The DauntingNovaTation

[Purple Frog]

Stan Posted in another "winter blues" thread:

Yeah, just like I sobered up 11 years ago after suggesting looking at the option of a 600cc motorcycle engine in FF.

That said, IMO the only way to accomplish the initial goals of this thread -- to find an affordable replacement gearbox and reduce the cost of FF/FC -- is to integrate the gearbox with the engine. In other words to use a m/c engine. The cheapest new gearbox in existence, as far as I know, is the Sadev, but even it is nearly $10-grand. A new LD-200 is several thousands more, and a new FTR is several more on top of that. And then one has to buy the engine. The Fit kit is what, $13k? Can a Nissan, Ford, or anybody else be significantly less? And how much to convert an older chassis on top of that?

If we want what the OP posted we'll have to think out of the auto-engine-bespoke-gearbox box. For a quarter of the price of a new Sadev one can buy a lightly used 600cc m/c engine with built-in 6-sp gearbox, complete with airbox, intake, wiring harness and ECU that is as fast or faster than the best current FF. Restrict dampers to single-adjustable (or just choose a make and model), hard tires, and maybe even a chassis design and uprights, and Steve and myself (and anyone else who chooses to) could make and sell "new" FFs for half the price of an F4 or current FF. Substitute a liter bike engine for FC and you're done.

The idea that one can make a Pinto (or Kent) simultaneously faster, more reliable and longer lasting for less money than the status quo is a fantasy. That is not to say that the same applies to the classes themselves. It just takes the will to consider options that don't necessarily conform to the fashionable "monetorization" of motorsports.

*******
Lathrop posted this:

Stan;

There are actually several people who have been fiddling with just such a design. And those guys have some F1000 experience to draw upon.

FF has grown too expensive for the market it originally served. In the 1970's when we were adding 100 cars per year to the inventory of FF racing in SCCA. The cars cost about half of medium income. Today that package cost 1.5 times medium income, minimum at best. That is 3 times where FF should be for a really healthy class.

What you propose is the only option I can see to get back to that target market of entry level affordable racing.

Worrying about sequential gearboxes is not getting any where. The difference in the cost of a new car with a sequential box built to current FF rules, will hardly show by the time you get to the bottom line compared to a car with a 4speed H pattern box..

********

Last week doing a bit of research I buzzed my good buddy Steve Lathrop (Citation). Since we are both old and working on projects that we really need to get finished, in his case an airplane, we dropped everything and discussed the state of small bore formula racing in the good ol' U.S. of A. These conversations can last for hours. That said I won't bore with most the details.

I had originally asked if he thought i could fit a 600cc mc into a Zink Z-10. (ah the travesty of it all). He said "yes... but why?" Being that it was old design and all. I again brought up that i liked the idea of a 600cc mc powered car with independent suspension on all four corners. ( I don't like the small chassis size and solid axle of a F6000.)

Steve got all excited and basically said to send him some money and he would start building a new chassis off the existing plans he already had. Seems he and Novak have been trading ideas back and forth for some time on the very idea. Actually they wanted to use a detuned 1000cc. But, i think 600cc are more available based on sales volume.

Anyway, since we were talking about what we would do if we were "King", We decided we would invent a new formula class. Just what SCCA needs...right? We would work a deal with somebody like Honda to supply sealed powerplants, just like Yamaha did for Legends. Everybody gets a sealed detuned 1000cc engine with gearbox, ecu, and wiring harness. After all, since we are Kings, we can make this happen.

Basically the idea is that it would be a "formula" with a few minumum requirements. Like maybe a 1000# minumum weight so 200# guys could make minimum weight. And of course all the established safety standards already in place in the GCR.

Seems Steve and Novak have drawings on the ready.

I thought about it for a week, and since Grand Pooh Bahs can pull rank on mere Kings, I think this class should allow any type of body. Full body with fenders, open wheel, open wheel with wings, roofs, crossover, stationwagon, pickup truck... whatever.

History shows us that small bore racing has a start of sorts with English guys using JAP motorcycle engines. I believe if there were no inertia with established automotive based classes today, and a stranger dropped onto the planet with no bias and had to design a new small bore racer, he/she/it would most surely gravitate to motorcycle drivetrains.

Just saying.

As always YMMV

[holmberg]

This is exactly what I want. 950 lbs with driver, 1000cc MC engine restricted to 115 HP & 80 ft-lbs torque (more reliable than a 600cc at the same power), no wings. Long lasting, inexpensive tires (maybe the American Racer Club FF tires, $490 a set). I'd like to see both formula and sports racer versions (I'd take the sports racer version).

But I thought Steve didn't want to build this because he believes that formula racing in the SCCA is dying?

Here's my imaginary sales brochure for the car.

