Formula D

In another thread, Matt Conrad asked me a question about m/c engines in FF. To avoid hijacking that thread I'm starting this new thread instead.

Matt, the discussion here and the feedback SCCA got from FF racers was solidly against ANY alternate engines in FF. Realistically, my impression is that any plan to bring in a F-600 class would have to be part of a comprehensive plan for a new entry level wingless formula class. "Formula D", if you will, with more engine options, an SIR, updated gearbox and brake rules, wheel sizes, etc.

Feel free to discuss it here. :D

Stan

It would of been nice if FD could of been modularly updated to FB, when the driver and budget dictated. Shared tooling cost would of been a benifit. Commonality of parts would of been another. You got to be make sure you don't already divide a fragmented series of classes. Car would have to be priced low enough to truly be entry level, while also maintaining enough pricing distance from other more expensive alternitives. That would probably dictate a $20,000 delivered car.

Personally, FD (F600) Concept is what I hoped FB (F1000) would of been.

Wither the SCAC would support it, I don't know. The SCCA is a mambership driven club, so I guess the question is will the membership at large support it. I belive I would, but only if there are defined Parameters set up front (Cost, Audiance, Saftey, Performance, Etc).

When we were constructing the F1000 car somebody brought up the question of whether the car could be configured as an F600....similar to a FF....but with a GSX-R600 MC engine. We feel it would be very easy to change in the chassis department, but we may have to adjust the aerodynamics of the bodywork some because of the lower power and lack of wings.

I did a quick calculation in my head and felt we could sell a complete turn-key car (based on the same features as the F1K.07) with a brand new zero-mile engine for around $37K. I dont know what new VD's are selling for for FF use, but I think $37K would be a good value.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

IIRC, the latest buyer's guide has a new turn-key VD FF at $42k.

I'm all for it - but believe the roller cost should be somewhere near $20-$25K. And I do believe that is possible.

Wheels UP TO 6" and 8". Same max width as F1000. Max bodywork width same as FF. Same engine rules as F1000 (except 600cc). Open Diff (someone will build a good one soon). Max weight somewhere near 900 LB with driver. No drilled axles. Cast iron brakes. Same suspension rules as F1000.

That's a start.

Since I got this particular ball rolling, I guess I could elaborate on what I can see as ONE possible outline for a hypothetical FD class. Details obviously subject to negotiation.

First, I think FF should stay separate to thrive or fade into vintage as it will. I am not too interested to choke down FD to FF's level in a misguided effort to create parity between FF and a mix of m/c and modern auto engines.

Engines: I can see an approach similar to what FC had up through the 2005 season: modern water cooled 1.6L auto engines and m/c engines up to 650cc (to include the 650cc twins), with an SIR to cap hp, plus maybe even air cooled auto engines (Formula Banshee and Formula First guys, please don't shoot me... :D). Perhaps some consideration given to limited prep versus race prepped engines. Thoughts?

Chassis: tube frame or moncoque (with a 25 lbs weight penalty as in FA). Flat bottom to leading edge of rear tires. Diffuser permitted? Max width of 'wholly-suspended bits' 95cm. Thoughts?

Brakes: ferrous or aluminum calipers and ferrous disks. 2-pot? Same piston size if 4-pot?

Trans: OEM m/c, or max 5-sp with 25 lbs for sequential. Limited-slip diff with 25 lbs?

Wheels & tires: up to 15" wheels and any DOT tire. Spec tire from SM?

Dampers: non-adjustable, or adjustable with 25 lbs.

Suspension: outboard, or inboard with 25 lbs.

Weight: 1000 lbs with max add-ons of 100 lbs.

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Clayton

First, I think FF should stay separate to thrive or fade into vintage as it will.

Thoughts?

