Printable View
I think there was much more to it, probably had a lot to do with the approach as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westroc
I am very interested in what Honda is doing and would love to hear more. I would be interested in building a 016 with one if they can prove to be reliable and just as importantly competitive. Not sure that can be achieved in FA but if it can I bet you will see 20 plus cars or more at an event next year in Bob's series.
Looks like that table didn't get updated by mistake. On GCR 265 it has the rules for the 016 Honda.Quote:
Originally Posted by bill gillespie
The intent is for the engine to be on par with the current powerplants at a reduced cost and with greatly increased life. I don't have the official HP numbers in front of me unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bamford
I don't think the addition of the engine is going to help or hurt parity, just help costs. I think there are going to have to be some rule changes to get the 014/Ralt/Toyota/Hondas on par with the 016s.
Not sure how far out they are from offering engines to teams but I would think it should be very soon.
How about SuperVee skirt rules for the non-016 guys.......I think the RT4 and early glass tub DB4 can do that currently.....not sure about the early Reynard FA......Charlie, Denis ????Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Novak
As far as I know the early or late Reynards don't qualify for these rules adjustments.
Not the right solution imo. I am always in favor of changes that reduce the costs to compete not increase the costs to compete.Quote:
Originally Posted by bill gillespie
jay,Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak
I don't think lowering an existing skirt to flush with the tub bottom, instead of 1 cm above it, would be much of an expense.....especially compared to sir change/ retuning, etc.......just a random spitball..
bill
While this thread is mostly about a cost effective engine for FA, the gearbox should also be considered. How many engines have blown up because of miss and/or early shifts. A modern sequential gearbox with an ECU that drives the air shifter will ensure a longer engine life not to mention it will increase the appeal of the class. Cost? The gearbox intself is the biggest cost item. Most of the modern ECU's can do it and the latest kit from Geartronics is actually not that expensive. Adding a FBW motor and a double linear pot to your throttle pedal will be under $500. I actually built such a system from scratch for my upcoming 2-seater P1.
We will test it sometime this season Bill. IMO it will not get the 014 upto the 016.Quote:
Originally Posted by bill gillespie
The continued development of the 2.3 motor is a big issue for both cost and parity.
Ok so I'm just as confused as I was before.....
JP
If a new Atlantic is available why not make it dominant to extend the life of the class. This makes good political sense. For the cars that can not accept the larger motors with the desired torque the rule writers should help them compete instead of restricting their performance. The Toyota 1800 was a fast combination until the SIR adjustment, I hope this does not happen to the Honda.
What has happened to the performance of the 1600? Is the RPM now being limited or has the 2.3 motor been developed beyond what the 1600 in an 014 can achieve?
hey Jason,
I just got back from the Atlanta race, and the 016 still has a good margin on the 014...even with the new 33mm SIR.
Bob Corliss was the most racy of the 014's, and got into the 18's, but still off the 016 pace. I think he ran a good 5th.
Smart guys tell me the 016 with A 33mm SIR is now making as much power as the original pro motors.
YMMV,
bill
Formula Atlantic has traditionally been a series for light, fast "edgy" machines with real racing engines that sound good and rev freely. The 2.3 liter cars don't really qualify -no doubt they are marginally safer, but I haven't heard of too many people getting badly hurt in Atlantics since deformable structures were mandated.
The problem with the 1600cc cars is the Toyota Engine...it was never a good base engine; its tappets and springs are too small for the lift/rpm they are exposed to, and the cylinder head is not a good design. After years of development, it is fragile when it gets to 250-260 hp. The best-known builder of these engines told me that 6 hours was the expected valve spring life in the rev range these engines run to for peak power.
Ironically the BD is the correct engine...under the current rules, a properly engineered BD can have an excellent bore/stroke ratio, rod ratio, and 8% more valve area than a Toyota, combined with superior line-of-sight porting. One advantage that both the BD and the Toyota both share over current street-derived engines is belt drive, which eliminates harmonics issues in the cam drive, particularly with the HD tooth profiles now being used.