Technical Specs

• Sports racer (enclosed wheels), single-seat open cockpit, mid-engine, rear-wheel drive, steel space-frame construction, fiber-glass body. 96” wheelbase, 64” wide.
• No down-force (flat bottom, no splitter, diffuser, or wings).
• Weight: 750 pounds, 950 pounds minimum with driver at end of race.
• Power: 115 HP & 80 ft-lbs torque at the crank.
• Engine: 1-liter motorcycle engine (2008 Suzuki GSX-R1000), stock, wet sump, electronic fuel injection, limited to ~7,500 RPM.
• Drive train: stock 6-speed sequential gearbox with paddle shifter, chain drive, open differential.
• Tires: racing slicks, long-lasting compound: 20x6 front, 22.5x7.5 rear; wheels: 13x6 aluminum bolt-on.
• Suspension: a modern design using parallel A-arms, anti-roll bars, push-rods, and in-board shocks. Fully independent and adjustable.

Benefits

• Formula Ford performance; PSL lap record at Thunderhill is estimated to be 1:53. Faster than Spec Miata, Spec Boxster, Spec E46, SRF3, FV, FST, NP01, FF, or F600. See table below.
• Fun and easy to drive. Real race-car handling and adjustment. Light-weight, good brakes, balanced, high-grip, low drag.
• Modern race-car styling, great sounding engine, paddle-shifters. If you like playing racing video-games, then you’ll love this car!
• Fits larger people, up to 225 pounds and 6’-3”.
• Safety: enclosed-wheel body with side pods, roll cage, side-intrusion panels, suspension arms with anti-intrusion bars, impact attenuators front & rear, head surround, fire system, 6-point harness, fuel cell. SCCA and NASA compliant.
• Easy to transport; use a small open trailer and a passenger car.
• Easy to work on and adjust (body comes off in seconds). Low maintenance car, very reliable. Standardized off-the-shelf parts makes it easy to find replacements and share parts with fellow racers.
• Accepted at most track-day organizations (NASA, etc.), for those who aren’t ready to race.
• Can be converted to (in order of increasing speed):
  
  • Formula Super Leggera: same chassis with a formula body (open-wheel), no down-force, same engine, wheels and tires, 950 lbs with driver. Similar lap times.
  • Formula 1000: same chassis with a formula body (open-wheel), wings, diffuser, same engine unrestricted (180 HP, 85 ft-lbs torque), wider wheels and tires, 1000 lbs with driver.
  • Prototype 2: same car (enclosed wheel) with wing, diffuser, splitter, same engine unrestricted (180 HP, 85 ft-lbs torque), wider wheels and tires, 1000 lbs with driver.

Costs

• Purchase price:

$20,000 kit: painted frame with kevlar side-intrusion panels and front & rear impact attenuators; fiber-glass body in one-color gel coat; suspension system with anti-roll bars, rod-ends, shocks, springs, steering, uprights, brake calipers, rotors, and wheels; open differential; fuel cell; engine cooling system; exhaust system; ECU, wiring harness and battery; cockpit: head surround, instruments, mirrors, pedals, shifter, steering wheel, 6-point harness, and fire system.

$25,000 assembled roller. Owner supplies: engine/gearbox, data logger/display, personal bead seat, tires, chain, brake pads, fluids/oils, fuel.

$30,000 assembled, ready to race.

• Less expensive to race than a Spec Miata, Spec Boxster, Spec E46, F600, SRF3, NP01, FV, FE, FF, or FST. See table below. Rules to prevent technology creep and maintain low costs.
• Operational costs per weekend¹: tires $196 + engine $78 + fuel $60 + chain $25 + brake pads $24 = $383.
• Tires: $490 per set, last 20 sessions² (20 heat cycles), or about 2½ weekends.
• Engine/gearbox: $2,500 used. Should remain competitive for four full seasons³ (107 hours) because it’s limited to ~7,500 RPM (30mm inlet restrictor), well below factory red-line of 13,750 RPM. Integrated motorcycle gearbox lasts even longer than the engine.
• Fuel: 93-octane pump gas at $3 per gallon.
• Brake pads: $188 for all four wheels; last a season of racing (eight weekends).
• Wheels: $150 each.
• Corner replacement: $500 (upright, bearing, spindle, brake rotor, brake caliper). Suspension arms and body damage additional. In-board shocks reduce repair costs. No wings to replace!

Comparison of road race car classes

Class	Class name	Sorted by Lap time Thunderhill 2.866 miles	Purchase new	Purchase used	Operational cost per weekend4	Operational cost per session
P1	Prototype 1	1:36.6	$85,000	$55,000	$2,245	$281
P2	Prototype 2	1:38.0	$75,000	$45,000	$1,615	$202
FB	Formula 1000	1:40.0	$60,000	$35,000	$1,360	$170
FC	Formula Continental	1:44.0	$80,000	$30,000	$1,408	$176
FE	Formula Enterprises	1:45.6	$60,000	$35,000	$694	$87
FM	Formula Mazda	1:49.2	$54,000	$25,000	$1,667	$208
PSL	Prototipo Super Leggero	1:53.0	$30,000		$383	$48
F600	Formula 600	1:53.1	$30,000	$20,000	$1,005	$126
F500	Formula 500	1:53.1	$25,000	$15,000	$1,313	$164
FF	Formula F	1:53.8	$70,000	$30,000	$558	$70
CFF	Club Formula Ford	1:54.8	$30,000	$15,000	$729	$91
NP01	NASA Prototype 01	1:56.7	$86,000	$73,000	$610	$76
SRF3	Spec Racer Ford gen 3	1:58.8	$50,000	$35,000	$849	$106
SP911	Spec 911	1:59.6	$100,000	$60,000	$1,036	$130
FST	Formula First	2:00.3	$25,000	$10,000	$467	$58
FV	Formula VW	2:03.5	$25,000	$10,000	$718	$90
SPB	Spec Boxster	2:03.9	$50,000	$30,000	$1,102	$138
LTR	Legends Thunder Roadster	2:04.0	$30,000	$15,000	$549	$69
E46	Spec E46	2:05.1	$50,000	$30,000	$1,060	$133
SM	Spec Miata	2:06.3	$35,000	$25,000	$1,329	$166