---

There can be no question what would happen. By creating FD and keeping FF separate, the result will be the demise of FF. I don't think any of the 90's and 00's cars will be able to go to vintage. Even my 84 Citation will not be allowed due to its updated pushrod suspension. And with the new FD chassis apparently not anything like the current FF, conversion won't be possible, and thus membership will take a huge loss in their now useless equipment.

Why must SCCA officialdom continue to add classes? If you want to kill FF, go ahead and create FD. If you want to give FF a chance, then don't create FD.

Stop with the intellectual musings at membership expense.

Jim

Well if this class takes off. It seems to me with the new classes arising in the past few years that instead of FV, FF, F500, FSCCA, FC, FA we will have FST, F600, F1000, FSCCA, FA.

Can anyone coment on my theory?

I spent some time thinking and writing about this idea over the last couple years.

1: I think it should be a clean set of rules. All cars race with the same limitations. Keep the rules simple. Bike engines, and chain drive.

2: Chassis and body rules the same as FF. We have had over 30 years to thrash the rules out and most people have a good idea what they mean.

3: 6 and 8 inch wheels. Tires are the same size as FF but cheeper

4: 600 cc bike engines run per AMA stree stock rules or something like SCCA show room stock. Control the engine height so there is enough space to build good wet sump pans. No dry sump systems. You might be able to use the stock pans and exhaust systems. These engines are around 100hp. You don't need any other restrictions.

5: Restrict dampers to particular models of the various manufacturers. Allow the competitor to service them as long as standard parts are used. Let the vendors list a shock for F600

6: Open diffs are great but spools are a lot cheeper. Leave it at any diff.

7: Brakes are solid cast iron rotors. Brakes are 2 pistons per caliper. You may want to negotiate with various manufacturers for disignated calipers similar to shocks.

8: Minimum weight 900 lbs or 950 lbs depending on what looks easy for all cars to achieve. Go for 200 lbs drivers. Egos aside, that is what a lot drivers weigh dressed to drive.

9: No spec or single source items used in the cars. Try to have multiple vendors for every thing but you might eliminating the expensive options. If you want to control designs, then put the drawing for the part in the rule book and any one can produce it. You will be shocked how cheep things get that way.

10: For once talk to the vendors and get their input. You might find that they will have better solutions to controlling costs than you might think. They really know what is possible and at what price.

Building the class around FF rules will help preserve the value of FF because they can be used for conversions. The guys who want to continue in FF will benefit because there will be less pressure on the remaining stock of FF engine and transmission parts. This will help the CF guys most. The guys with modern FF have more options continue in FF or convert.

Some of the F1000 that are converted cars might work better as F600. More low cost options for people to go racing for those people.

A lot of people thought F1000 should have been an extension of FC/FF. May be we can give it a try as F600.

My bet is that it will be difficult to out perform a good FF conversion, so there will be a lot of pressure to keep the costs down. Also if the FF and F600 share a lot of the same parts, then cost to every one will be less.

There are plenty of manufacturers who can put cars on the market with very little new investment. Again this keeps the prices low. Citation, Piper, VD are in production, but Swift and others could be back in production with low initial costs.

Only problem is that every year the big 4 jap companys are making bigger and better 600cc engines. If you wanted to run at the national level you would have to get a new engine every year just to keep up. I raced bikes for a few years and that was the name of the game. If you didnt have the latest and greatest you might as well go home..................that is if you wanted to run the national scene. Otherwise I think it would be a really cool class to run and have a little brother to the F-1000 class.

Andrew

What do you think about tires, Steve?

Stan,

I hope for the sake of everyone who is a fan of grass roots open wheel racing that this discussion does not simply become another one of those ideas that gets tossed around but without anything ever coming of it. Something needs to be done and I for one hope it happens.

I am not surprised by your statement above that the comments the SCCA received from the FF drivers were solidly against any new engine rules. The present status quo rules of FF are great for everyone who already has significant money invested in their car and engine, and for the engine builders themselves---everyone already in the class is out to protect their own interests. But the current rules serve as an absolute barrier to most people who would like to get into open wheeled racing but cannot afford to do so.