So, what is the problem? why didn't Bill Gillespie's engine do better? From the best I am able to put together, they were twofold. The first was that the original Cosworth castings do not have thick enough port walls to create a large enough intake port to sustain maximum power at the rpm the BD is reliably capable of. Problem #2 is that all the "hot" Cosworth cams are of very long duration -320 degrees, which kills driveability, particularly on carbs. In fact, a large port will make this problem worse, not better, by lowering the port velocity. The Cosworth cams were designed more than a quarter of a century ago, before modern vacuum-remelt spring wire was available, and the long duration/low lift was needed for reasonable valve spring life. Because of this, any short-stroke development advantages would have been largely canceled out.
The new BD cylinder heads now being cast have the wall thickness needed for higher power; these are available from Jennings or Sycast. The rules state that the cam tray is free as long as the bearing type is the same. A mildly-reworked camtray design can make a modern cam profile possible, and this would yield greater power with much better driveability, and allow the engine to take advantage of its better porting architecture. The relationship between the camtray and the valve timing/lift may not be obvious, but the BDA cams load from the front; it is difficult to get an acceptable base circle diameter with adequate lift as a result, hence the need for a rework of this component.
Properly done, the result should be at least 20 more hp than the Toyota, and a rebuild cycle of 12-18 hrs, with excellent reliability. For a club competitor, that is most or all of a season. Yes, it is more expensive than a crate motor, but the value and appeal are well worth it. An alloy block BD is also significantly lighter than either a Toyota or a K20.
Compared to the total costs that I see most Atlantic competitors absorbing, the additional cost of a real racing engine that maintains the aesthetic and performance of the class is a proportionately small price to pay. In reality, teams work to a budget, and any savings made by using a crate motor will get just get spent elsewhere -aero, light-weighting, ever more complex data-logging etc. Most of these refinements are not apparent to the spectators, but the difference between the sound and performance of a real race engine and a crate motor is visceral. With the exception of a true spec series like SRF, the cost of racing is ultimately determined by what the competitors are willing to spend, not the engine specifications, so why compromise the F/A experience unnecessarily?
Re John's post...
I agree with all of his thoughts, and will add a few of my own........the changeover to Motec managed EFI and coil-on-plug made the short stroke engine very tractable and driveable. The power was greater than expected. I'll share in a pm if anyone is really interested.
We suffered two cam failures that were similar to the problems John described. My catastrophic failure was not so easily identified. I am convinced that the engine was elated on the limiter too often, due to a poor sequential conversion to the staffs box. The limiter used fuel and ignition, but was violent at 12000.....
main bearing failure from the limiter vibration stopped oil feed to the rods......and you can imagine the rest.
I believe the BDA can be the Ultimate FA 1600cc motor.....and a real race engine
Flame away,
Bill
I thought I would add another few thoughts here...Bill deservers a lot of credit for being original, and he clearly came quite close to providing the alternative powerplant that the class needs to go forward. No, we are not co-conspirators: we both see a good opportunity for the class in danger of being lost.
The Honda engines have to be closely related to their VdeV units used in Europe. The main problem with using it for Atlantic is that it relegates the class to just another fairly-fast feeder series with about the same power-to-weight and sound as Mazda's Road to Indy cars. With yet another low revving spec motor, Formula Atlantic would then become redundant. The history of SCCA pro classes that get "purchased" by a manufacturer is that they get discarded once they are no longer useful to that firm's marketing needs. Then, the SCCA has to find a messy equivalence formula that makes no one happy. Remember, the inclusion of the 2.3l pro cars was originally a concession to those who owned them, and the club had no obligation to ensure that they were competitive against the existing machinery.
Which leads back to the BD...its modular architecture (separate camtray, belt drive, multiple block deck heights) allows it to be produced in a variety of displacements and bore/stroke ratios. This means that the BD can be updated continuously, which is precisely what would have happened if Toyota hadn't purchased the series all those years ago. The only reason the Toyotas had more power at the time was the restriction to 1.22" valves on the BD, which, conveniently for TRD, was not applied to the 4AGE. Development on the BD became sporadic at that point, by the time the valve restriction was lifted, it was too late: chassis were being designed specifically around the 4AGE.