These numbers are for a professionally-built car that is competitive at the national level. See spreadsheet of operational costs at https://goo.gl/pck3Lr for details on this table.


1A weekend is defined as eight sessions: three practice sessions on Friday; practice, qualifying, and race on Saturday; and qualifying and race on Sunday; for a total of 3:20 time on track.

2A session is defined as 25 minutes on track.

3A full season is defined as eight weekends; for a total of 26:40 time on track in a year.

4Operational cost is the cost of tires + engine + gearbox + fuel + brake pads + chain. These are only the major, predictable costs to operate the car during the event. There will be other smaller operational costs (changing engine oil, brake fluid, etc.), plus longer-term maintenance costs as items wear out, plus unpredictable costs due to damage, plus other weekend costs such as event entry fees, towing to the track, hotel, food, and so on. Total cost of racing, including depreciation of the car’s value, over a long term (a number of years) divided by number of weekends raced, will be significantly higher than this per-weekend operational cost. The numbers above are intended to be useful in comparing classes, and should not be construed as the total costs of a weekend of racing.

[Purple Frog]

But I thought Steve didn't want to build this because he believes that formula racing in the SCCA is dying?

Steve would build it if he isn't investing. As they say in California...Show him the money.

Steve said same size tires and wheels on all four corners, Spec radials. He also likes detuned 1000cc.
I worry about availability of 1000cc.

I say leave bodywork open... even forward facing openings (the travesty of it!), Diffusers, wings (or as they say down here "wangs") etc A-OK. That way i can get Stan involved. Even CF. Afterall it is 2017.

Has to have sex appeal. or as Carnut169 says, "needs to be wizzy." Can't look like a Spec Wrecker.

[holmberg]

Now, of course, a lot of testing would be required to figure out the right tires, springs, shocks, suspension adjustments, and restrictor size for the target lap times.

An easy way to get a test-mule for all this would be to buy a first-gen Stohr DSR with an '08 GSX-R1000, remove all the down-force and put on 13x6 wheels.

Then test various FF tires, springs, shocks, and inlet restrictors (30mm?), re-map the ECU, final chain drive ratio, etc.

If I can ever sell my Spec Boxster race car, I will do this.

[holmberg]

Steve said same size tires and wheels on all four corners, Spec radials. He also likes detuned 1000cc.
I worry about availability of 1000cc.

Diffusers, wings (or as they say down here "wangs") etc A-OK.

My problems with the FF radials are 1. the price, and 2. the weight. The Hoosier spec FF tires cost $764 a set, and weigh 68 lbs. Versus $490 and 50 lbs for the AR CF bias-ply tire. Looking at local track records, they appear to be about the same lap times. Users have reported elsewhere on Apexspeed that they have about the same number of competitive heat cycles (~20). So I don't see any reason to spend 50% more for the Hoosiers. Tire costs are over half of the operational costs for FF, so we need to be careful about which tires we choose. Also, saving 18 lbs of un-sprung weight in such a light-weight car could be significant.

I don't think there's any shortage of 1000cc engines. There may be a coming shortage of the '08 GSX-R1000, so we might need to look at more recent engines. Suzuki, Kawasaki, or Honda. Steve said that George Dean said that the Honda is probably the most reliable. Since we would restrict it to a target HP anyway, reliability becomes more important than peak HP of the stock engine. A Honda engine would be a nice combination with Steve's all-Honda rear axle/diff. We could call it Formula Honda, and maybe get Honda to provide crate engines. I read somewhere on Apexspeed that Honda might be willing to sell crate engines (and the only one, too).

Edit: crate engines: yes. Stan says Honda is interested. The name of this car is looking more and more like Formula Honda! Or Honda Prototype, if you like your wheels covered.

As for down-force, I would imagine two classes. One without wings, and FF lap-times, and one with wings and faster (maybe open up the restrictor size--you'd need about 145 HP & 85 ft-lbs in a 950-lb car to get FC lap times). Upgradable to F1000 (180 HP).

I personally would choose the one without wings since it's easier to learn to adjust the car without wings, and they're expensive to replace when you have an off.

Greg

[SEComposites]

This idea has been flogged to death in various threads, and whilst a good number of people think in principal it’s a good idea I’ll bet there’s still too much disagreement to ever get something like this off the ground. I guess someone just needs to bite the bullet and build one and that becomes the template for the rules.

My thoughts differ slightly from those above, but in essence a restricted single make/year range 1000 or 1300 is the way to go. My chassis specs would be slightly different too. This needs to be a real budget low cost car. That doesn’t mean it can’t look great and be quick though.