I bought a formula ford last year because I always wanted one and could finally afford one. But I am 46 years old. My son, who drives the car, is 23 and an engineering graduate, yet he could never afford to buy and race the car himself. How many others like him are out there but without the financial ability to foot the bill themselves?

Formula Ford is supposed to be the entry level class for open wheel racing. There is nothing entry level about it at present. Obsolete engines that last one season and cost a fortune to rebuild; wheel sizes that require a convoluted tire design and discourage tire manufacturers from getting invvolved; the lack of a hard compound or treaded tire rule. Perhaps these rules preserve the heritage of Formula Ford, but they will inevitably lead to the continuing decline of entries until the class dies a slow death.

Formula Ford drivers have to ask themselves: do you want to keep things the way they are just for the sake of history? Or do you want to re-energize what was once the most popular open wheel class in the world?

In other places around the world, simple rules to modernize the class have led to a re-birth of Formula Ford. SCCA needs an affordable entry level open wheel class. There is no reason that Formula Ford cannot once again be that class. Motorcyle engines or a modern FI production engine would go a long way toward revitalizing Formula Ford. If FF is not to be changed, then by all means a new class, like your proposed Formula D, should be created. I agree this would lead to the end of FF, so why not change FF instead of letting it die?

Take care.

Tom

Since there would be a significant effor to cut costs here, it makes sense to have the potential manufacturers develop the initial set of rules. They know where the real costs are, and perhaps they might be able to reach a reasonable consensus. From there, I believe it should go to a set of potential SCCA FD customers. At a minimum, there has to be a feedback loop somewhere in there between the manufacturers and the potential customers.

It probably won't be called Formula D. This would lead to confusion with the formula drift series the scca sanctions.

Stan:

Tires will need some thought.

We tried spec tires in FF and that didn't work. Next we went for a tire usage rule and that did not work.

With 6 and 8 inch rims and a 900 lb car, tire wear will not be such a problem.

Until you can eliminate the advantage of a sticker set of tires, you are not going to really solve the problem.

I know that there are local tire rules that the racers swear by. But with F600 we are talking about a class that not only will serve the regional racer but will also determine a national championship.

My dream is that F6000 is the next real training ground for future drivers and as such the cars need to prepare drivers for bigger and faster cars. Better that you learn about tires, shocks and chassis setup at an entry level than to arrive at the pro levels prepared as most spec car drivers are. Racing a car that requires that you learn engineering and setup skills could be the big selling point for this class over FBMW, Barber, or any of the other spec/arive and drive series.

I have worked for 20 years as an engineer in racing series with spec tires. In all those years with different racing classes only one tire manufacturer has produced a decent (actually excellent) spec tire. Every other spec tire has been problematic and some terrible.

Nothing else has really worked, lets try the same idea with the tire manufacturers as with other manufacturers. See what they can come up with as a group. I think that as more manufacturers change over to radial type tires there is going to be a significant change in the tire situation.

Steve,

I totally agree with both of your posts. There needs to be a formula class that attracts the young drivers graduating from shifter karts. They learn race craft but need to step up to something where they can learn the tuning/development process with more knobs to turn, particularly the ones they will be adjusting in faster classes. Just without the additional issue of wings. The fact that it has a high revving engine and sequential tranny will be a real hook. If costs are contained, it could be a great entry door to the rest of the formula classes.

Hell, if costs are contained, I'll buy one too just for fun.

With everyone jumping on the Motorcycle engine is "The Answer" bandwagon maybe you should ask yourself a few questions.;)
Like someone pointed out the Big 4 make changes almost every year so how do you keep from having to buy a new engine every year to keep from being left behind?
Like most classes the guy with the fattest checkbook and Some talent will probably win.
If you want to prove yourself as a driver why not get a Formula SCCA car and see if you can be the best driver in equal equipment? AND with a reliable engine that won't be outclassed next year by the latest wizzi thing?
What makes classes like FF ,FSCCA and FC so great is the fact that the engine rules help make the driver the most important factor.
I don't have dog in this hunt but at arms length I wonder what all this hype will boil down to a few years down the road? Maybe a lot of people who end up with something less than they had hoped for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D.T. Benner

I don't have dog in this hunt but at arms length I wonder what all this hype will boil down to a few years down the road? Maybe a lot of people who end up with something less than they had hoped for?