No currently-produced road engine is as good a base as the BD; none of them have the combination of short-stroke capability, valve area potential, generous cylinder head cooling volume, and steep ports. Current road-going motor requirements (long strokes, tight packaging) mean that a motor like the BD will never be produced in homologateable (is that a word?) volume again.
The Cosworth YB may be another candidate. In 2L form can have a 330 CFM head pushing power past 300HP. Can rev to 9500 RPM. Not aware of anybody building a 1.6L version but it is an intriguing thought. Large bore, short stroke, large valve area, aluminum block available. Smith & Jones (UK based) cast both the block and the head.
Why wouldn't having a lower revving engine that will last be beneficial for Atlantic's? Why wouldnt it be good for it to be a feeder series? Cost of running Pro Mazda is something like $750,000.00 and Lights series above 1 Mill. What would the issue be of having a car with similar power to weight ratio that could be more affordable?Quote:
Originally Posted by jstowe
Honda is active in junior car racing and has proven they want to be a part of it. Why not support their efforts?
I think the reasons not to build the class around another low-revving semi-crate or crate engine are answered in the previous posting...If my memory is correct, Pro Mazda is a sealed Renesis engine class, and yet, by your own estimate, it is $750,000 to run! Clearly, the sealed engine does not make for cheap racing. So, lets assume you do one freshening and one heavy rebuild per year on a real race engine -that is about 25-30k per year, or about 4% percent of the total budget. The point is that the quality of the racing experience is way better than 4% for both the driver and spectator with a real engine, one that also generates some technical interest and on going development potential.
Honda does not use the K20 for the road any more...
Another point: if all we are using is factory crate motors, what happens to our engine builders? Many of these people have provided excellent service to the racing community for decades, and serve as much of the institutional memory of our sport. In some cases they also provide highly-efficient skunk works development that less-flexible large manufacturers can not do for themselves. A whole discipline of specialized industrial culture gets lost...
Back to the other comment. A two liter YB-based motor makes sense, but not a 1.6...The YB has a wide valve angle with a correspondingly large combustion chamber, plus the rod ratio would be uncomfortably long. Big tall block, large bearings; The whole thing will not scale down well, in my opinion. Smith and Jones do a very good job with their motors, and their alloy block is as unbreakable as any I have seen. Their latest head is way superior to a standard YB as well. Much the same can be said of Millington. Neither of these motors uses any stock castings, however, so it is hard to see how they get allowed without some fussing. The standard YB head does not have great porting geometry by the way. Many of the normally-aspirated rally cars using YB-derived engines are at 2.5 liters, which eliminates the combustion chamber issue.
A well-developed 94 x 72 YB-based motor with re-spaced valves, better ports, and an improved chamber could certainly develop more than 330 hp with the available valve and piston area, rev to over 11,000, and cost no more to maintain than a 1600...Again, neither the stock block nor head would be used for this. The 94 mm bore would accept sleeves with lots of material still left between the bores, and could be rebuilt indefinitely.
However, if we are talking non-standard cylinder heads, I already have a BD-based 2 liter engine with a proprietary porting system that makes over 340 hp peak power, with 300 developed at 8300 rpm, and it is still using the same crappy circa 1975 Cosworth cams I complained about before. It is also on small valves and ports, the way any engine early in its development cycle usually is. It could be de-stroked to 1600 with almost no loss in power, as the current valve arrangement will fit in an 88 mm bore, so it would be mainly an exercise in exchanging stroke for RPM. To give you an idea of its combustion efficiency, full spark advance is only 26 degrees. I am confident about the validity of the power figures, because the same dyno had a Hart 420 R at 295 hp (Toleman spec), and a best-of-everything BDG (large valves; increased compression for American fuel; Lucas injection) at 290. My development engine uses the same cams: EA1, BD4, and a completely standard BDG bottom end right down to the pan. Interestingly, some stock K20s have the same duration as, but .030" more lift than, an EA1 cam when the V-tec is engaged.