[SEComposites]

If I could wave a magic wand my guideline specs would be -

Stock HPD supplied (unfortunately I don’t think HPD delve into the motorcycle side of the business) Honda 1000 restricted Motor (no dry sump if that’s at all possible)
Spec chassis built by anyone or a set list of constructors. Road car uprights, hubs, brakes, diff.
Spec outboard dampers.
No aero but open on bodywork design or kits available from a set list of constructors.
Semi slick all weather tires (maybe even move away away from 13” wheels, shock horror)
Go Racing.

[Purple Frog]

Outboard dampers make a corner hit more expensive. Steve says pushrod cars are inexpensive to build.
Plus, its 2017, outboard dampers don't fit into "sexy".

Build it as a F1000 without wings, you probably could run in the FB class in SCCA for proff of concept.

Really needs a spec engine or you get into "engine of the month" problems.

[holmberg]

Really needs a spec engine or you get into "engine of the month" problems.

Wouldn't an inlet restrictor equalize the engines?

A 30mm restrictor would produce about 115 HP, and while you could rev beyond 7500 RPM, there'd be no reason to do so. Different engines might see their max HP at slightly different RPMs, but in the end wouldn't they produce the same HP and torque with the same restrictor?


Greg

[Jnovak]

Steve and I and others continue to work on the concept. This has way to much merit to let it not happen.

Open wheel racing other than FV is in serious trouble. A new competitive FF cost about $75000 what is wrong with a $30K car that is faster than the best FF?

[SOseth]

Steve and I and others continue to work on the concept. This has way to much merit to let it not happen.

Open wheel racing other than FV is in serious trouble. A new competitive FF cost about $75000 what is wrong with a $30K car that is faster than the best FF?

Depends on your goal. If you want a cheap, entry level class it doesn't need to be faster than a FF.

SteveO

[holmberg]

Open wheel racing other than FV is in serious trouble.

That may be. I don't have numbers on regional or majors attendance. However, turn-out at the 2017 Run-offs looked like this:



FV, F5, FF, and FE had good turn-out. P2, so-so. P1, FB, FM, FC, FA, not so good.

Notice the operational costs on these classes (in order of turn-out):

Class	Operational cost per weekend, $
SRF3	849
FV	718
F5	1313
FF	558
FE	694
P2	1616
P1	2245
FB	1360
FM	1667
FC	1408
FA	3317

I think there's a lesson in these numbers: if you want your class to grow, you'd better control the tire cost (#1) and the engine cost (#2). (Other operational costs are fuel, gearbox, and brake pads.)

On the other hand, if you want your class to die, then have unreliable, over-stressed, expensive engines and gearboxes, and unlimited super-sticky tires.

Of course, initial purchase costs are important too. Steve's calculation based on FF's sold in the 1970's as a percent of median income, would place an equivalent purchase cost of a new car (ready to race) at around $30,000.

The proposed car can meet these market demands. $30,000 new car purchase and $383 per weekend operational costs.

I think this is exactly what's needed to attract new drivers and grow the formula/prototype pie (and not just shuffle existing drivers between classes).


Greg

[Lotus7]

Wouldn't an inlet restrictor equalize the engines?

A 30mm restrictor would produce about 115 HP, and while you could rev beyond 7500 RPM, there'd be no reason to do so. Different engines might see their max HP at slightly different RPMs, but in the end wouldn't they produce the same HP and torque with the same restrictor?


Greg

Not that simple.
The same peak power, but at a different RPM, gives a different torque number.
Then add in the differences in the power and torque curve shapes, and how that affects car performance ....
(but that subject is WELL covered in many other threads, lets not hijack this one)

[EricP]

Should you be REALLY forward thinking and design something that would one day accept an electric motor?

I’m not looking forward to that day but it may be closer than we think.

[S Lathrop]

Tire cost. The work I have done on this concept was with the same tire on all four corners and as a starter, it would be the Hoosier FF spec front. The car is enough lighter than a FF and the weight distribution is much closer to the same front and rear. I chose 6" rims to give the tire a bit more support for the rear of the car.

We have bounced back and forth between 600 and 1000 sized engines. Initial cost certainly favors the 600cc route but a 1000 putting out the same power would be more reliable and long lived.

The added cost of enclosed body work is, in my opinion, a non starter. You are adding thousands to the cost of the car.

[Daryl DeArman]

Open wheel racing other than FV is in serious trouble. A new competitive FF cost about $75000 what is wrong with a $30K car that is faster than the best FF?

Not a damn thing.

Let's assume the car itself checks all the boxes.

What do you think the market looks like? Could enough be produced and sold in the first 2 years to get folks on board in large enough numbers to make the racing exciting? If they can't/don't sell in large enough numbers right away, how do you entice folks to get on board?

Maybe Novak/Lathrop et al. should form an LLC and design and manufacture the cars. Then produce the car for SCCA Enterprises or NASA and make it FEjr or FE2. . .

[Stan Clayton]

Maybe Novak/Lathrop et al. should form an LLC and design and manufacture the cars. Then produce the car for SCCA Enterprises or NASA and make it FEjr or FE2. . .