---

Quite possibly. I think in order to keep costs in check it is imperative that there be some stability in the engine package. SIR's aren't the answer as the time spent trying to optimize everything to a new SIR is not cheap, constantly moving targets never are. Neither is a motor of the year.

I've said it on a few threads. I think the best solution to prevent the motor of the year is the motor of the half decade: every 5 years update the eligible motors to that year. In other words from 2007-2011 motors must be 2007 or prior, 2012 through 2016 motors must be 2012 or prior. At least you know you should have a stable motor package for 5 years.

You defiantly don't want to get into a situation where you need to upgrade your engine on a yearly basis to remain competitive. That negates a primary purpose of the exercises.


Let me float a couple ideas. I don't know if they are piratical, but her goes it:

Instead of going with a stressed 600CC powerplant, how about sticking with a severely restricted Mostly Stock (except for durability) 1000 CC powerplants? That makes support and parts avail easier. Also may make adaption to chassis easier. How much difference is there between cost of a 600 mill and a 1000 mill?

If there is no way to cap engine HP due to yearly MFG Evolution, is there some way of coming up with an upfront equalization rule? Something like, 110HP & Torque of XXX, car weighs 900 lbs as a baseline. Every 5 HP or XXX Torque above that warrants a Weight penalty of XXX Lbs. As an engine becomes avail, it gets tested, the weight penalty gets determined, then people can upgrade or not. If the penalty is correctly calculated, there should be no real benefit of upgrading.

I believe the keys to success are:
-- Defining the basic parameters of the class upfront
-- Understanding clearly how it fits into the FF/FC world & understanding Impact on those classes
------ This includes, cost, safety, audience, basic technology
-- The Formula is kept tight
-- Manufactures are involved in the rules design process (Always keeping an eye toward the original objectives, in particular cost containment)
-- High cost components are tightly spec'ed, with eye towards allowing for open competition on price and service life. Nothing should be sole sourced.
-- We don't get carried away with building a cutting edge car, just because we can. That is the role better left of other classes/cars.

The 600 cc bike engine is a standard racing class. Power output is about right, if we run the engine in stock form.

I don't think political limitations on power produce very good results.

The annual engine update is a problem. I think it is better to take that as a disadvantage than try to write a rule to negate the effect. The medicine may be worse than the disease.

We would not be having this discussion if we some how had figured a way to perodically update the engines in FF, FC and maybe FV.

When you can get new never run engines for less than a rebuild I am not certain where the problem is. The whole bike costs less than a FF or FC engine and FV engines are getting up there also.

I believe there are larger nuts to crack than the engine issue. I've argued this same point in FB, same logic applies to FD.

#1 Design a car that is capable of swapping engines with only new adapters. This is very easy to do and the engines are not going to dramaticly change mounting locations.

#2 Trade in your engine every year! You don't need to buy a Dean prepped engine. Stock is fine. On Ebay right now you can buy a BRAND NEW GSXR 600 (remember, and trans) for $1700.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2007-...QQcmdZViewItem

This is dirt cheap racing! Throw away the "old" 06 if you want.... or sell it for say, $500. Anyone think it won't be worth that? Now you have a new motor for $1200. If you can't afford a motor expense of $1200 a year perhaps you should not be racing or at least don't expect to be racing at the pointy end of the grid. Keep your motor for two years and have an annual expense of $600. That too much?

I don't understand why everyone keeps harping on this technology creep problem when its really not a problem after all. I outlined in another post how my FB engine cost will be about $375 a year!!