There was a brief period a few years ago when my engine would have been legal as a 1600, but the rules got re-tightened. (I doubt this had anything to do with me; I suspect someone recognized that there was a loophole that a truck could be driven through) I tried to get people interested in it back then...along the way I realized that some of the improvements in the development motor could be adapted to a standard BDD without violating the rules in letter or spirit.
We have obviously been giving FA some heavy thinking for a number of years but the engine costs were simply prohibitive.
To me it really seems like a huge bargain that you can have the same power to weight ratio with a low cost factory supported engine program that reduces your engine costs by 50% to 70% over a 2 year time period. It seems to me that this solution will draw MANY new and ex FA competitors into FA and this has to be a great opportunity for the class to grow again.
The Honda K20 engine ran for over 5000 miles on a race simulation dyno without any work and at the end of the race simulation it made 2 more HP than at the start of the test. WOW, how would you like to have a motor that did that in your FA car?
frankly i do not care that it only turns 8000 rpm. What i care about is that it runs all season this year and next year too. Think about that.
The cost I quoted is the approx cost to run the season as an arrive & drive program, not the cost of the engine repair, which maybe I should have looked at instead since you used that number in your comparison. What I was trying to convey was the Road to Indy Series is very expensive to participate in. Atlantic's are a viable option, in my opinion, to run but can be more affordable with something like the Honda package if it can be competitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by jstowe
As for spectators, I haven't really seen many at any SCCA Pro or SCCA Club races so while I do understand what you are saying, I don't think it applies now or in the future.
I will reply in reverse order...
Back in its Cosworth BDD heyday, F/A was a feature series with a substantial dedicated following, and it occupied a niche similar to F2 in Europe during its prime era. The cars were fast, sounded great, and were technically interesting. It was the national championship class in Canada, and the formula spread around the globe, with Formula Pacific being essentially similar. It drew spectators everywhere, and on many smaller tracks Atlantics held the outright lap record. They looked like F1 cars, sounded great, and yet could be run in both club and pro events, which established a truly valuable symbiosis between the two levels: Pro cars and engines migrated into club racing at very low costs, which kept club racing fairly current with top-level equipment; at the same time, pro fields were always fully populated. Talented local drivers would fill out the field, and get experience and notice without having to fund an entire season. In the late seventies, 9,500 rpm seemed exotic, as it was only 1000 rpm less than an F1 engine. This is why the class was able to stand on its own, and draw crowds without any manufacturer support. Again, by the standards of its time, F/A were very fast, great sounding, fast turning, and impressive looking. If you want to race a slow-turner, that is specifically what F2000 is for.
How good was the BD base engine? I built my first BDD from a Cosworth kit at age 22. It carried its driver to the runoffs in his first season of National racing in an era when the class was highly populated. The next year, I built a fuel-injected BDJ FC with similar results. I am not a professional engine builder, and at the time, I had limited experience, but the point is that any decent, conscientious mechanic could produce a good, solid engine from a BD kit.
The point about the engine maintenance costs is that they don't represent a high enough percentage of an overall budget to change things much as long as you have predictable reliability, and a reasonable rebuild frequency. All of this is possible with real racing engines, because the factors that control longevity and reliability are known: mean piston speeds, rod ratios, bearing areas, valve train acceleration, etc.
The problem is the Toyota: it is not prime in any of these areas, and is in the unacceptable range its valvetrain. The 4AGE is therefore not a good example of a racing engine to make judgments from, because it is not a racing engine: it is a painfully-stretched street motor that is "living beyond its means".
To make things worse, it doesn't produce enough grunt to push today's high-downforce, big tired, large format vehicles nearly fast enough. So the 4AGE provides mediocre performance combined with expensive unreliability. No wonder people are looking for an alternative.
A real race engine should get at least 12-18 hrs between freshening, and double that between full rebuilds. The 18,000 rpm F1 engines were required do this at much higher stress levels. The BD, in either 1.6 or 2.0,liter displacement, can be brought to very good nominal values in all of the important dimensions and working relationships to achieve this reliability, and still achieve much high outputs than the 4AGE does.