Jay Novak, and maybe Steve Lathrop, are approaching 80, and at least Novak tells me he doesn't want to build cars any more. That still leaves open the option of "open source" licensing of designs in the public domain, with no liability and no ownership.

I DO like the idea of an FJ car if it can't be fit into FF. OTOH, FF is an existing class that fills an existing niche and can be expanded to include new cars, just as FC use to include air cooled VW's and 1100cc m/c engines through the 2005 season. I cannot think of any GOOD reason to exclude new tech/engines (including electric motors) from FF in the future. Why would we NOT want to keep the class current as well as timeless?

[holmberg]

Tire cost. The work I have done on this concept was with the same tire on all four corners and as a starter, it would be the Hoosier FF spec front. The car is enough lighter than a FF and the weight distribution is much closer to the same front and rear. I chose 6" rims to give the tire a bit more support for the rear of the car.

Wheels: yes, 13x6 seems like a good wheel size. The cheapest aluminum 13x6 wheel I could find is $154 and 9.85 lbs.

The cheapest aluminum 13x7 wheel I could find is $125 and 9.90 lbs.

Tires: yes, using front tires all around is a good savings.

Here are some tire costs and weights, sorted by cost per tread width.

Brand	Set	Mix or Fronts	Radial or bias	Hard or soft	Tread front inches	Rim front inches	Tread rear inches	Rim rear inches	R/F tread ratio	Weight lbs	Cost	Total width inches	Cost per width $/inch	Weight per width lbs/inch
AR	CF	mix	bias	hard	6.0	6.0	7.5	6.0	1.25	50.0	$490	27.0	$18	1.85
AR	CF	fronts	bias	hard	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	1.00	42.0	$436	24.0	$18	1.75
Toyo	R888R	mix	radial	hard	6.6	6.0	7.3	6.0	1.11	74.0	$544	27.8	$20	2.66
AR	FE	mix	bias	hard	7.7	8.0	9.7	10.0	1.26	70.0	$720	34.8	$21	2.01
AR	FE	fronts	bias	hard	7.7	8.0	7.7	8.0	1.00	67.2	$680	30.8	$22	2.18
AR	CF + FC	fronts	bias	hard mix	6.0	6.0	7.0	6.0	1.17	47.0	$578	26.0	$22	1.81
Hoosier	CF	mix	bias	hard	6.0	6.0	7.3	6.0	1.21	56.0	$656	26.5	$25	2.11
Hoosier	CF	fronts	bias	hard	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	1.00	40.0	$596	24.0	$25	1.67
AR	FC	mix	bias	hard	7.0	6.0	8.0	8.0	1.14	54.4	$750	30.0	$25	1.81
AR	FC	fronts	bias	hard	7.0	6.0	7.0	6.0	1.00	52.0	$720	28.0	$26	1.86
Hoosier	F5-19.5	mix	bias	soft	6.5	6.0	7.5	8.0	1.15		$728	28.0	$26	0.00
Hoosier	SRF	mix	radial	hard	6.4	5.5	8.0	7.0	1.25	64.8	$760	28.8	$26	2.25
Hoosier	FF-spec	mix	radial	hard	6.4	6.0	8.0	6.0	1.25	68.0	$764	28.8	$27	2.36
Hoosier	F5-18	mix	bias	soft	6.2	6.0	7.5	8.0	1.21		$736	27.4	$27	0.00
Hoosier	R7	mix	radial	hard	6.9	6.0	8.0	6.0	1.16	64.0	$808	29.8	$27	2.15
Hoosier	CF + FC	fronts	bias	mix	6.0	6.0	6.8	6.0	1.13		$740	25.5	$29	0.00
Hoosier	VFF	mix	bias	hard	5.4	5.5	6.8	5.5	1.26	60.0	$720	24.4	$30	2.46
Hoosier	SR	mix	bias	soft	8.0	8.0	9.0	10.0	1.13		$1,006	34.0	$30	0.00
Hoosier	SRF	fronts	radial	hard	6.4	5.5	6.4	5.5	1.00	59.2	$760	25.6	$30	2.31
Hoosier	FF-spec	fronts	radial	hard	6.4	6.0	6.4	6.0	1.00	64.0	$764	25.6	$30	2.50
Hoosier	FC	mix	bias	soft	6.8	6.0	8.1	8.0	1.20		$950	29.7	$32	0.00
Hoosier	F2000	mix	radial	hard	7.3	6.0	8.4	8.0	1.16	56.4	$1,024	31.3	$33	1.80
Hoosier	FC	fronts	bias	soft	6.8	6.0	6.8	6.0	1.00		$884	27.0	$33	0.00
Hoosier	FF + FC	fronts	bias	soft	6.0	6.0	6.8	6.0	1.13		$884	25.5	$35	0.00
Hoosier	F2000	fronts	radial	hard	7.3	6.0	7.3	6.0	1.00	52.0	$1,024	29.0	$35	1.79
Hoosier	FF	mix	bias	soft	6.0	6.0	7.3	6.0	1.21	52.0	$974	26.5	$37	1.96
Hoosier	FF	fronts	bias	soft	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	1.00	44.0	$884	24.0	$37	1.83

A set of four front FF-spec radial tires would be $764 and 64 lbs.