I'd say worry about rules, tires, the current FF owners, etc but the engine is not an issue as far as I can tell.

Danny Collins had a version of this "no wings" class a number of years ago that was run in the Colorado region. He was using 1000cc motors, but no wings and spool or open diff. Plus, I beleive they were using 6s and 8s. The cars seemed to be plenty fast. The main issue was reliability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Garry

There can be no question what would happen. By creating FD and keeping FF separate, the result will be the demise of FF. I don't think any of the 90's and 00's cars will be able to go to vintage. Even my 84 Citation will not be allowed due to its updated pushrod suspension. And with the new FD chassis apparently not anything like the current FF, conversion won't be possible, and thus membership will take a huge loss in their now useless equipment.

Why must SCCA officialdom continue to add classes? If you want to kill FF, go ahead and create FD. If you want to give FF a chance, then don't create FD.

Stop with the intellectual musings at membership expense.

Jim

---

I respectfully disagree, Jim. I believe that such 'intellectual musings' are a primary responsibility of the membership. Otherwise, we end up exactly where we are with regard to FF: no growth, long term decline and a blockade at the critical entry level formula position.

Many believe that the challenge for FF is that it is too expensive for its position on the ladder to remain popular and growing. The price of cost-drivers like tires, the engine and dampers is way out of proportion to what the class is supposed to represent. Yet the horse is out of the barn and there may be no getting it back in.

FC was headed down the same road until some brave souls stood up and worked hard for several years to bring the Zetec into the class. Otherwise it would be facing the same bleak future as does FF. As it is, it is too soon to break out the bubbly, but I believe FC has set itself on the road to recovery.

If the FF community does not bring itself to a consensus on a way to move forward from its present position, then the Club's leadership will eventually look elsewhere to create opportunities for growth. They did it to E-Prod with SM. They can do it to FF. It has happened many times over the years, because nobody has a guaranteed place at the banquet.

Stan

The way it's going ....["it" being that lots of people seem to have a suggestion of inventing a new car or new engine use or new class.... for the purpose that the idea will "save" open wheel racing] ........

.........the way it's going, soon enough there will be a race weekend where the entire grid of "wings & things" will be made of one car of each of these classes.

FS, FA, FC, CFC, FF, CF, FSCCA, FM old, Pro FM, F500, F600, F1000, S2, DSR, CSR, ASR, SRSCCA, FV ...wow! 18 cars and everybody goes home with a first place trophy

if the SCCA is really serious with their "if you've got a car, we've got a class for you" philosophy, it would seem to me that someday somone [or committee] will do what will save open wheel racing - which is two fold....
1. leave the curent classes alone but for minor tweaking [examples: lighten FF flywheel or new FF crank source or Alum. FC head.....and...
2. then have [and it could have been FS but a lot of specific rules were then invented] a catch-all class called FO or F? [right....F Question mark] and it's a virtually anything goes class but that class BY RULE will never be allowed to run at the RUNOFFS. ARRC could be that stage instead. People who want to build their version of the ultimate ___________ open wheel car [insert word or phrase here: cost savings..or..performance..or..equal..or..fastest in a straight line..or..best cornering..or..yes you can use unobtainium materials..or..yup, that's a Ztech with any map you want..or..this sort of wheel or tire instead of an established class rule..or..you get the picture] could go ahead and build it and run it and people could have their fun.......and stop the disintegration of open wheel racing by inventing yet another class.
The essence of F? existing is the attitude of......for you that care to have a stable future, here's the established classes, and for those of you who've just got to experiment, go ahead but you only get to do that without the SCCA inventing another class and another and another ad nauseum. Hmmmm....how about that one: FAN.....formula ad nauseum.

or at least a moratorium on new classes for say 5 years, sure technology will change so a new class should come along from time to time.......but in the mean time, F? would be the stage for the experiment to work it's bugs out

For those who don't want change and don't want to learn about setups we already have FSCCA, FM, and Spec Racer. I think those 3 classes have the spec car bunch covered.