All of this leads back to what the FA community wants for the class: does it want to recover it's previous standing as THE premier small-engine formula, or does it want to be another spec-feeder class? if it is the latter, it should adopt the rules for Pro Mazda, so that it could achieve some economies of scale. If it is the former, it needs to work out an intelligent, technically-informed specification to achieve its former status, and then create a transition plan to get there.
In regards to the BD Formula Atlantic, Chuck Deitrich in the 80's used to brag about how he got 1000 miles out of a rebuild. That is cost effective. And he was no slouch. Won the Sprints in 1980 with an old by normal standards motor.
[QUOTE
All of this leads back to what the FA community wants for the class: does it want to recover it's previous standing as THE premier small-engine formula, or does it want to be another spec-feeder class? if it is the latter, it should adopt the rules for Pro Mazda, so that it could achieve some economies of scale. If it is the former, it needs to work out an intelligent, technically-informed specification to achieve its former status, and then create a transition plan to get there.[/QUOTE]
I fail to see how going to the BD engine as you suggest will suddenly change FA to the premier class compared to where it currently is.
The mention about potential development of the engine sounds more and more to me like higher costs to remain competitive. I don't believe this is what FA needs however I am not a FA racer but are a potential driver and have been waiting for a few years to see how the Honda package does as engine costs are one of my main main concerns that has kept me from buying a FA car. I am sure I am not the only racer who has thought this way as well.
ten hours, or 1000 miles was a normal rebuild interval on a well built BD, if you didn't' do anything too stupid.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
One of the best known and best regarded builders of BD engines has told me that the current rebuild interval is now around 1,800 miles with great reliability.
Now I will recap the argument for the BD, or something like it...
1. To become the premier class it once was, F/A needs a performance boost with a real racing powerplant and still retain the sharp-edged qualities of a 1000 lb. (w/o driver) machine. It needs high speed, and great sound. (You doubt this? look at the reaction to the truck-like sound of current F1 cars...nobody, but nobody, likes them.) It needs to be discernibly faster and better-sounding than F/3, and feeder-series cars in order to re-engage the strong, dedicated following it once had. For ease of maintenance, packaging, and engineering issues, a four cylinder restriction makes sense. For the same reasons, normal aspiration is preferred. To get the performance where it needs to be, mid-300s would be preferred, and a minimum of 300 hp would be essential.
2. A crate engine can not possibly fulfill the above requirements, and there are other formulae that perform similar functions to the current 2300cc cars. A VdeV type K20 won't get there either. A K23 will certainly perform as well as the Duratec/MZR and could be allowed in the 016s. These cars, however, should NOT dominate the class, should stay restricted, and should not be used to hamper development of the primary F/A vehicles due to performance competitiveness reasons.
3. While the cost of maintaining a well-engineered race motor is significant, it does not make or break the total expenses of fielding a Formula Atlantic effort. The problem is that the Toyota engine used now can NEVER be a truly well engineered race motor at anything close to the power requirement, because its basic architecture is too limited: small-bore, small valve sizes, not robust enough at max power. Again, the prejudice against real race motors is a product of the unsuitability of the 4AGE, which has become unreliable at a max power that is well below what the minimum power requirement that the class needs to thrive.
4. The BD is the only homolgated engine that has the potential valve area, bore/stroke ratio, and rod ratio to get there within the current rules structure, and its architecture allows for reliability. It has enough valve area potential to just make 300 hp. from 1600cc. If it is allowed to go to 2000cc, it can become a 320-330 hp unit at no additional maintenance costs. I am not advocating that the BD become the spec engine; but, it would have already emerged as the most viable powerplant if the 014's hadn't been designed around it.
5. No new, homologate-able, road-going engines are likely to be useful for F/A: the trend is leaning heavily toward long strokes, and very-tightly packaged architecture that will not allow the modifications needed to make the power, reliability, and sound for a great stand-alone series.
6. A good formula is designed around fundamentally sound engineering principles matched to the niche that the formula is meant to occupy. I am not saying that the Mazda/Duratec-powered cars should be banned, but they were allowed in as an accommodation to their owners, who had nowhere else to go. The reliability problems that these engines went through during their abortive pro series and first years of club racing should be an object lesson to those who think that a mid-power street-based engine is the simple answer to all problems, and the original concept of Formula Atlantic (fast, lightweight, intense, sounds great) should not be held hostage by their inclusion. In fact, both the MZR/Duratec and the 4AGE are object lessons in why a sole-manufacturer-based class is such a mixed blessing.