A mixed set of the FF-spec tires is the same price, 68 lbs. So using just fronts saves 4 lbs (6%).

A set of four front AR CF bias-ply tires would be $436 and 42 lbs., saving $54 (11%) and 8 lbs (16%) over the AR mixed set.

Another interesting tire is the Hoosier Club FF bias-ply tire. A mixed set is $656 and 56 lbs. An all-fronts set is $596 and 40 lbs. (the lightest of all sets!).

So a Hoosier radials all-fronts set costs $328 (75%) more and weighs 22 lbs (52%) more than the AR all-fronts set. But has the same performance and lifespan as the AR.

So the AR tires are all upside and no downside.

Given the importance of operational costs, and that tires are the largest part of operational costs, I don't see how we could go with the Hoosier FF-spec tire.

AR even offers, on their website:

If you need a tire that will optimize racing performance at your track, either we already make it or we can. Just give us a call and see what we can do for you.

So they could build something similar to their CF tire but specifically tuned to this car and wheel.

[holmberg]

We have bounced back and forth between 600 and 1000 sized engines. Initial cost certainly favors the 600cc route but a 1000 putting out the same power would be more reliable and long lived.

Yes, I agree. The 600 engines are about $2,000 on ebay and the 1000 engines are about $2,500.

The F600 drivers report that they get about 50 competitive hours on their engines. I'm sure that a 1000 engine restricted so that it makes sense to shift at 7500 RPM in an engine built for more than 13,000 RPM, can at least double those competitive hours.

I'd say that's definitely worth the extra $500.

Plus the additional torque (80 versus 50 ft-lbs) would be helpful.

And when the engine is done, you don't rebuild it. You just get another one from ebay. Rebuilds would actually cost more.


Greg

[Rick Kirchner]

how about turning the engine longitudinal, putting in a driveshaft to something like a Subaru rear end? Eliminates the chain. Eliminates some sump and heat problems. if you want the ability to change final drive, use a modified winters or bulldog midget rear end. Gears are $80. rear end is $1800

As far as chassis tech goes why not use square tube and skin it with simple (two-dimensional) composite sheet? Stiff, safe, and repairable.

Use production uprights. No floating rotors. Dune buggy steering rack. Cost is directly related to parts count and custom fabrication.

[Daryl DeArman]

I cannot think of any GOOD reason to exclude new tech/engines (including electric motors) from FF in the future. Why would we NOT want to keep the class current as well as timeless?

If the car/new engine is introduced at a disadvantage you have a prayer of getting them accepted into the FF mix. However, if it is a definitive disadvantage how do you foresee being able to sell more than a small handful?

[marshall9]

If the car/new engine is introduced at a disadvantage you have a prayer of getting them accepted into the FF mix. However, if it is a definitive disadvantage how do you foresee being able to sell more than a small handful?

NASA would be way easier to market this in, and get numbers going faster. I realize this is primarily an SCCA idea. NASA has the young club members that would buy into this formula

[S Lathrop]

how about turning the engine longitudinal, putting in a driveshaft to something like a Subaru rear end? Eliminates the chain. Eliminates some sump and heat problems. if you want the ability to change final drive, use a modified winters or bulldog midget rear end. Gears are $80. rear end is $1800

As far as chassis tech goes why not use square tube and skin it with simple (two-dimensional) composite sheet? Stiff, safe, and repairable.

Use production uprights. No floating rotors. Dune buggy steering rack. Cost is directly related to parts count and custom fabrication.

The best reason to keep the chain is that it is and inexpensive way to change the final drive ratio. Given the low torque of these engines, getting the final drive ratio just right will be important.

I bought all the production car parts for a car such as we are discussing for $500. That included 2 differentials (only one is required), 2 spindles with bearings and 2 drive shafts with joints. These parts were from Honda Civics 1990 to 2010. All of these parts are also available new and not all that expensive. The parts to make the diff chain ready will cost about $500.

Find for me the production car uprights and other parts that you think will work. I think that if we can come up with a common design, that we can produce the other parts at a very reasonable cost. My target cost was $500 per corner. That was a wheel, a universal upright, spindle and bearing, brake system. Most production car components are designed around 15 inch wheels. 13" wheels might presents a few challenges that only custom parts will solve. We used a lot of production components in the Zink Z10, Z14 and Z16 but by the mid 1980s we were down to spindles, bearings and drive shafts and joints as to the only production components that were really usable. And there is the weight of production car components. You could end up with un-sprung weight of well over 50 pounds per corner.

[Jnovak]

how about turning the engine longitudinal, putting in a driveshaft to something like a Subaru rear end? Eliminates the chain. Eliminates some sump and heat problems. if you want the ability to change final drive, use a modified winters or bulldog midget rear end. Gears are $80. rear end is $1800.

More cost

[Jnovak]

The best reason to keep the chain is that it is and inexpensive way to change the final drive ratio. Given the low torque of these engines, getting the final drive ratio just right will be important.