And if those classes aren't controlled enough then you should find satisfaction in the various spec series.

This is, I think a discussion about a new entry level class. Entry level is not only for drivers but it is for mechanics, builders, designers and engineers and even car owners.

Look at all the students at engineering schools who are in Formula SAE or similar programs. F600 should be the next step. This is something that SCCA can do better than any other orginization. Decades ago SCCA produced the talent pool that populated open wheel racing in the US. F600 could lead us back to that position.

I run into people all the time in professional racing who started in the entry level classes of SCCA and other places around the world.

To those who say that we have too many classes, maybe if we get one of these classes really right then it will be obvious what classes need to be dropped. We actually have the proceedure in place. To do the run offs you have to make the numbers. To stay as a class you have to make the numbers. Get the class mix correct then this won't be an issue. Every one will gravitate to the popular classes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

Stan:

Tires will need some thought.

We tried spec tires in FF and that didn't work. Next we went for a tire usage rule and that did not work.

With 6 and 8 inch rims and a 900 lb car, tire wear will not be such a problem.

Until you can eliminate the advantage of a sticker set of tires, you are not going to really solve the problem.

I know that there are local tire rules that the racers swear by. But with F600 we are talking about a class that not only will serve the regional racer but will also determine a national championship.

My dream is that F6000 is the next real training ground for future drivers and as such the cars need to prepare drivers for bigger and faster cars. Better that you learn about tires, shocks and chassis setup at an entry level than to arrive at the pro levels prepared as most spec car drivers are. Racing a car that requires that you learn engineering and setup skills could be the big selling point for this class over FBMW, Barber, or any of the other spec/arive and drive series.

I have worked for 20 years as an engineer in racing series with spec tires. In all those years with different racing classes only one tire manufacturer has produced a decent (actually excellent) spec tire. Every other spec tire has been problematic and some terrible.

Nothing else has really worked, lets try the same idea with the tire manufacturers as with other manufacturers. See what they can come up with as a group. I think that as more manufacturers change over to radial type tires there is going to be a significant change in the tire situation.

---

Steve, I agree that the tire situation in FF is absolutely preposterous. I also believe that tires are THE KEY to cost containment in any future entry level formula class. Without effective tire limits (whether a spec tire or some other limit), we will be right back where we are with FF and FV. After all a F-600 modeled on FF rules will have an even better power to weight ratio than an FF and will be able to exploit a racing tire just as effectively, if not more so. That will inevitably result in 2-session tires for those at the pointy end, as well as drive ever more sophisticated suspensions and dampers, and hence cost. If we are truly serious about cost containment for such a class, it must begin with the tires. Three major options seem obvious: a spec very hard racing slick, a spec DoT racing radial, or non-spec IT style DoT radials.

Spec racing tire. Pick one hard enough and the first session advantage recedes to near irrelevancy. Good durability. Looks like a proper racing tire. Good training for higher racing classes. Downside? The counter argument is that the guys with the budget will still buy new tires every weekend/race/session/nanosecond/whatever to maintain their critical .2-.5 sec per lap advantage. (See the tire debates on the FF sub-forum.)

Spec DoT radial. Lots of experience here with tires that really work to level the field and are consistent right down to the chords. One obvious candidate is the Toyo Proxes RA-1. The Toyo is available in all common sizes from a variety of sources which helps keep costs down. Very good durability and consistency. Not as "good" a tire as any racing slick, I suppose, but that may be a blessing in disguise, since the tire cannot take advantage of the latest trick suspension layout or 5-way adjustable dampers.