People who want to drive an attractive wings-and-slicks class with a restricted motor already have F2000, Star Mazda, and other venues...The task at hand is to create the correct technically-informed specifications that will allow F/A to do what it does best.
"If you build it, they will come"...as long as you build it right.
My own thinking is that the right combination would be best-served as a two-liter class with the already homologated blocks and new blocks that meet current homologation standards, but with unrestricted cylinder heads, possibly with flat tappets required and maybe even a defined ramp to prevent wicked valvetrain shenanigans. The class would be restricted to 4 cylinders. There could be an RPM restriction of 11,000 RPM if desired. This would essentially duplicate F/2 during its golden era. If people are really smart about it, these would be the same requirements for two-seat P1 as well.
If the class wants to stay at 1600cc, the rev limit should be raised to 12k.
A transition plan from the current equipment would be carefully designed to keep the class enjoyable.
Should have said "The BDs, particularly in their current free bore/stroke ratio, would have emerged as the class standard if the existing chassis' had not been specifically designed around the 4AGE"
So we are talking 3 or 4 weekends & the engine needs a rebuild correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by jstowe
You make very valid points as to why this would work, I am just trying to consider cost per mile which puts Atlantic out of reach for myself where it would be possible with a different engine package.
With that said Atlantic racing isn't for everyone & as you said there are other formula's that will suit what I am looking for.
Hi John, do you know if anyone has put aBDD, or BDG a in an 014 ? I'm not familiar with the real estate of that chassis for installation...
thanks,
Bill
Me, myself and I like 5000 miles between rebuilds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bamford
I don't know of anyone converting an 014. I took a look at one at Thompson last year, and I think the side frames would have to be re-fabricated for starters.
Truth in advertising here -I have a foundry that specializes in cylinder heads and similar engineered products, and therefore have something of a vested interest in expanding my market.
The cost per-mile is high for Atlantic competitors, no question. Between tires, travelling, incidentals etc., it adds up fast. But when I look at a total season's budget for the serious competitors, the cost of maintaining an engine is not the whole story -unless you have a failure...and those are all too common. People used to run BDDs in regional racing and maintain them themselves. Even then, you could put a lot of miles on them, although you would start losing power to blow-by.
One more comment: the better the breathing architecture an engine has, the less aggressive cams have to be, and the lower the rpm needs to be for any level of specific power. This is one reason why I like purpose-designed cylinder heads.
My cost to pay for myself and my team to travel to the track are no more expensive now then it would be if I was running an Atlantic. I would need two more tires per weekend then I currently use now as we are only allowed 6 tires in the pro series we run where the FA's run 8 so not a big deal at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by jstowe
We run about 10-12 weekends per year approx which would mean 3 plus rebuilds per season. Cost of a rebuild by the builder is only a portion of the cost. I still have to pay my team the labour involved in pulling the engine and re installing. Then there is shipping costs over and above and back and forth. These are all things you need to include.
I guess I am going on a rant, sorry, it is just frustrating when I see an opportunity to be able to make FA potentially more affordable and put more butts in the cars but instead we look at options that keep the cost out of reach to someone such as myself. I don't see that helping to improve the car counts.
i ALWAYS KNEW THAT THERE WAS LOTS OF TRACK TIME AT THE PRO WEEKENDS, BUT 600 MILES A WEEKEND. HOLY MOLEY THAT'S A BUNCH.
Ummm...I think 600 miles is a little high. We try to give 3 hours of track time for each run group- quick math using 100 mph average lap is 300+ miles a weekend, not including any test days so conceivably one might get close to 500 miles in a weekend with a test day.