I bought all the production car parts for a car such as we are discussing for $500. That included 2 differentials (only one is required), 2 spindles with bearings and 2 drive shafts with joints. These parts were from Honda Civics 1990 to 2010. All of these parts are also available new and not all that expensive. The parts to make the diff chain ready will cost about $500.

Find for me the production car uprights and other parts that you think will work. I think that if we can come up with a common design, that we can produce the other parts at a very reasonable cost. My target cost was $500 per corner. That was a wheel, a universal upright, spindle and bearing, brake system. Most production car components are designed around 15 inch wheels. 13" wheels might presents a few challenges that only custom parts will solve. We used a lot of production components in the Zink Z10, Z14 and Z16 but by the mid 1980s we were down to spindles, bearings and drive shafts and joints as to the only production components that were really usable. And there is the weight of production car components. You could end up with un-sprung weight of well over 50 pounds per corner.

Steve and I both have designs done for the spec suspension corners. Steve's are more elegant than mine and I suspect that mine are a bit lower cost.

This concept has a ton of potential and should happen IMO. It will require some investment to make it happen.

[Stan Clayton]

I cannot think of any GOOD reason to exclude new tech/engines (including electric motors) from FF in the future. Why would we NOT want to keep the class current as well as timeless?

If the car/new engine is introduced at a disadvantage you have a prayer of getting them accepted into the FF mix. However, if it is a definitive disadvantage how do you foresee being able to sell more than a small handful?

I've talked to the Club about a new wingless class (splitting the 600cc m/c engine cars from the 2-strokes in F5), and got shot down like a fat goose. There is simply no support for new formula classes. If anything the Club would like to see consolidation. That tells me the only possible way forward is to make the car compatible with an existing class, and even that's a big if, as the FF crowd will not welcome the idea. To answer your question, though, both the Fit and the Zetec were brought into their respective classes at distinct disadvantages, so I don't see that as a show stopper. The technology is there to collect relevant data to drive adjustments as needed. The big stumbling block will be resistance from existing FF competitors.

Find for me the production car uprights and other parts that you think will work. I think that if we can come up with a common design, that we can produce the other parts at a very reasonable cost. My target cost was $500 per corner. That was a wheel, a universal upright, spindle and bearing, brake system. Most production car components are designed around 15 inch wheels. 13" wheels might presents a few challenges that only custom parts will solve. We used a lot of production components in the Zink Z10, Z14 and Z16 but by the mid 1980s we were down to spindles, bearings and drive shafts and joints as to the only production components that were really usable. And there is the weight of production car components. You could end up with un-sprung weight of well over 50 pounds per corner.

I think you've made a very good case for foregoing a production assembly in favor of a manufactured one. Perhaps the SRF assembly from Enterprises? Or the F600 part Jay Novak had made. Or even the early Stohr DSR uprights, which used very affordable VW Jetta/Golf bearings and stub axles, and which worked very well up to 160 hp and a thousand pounds (go over either of those and one needs a more robust setup). Keep the ideas flowing.

[Daryl DeArman]

Maybe Novak/Lathrop et al. should form an LLC and design and manufacture the cars. Then produce the car for SCCA Enterprises or NASA and make it FEjr or FE2. . .

NASA would be way easier to market this in, and get numbers going faster. I realize this is primarily an SCCA idea. NASA has the young club members that would buy into this formula

From a business standpoint I agree. However, it seems that the players involved in this idea are loyal to the club, and emotionally invested in saving/resurrecting open wheel racing within the club. Not sure if that's a good/bad thing. Noble perhaps, but not the best business decision.

[Jnovak]

From a business standpoint I agree. However, it seems that the players involved in this idea are loyal to the club, and emotionally invested in saving/resurrecting open wheel racing within the club. Not sure if that's a good/bad thing. Noble perhaps, but not the best business decision.

Good point Daryl.

[Stan Clayton]

Does NASA even permit open wheel cars?

[MotorCade]

NASA does not permit open wheel. Anything designed with NASA in mind would need enclosed bodywork. I see no reason that should be a show-stopper, so long as the car is designed with two possible sets of bodywork in mind. In fact, I see that as a major value... more places to play. Design the bodywork to be modular. Maybe the body section stays, but the fenders get bolted on or off quickly?

Regarding wheels - 13x6 or 13x7 steel wheels weigh about 12 lbs and cost $70 per corner. Build with super budget everything. Performance will be there by virtue of power to weight ratio with that MC motor. Get the initial purchase price to $25k or less for a new one and build the class there. I like the idea of resurrecting the Formula Junior moniker.

[Daryl DeArman]

Does NASA even permit open wheel cars?

NASA does not permit open wheel.

That FranAm class (or whatever their replacement was) was running with NASA for a bit.

More currently, it appears this group lists NASA as a series partner but is running all their races at SCCA Majors events. . . http://www.formulacarchallenge.com/index.htm

[S Lathrop]

There is a new player in the road racing formula car market, USAC. They took over the sanctioning of the FRP series. And that series is the cream of the East half of the US formula car racing. If they were to add FV to their program they would have it all.

USAC also started doing some work with Karts. Talk about getting new drivers into a program.

