little marketing appeal for the Majors program. A big round of consolidation is on the way IMO so all of us had better be prepared. So I think that those of us who are interested in our version of low cost racing like F500 had better start planning to have our own REGIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP or whatever it might be called.

LET ME STATE RIGHT NOW that I have absolutely ZERO information on this subject. The only thing I know for sure is that I am a guy with lots of opinions.

[mmi16]

Funny... I can fit in all those "skinny formula cars" but not in a wide body F5.

I don't see taller rollbars as the answer, because who wants to sit up high and not be aero like Clint.

Serious question: Are there any new jet skis or snowmobiles being built as two stroke?

As I recollect from the 2009 Roebling Road Drivers School - I out girth you and I fit.

[jim murphy]

Regarding high speed stability, wasn't this the reason for allowing diffusers?

I am all for allowing a longer wheelbase but what length? This is why I asked the question - what is the optimum wheelbase given the 55" maximum width? Once this number is established then we can ask for a rules change such that the new wheelbase will be a maximum length so that the shorter length is not illegal. Thus we don't obsolete all the cars over night. Many will just lengthen the 4 links and the drive chain and do some extensions on the back of the sidepods to get there. Got to have specifics for the proposed rulw change.

Jim