Road Atlanta 2.55 miles, with test day 10 sessions total. Race laps were 23 and 20 not including out lap an in laps. I can't count what everyone did in testing but if you did all sessions and ran most of the time you are pushing 500 plus miles. 400 plus for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wright
Now an engine that lasts for 1800 miles before rebuilds, I said before 3-4 weekends. If you are competitive you aren't runing a 1500-1700 mile use engine going into a weekend and expecting great results. You are already spending money to have your crew there, travel expense, tires, and so on as pointed out above so are you going into the weekend risking that you don't make it out of day one?
I still go back to what I wrote above, 3-4 weekends and you are rebuilding the engine. That's minimum 3 per year if you just do the Pro Series as you have to count that at the end of the season you are sending your engine out to be redone for the start of the season. That doesn't leave any room for test days outside the series either.
With Steve's example above, and the 1800 mile cycle, you really need multiple engines. It is not realistic to expect engine builders to turn around engines in 10 days. Perhaps occasionally, and at premium price, but not several times per season. Ideally, you have one in the car, one in the trailer, and one at your engine builders. I think 2 engines would be your minimum. A 5000 mile engine would be a much more attractive option for those trying to own just one engine, while participating in a series or quantity of events.
Disclaimer: I'm no engine builder...Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
I am doubtful that any competive engine will have a 5000 mile rebuild interval. The Honda K20 as used in the Defunct Formula Master series was around half of that.....250hp til 2009, then tweaked to 280hp.
I've been out for a while , but an 1800 mile rebuild interval on a BD type engine would be attractive to me.....much better than hoping for 1000 miles in the past, and around 600 on a top line 4age.
I don't know of anyone putting 500-600 miles on their car in a weekend. In a perfect worldly, the track time may be available on a pro weekend, but most teams are a bit conservative when making good use of available time.....on a nationals weekends, I averaged 250 miles with a test day....ymmv.
bill
Steve Bamford's comments about the costs related to rebuilding an engine (R&R, shipping, etc.) reminds me of the niceness back in the days of fully self-supported engine bays, when a motor could come out almost as fast as you could think it, and the engine was not subjected to loads that they were not designed for. Today's engine bay packaging, downforce pods, telemetry/engine management wiring, etc. have to add a bit of time to the process. Maybe we should require unstressed engines, with the engine bay designed so that a variety of motors could be installed.
It is okay to rant...isn't that what a forum is for?
I am wondering, though, if the double-race format is almost too much of a good thing, as it represents an awful lot of driving and car wear per weekend, especially for a series that is otherwise so much like club racing. From what I could see when I was at Thompson last year, the weekend somehow felt like a single, long, race event, but I was there as a spectator, not a driver. Anyway, from the comments I have been reading here, it certainly appears that a lot more miles are getting racked up now than in the old days -the cost of the current weekends has got to be very large. A 7 weekend schedule is the equivalent of 14 races, and that is more events than the Pro Atlantic series had it its heyday, when it attracted substantial crowds, serious sponsors, and even paid out something. It is hard to imagine the many drivers that also spun their own wrenches in the old days, flourishing today with the driving time and chassis miles being run now...I suspect that the wear-and-tear factors are much less for the FFs and FCs, which, after all, do not impose as much g-force on their drivers or cars as Atlantics do, nor as harshly, and certainly their maintenance costs are much lower, so the double-race weekends probably make more sense for them.
John,
All your posts are well written and make good sense as you obviously know your stuff.
One correction to your last post is the F1600 has actually now gone to one quali and a three race schedule as of this year.
The G's must be more tiring in the FA's as I already notice a difference between the F2000's and the F1600's which feels like a fairly significant difference. There are very few drivers wrenching their cars in either of these classes and I am not sure about FA's but likely even less at that level.
I just don't ride around like I would if I were in an FC or FF. Turn a ok lap in Q pull in, good enough , somewhat happy with the car during practice , good enough.
Interestingly, the "establishment"s perspective on controlling engine costs, seems to be to restrict track time. Assuming that the class will not be part of the "road to Indy" system, and the class can be a prominent part of the club racing or organized semi-pro scene, then it should connect with the junior formula classes. The cars look like a blast to drive, but must also require track time to be able to drive them well. Having tire and engine parameters that encourage "driving around" would only seem to be a good thing.