[Marty Nygard]

I once questioned NASA about a skeleton (Ariel Atom style) chassis with cycle fenders and they were willing to accept it. Unfortunately the car never achieved completion.
FWIW, It would have ended up on the P2 grid with SCCA except for their restrictive rules.
M

[holmberg]

NASA does not permit open wheel. Anything designed with NASA in mind would need enclosed bodywork. I see no reason that should be a show-stopper, so long as the car is designed with two possible sets of bodywork in mind. In fact, I see that as a major value... more places to play. Design the bodywork to be modular. Maybe the body section stays, but the fenders get bolted on or off quickly?

Regarding wheels - 13x6 or 13x7 steel wheels weigh about 12 lbs and cost $70 per corner. Build with super budget everything. Performance will be there by virtue of power to weight ratio with that MC motor. Get the initial purchase price to $25k or less for a new one and build the class there. I like the idea of resurrecting the Formula Junior moniker.

Body work: yes, I think it's important to have a sports-racer option, even if it adds thousands of dollars to the cost, as Steve says. For four reasons:

1. I've talked to several sports-car racers about why they're not interested in racing a formula car. Many are concerned about the safety, and point to two things that scare them: the open wheels, and the open cockpit. Having covered wheels would remove at least one obstacle to getting those folks into a purpose-built race car.

2. Prototypes can race with NASA in the Super Unlimited class. This car wouldn't be competitive in SU, but it could race. Participants could score places privately from the timing sheet. (Same could be done in SCCA ASR or FS, by the way.)

3. It would allow people who aren't ready to race to take their cars out with track-day clubs (NASA, etc.).

4. Reduced drag would help top-end speeds.


I would be interested to hear from Stan or Jay how much they think the additional fiberglass parts to modularly convert the formula body to a sports-racer body would add to the cost of the car, since they have a lot of experience with sports racer bodies.


Steel wheels: 12 lbs and $69 from Bassett for 13x6, or $276 for a set.

So a set of Bassets would save $340 over the 13x6 aluminum VTO Classic 8 ($616 a set), but adds 8.6 lbs of unsprung weight.

And then there are the 13x7 aluminum wheels from Team Dynamics for $500 a set, so $224 more than a set of the Bassetts, but saving 8.4 lbs of unsprung weight.

Worth it? You decide.

[Daryl DeArman]

As long as this at the stage of tossing ideas/concepts around. . .

Suspension: F5/F6 based could save thousands of dollars in initial build cost over a great set of shocks.

If that idea is heavily shat upon, how about a spec shock and spring rate? That could keep cost of equipment required to be competitive down. But then maybe you have to spec the bell cranks and geometry to keep folks from putting a ton of R&D into the suspension to skirt the intent.

[S Lathrop]

As long as this at the stage of tossing ideas/concepts around. . .

Suspension: F5/F6 based could save thousands of dollars in initial build cost over a great set of shocks.

If that idea is heavily shat upon, how about a spec shock and spring rate? That could keep cost of equipment required to be competitive down. But then maybe you have to spec the bell cranks and geometry to keep folks from putting a ton of R&D into the suspension to skirt the intent.

The least expensive shock I found was Bilstein. It is available in a base model that is non-adjustable but can be re-valved by the customer. Costs under $200. You can add adjusters for $100 each. I would spec the shocks and allow any valving package that Bilstein sells. Same shock on all 4 corners.

When a car is really sorted, you only need maybe 4 to 6 pairs of springs. My experience is that you change springs for each track and even change springs depending on weather. But those changes are not all the great.

The last thing we should do with this class is dumb it down. We can make it very cost effective to do a lot of tuning. In my opinion this car has to handle with a FF or better. And a dumb suspension setup is that last thing I would want to see. If someone wants SPEC racing, there are plenty of classes for them to play in. We can keep the expensive parts out but we really want a place where smarts prevail and people the experiment, innovate and learn.

[marshall9]

NASA doesn't have any skin in the open wheel game to have a place for open wheel. That NP01 was also the first prototype allowed. If they had an open wheel affordable car, like Enterprises does, but for half the money, you might be surprised at their receptiveness

[Jnovak]

Depends on your goal. If you want a cheap, entry level class it doesn't need to be faster than a FF.

SteveO

Actually faster is easier. No remapping of the ECU etc.

[Lotus7]

A couple of things that haven't been mentioned yet:

1) Ricardo Divila (of Racecar Engineering mag fame) is involved down in Brazil with the creation of a slick looking 21st century Formula Vee. FV down there already uses a small 4 cylinder engine, and this exercise is a very cost effective upgrade to chassis safety and modern a-arm suspension. Might be worth following.

2) What would the unit cost of those Lucas Oil school cars come down to if they were bought in the many dozens?

[Jnovak]

As long as this at the stage of tossing ideas/concepts around. . .

Suspension: F5/F6 based could save thousands of dollars in initial build cost over a great set of shocks.

If that idea is heavily shat upon, how about a spec shock and spring rate? That could keep cost of equipment required to be competitive down. But then maybe you have to spec the bell cranks and geometry to keep folks from putting a ton of R&D into the suspension to skirt the intent.

Daryl, I have no technical reservations wrt elastomer springs and damping. It is not difficult to do and is very functional.