Non-spec DoT radial. All the tire companies make these tires for IT and hence in sizes good for 6" and 8" wheels. Use the GCR tire language from IT: "Any DOT-approved tire is permitted. Racing, recapped, or regrooved tires are not allowed. Tire size is unrestricted. The only modifications allowed to tires are having treads “shaved” or “trued.”" This approach allows folks to keep their tire deals while still capping tire performance and assuring good durability. The tire companies would like it and this approach might be the most palatable to the competitors, as well.

FWIW, Steve, I also agree that the pro series have generally done a poor job of speccing a tire. But their motivations and priorities are different to ours, and should not hold us back from finding a solution that works for us.

Stan

Formula car racing in the SCCA is in decline. I suspect that F1000 will be a very important class to those of us who want to race formula cars. I also think that our class structure is way too fragmented & that we need to increase class specific competition.

The entire issue is tremendously complex but I think that there is lots of potential for improvement.

Let's think about the VERY BIG picture of Formula car racing in the US right now, what is it & what should it be.

Currently we have the following classes, arranged from slowest to fastest.

Fvee
F500
FFord
FMazda
FCont
F1000 (my estimate or where it ranks)
FAtlantic

This is 7 SCCA National classes & IMHO is way to many to allow for large class counts.

I suspect that we really need about 4 classes & they should be related to both speed & cost with the slowest class being the lowest cost. Right away we have a serious problem in that FVee whis is the slowest class by far but is very expensive to run at the pointy end of the field due to engine costs.

F500 is a very low cost class that costs about 1/2 what a Vee costs to race & is approximately 10 seconds a lap faster than Vee & the same lap times as a FFord.

I am not trying to promote F500 as the low cost class as I think F500 is going to go away due to it's very limited market appeal & to certain rules issues.

My suggestion is that we have preferably 4 to a max of 5 classes & the classes would be structured as follows:
(forget about the names)

1. FVee
2. FFord lap time class
3. F1000
4. FAtlantic

A nice simplification but very tough to achieve but there are ways. I suggest that we combine (let the screaming start now) the following classes:

1. FVee with some rules changes to lower the costs to compete

2. The FFord lap time class would be comprised of the following:
F500 (allow shocks & springs)
FFord (same rules or slight mods to reduce costs)
F600 (rules TBD)

3. F1000 classes
FCont (current rules with minor modifications as needed)
FMazda (same rules)
F1000 (current rules)

4. FAtlantic (current rules with efforts to increase car counts)

It is my opinion that we need to combine classes to increase class car counts & competition. We need to do EVERYTHING we can to make more sense of the Formula classes.

I think F600 makes a lot of sense except for 1 thing & that is that under the proposed rules the cars will not be fast enough to keep up with the current top FFords & the top F500s.

As some of you may know I have been building & racing F500s for a long time & I have seen the class change over the years to a class that can run with the best of the FFords. The current top F500s make a bit less than 100 hp & weigh 800 lbs. Take a look at these numbers (correct me if some number are wrong):

FFord: 120 hp & 100 ft-lbs torque @ 1000 lbs total weight = 8.3 lb/hp or 4.5 lb/hp+tq
F500: 98 hp & 66 ft-lbs torque @ 800 lbs total weight = 8.2 lb/hp or 4.9 lb/hp+tq
F600: 105 hp & 45 ft-lbs torque @ 900 lbs total weight = 8.6 lb/hp or 6 lb/hp+tq.

Now maybe my numbers are not quite right but they are pretty close. This clearly indicates to me that F600 as currently considered will be at least 1 second a lap slower than the best FFords or F500s. For the class to succeed they MUST be just as fast as the current lower cost Formula cars.

Please consider all of my comments as thought starters only. They are not intended to be anything else.

It is SURPREMELY IMPORTANT that we make certain that we do NOT DIS-ENFRANCHISE all of our current racers. I suspect that if a new class was created that was just as fast as FFord & F500, at similar costs, that within 5 or 6 years FFord & F500 would still be there but their numbers would be dominated by entries of the newer class.

Again, IMHO the concept of F600 is a great idea that needs a bit of fine tuning.

I am sure there are many out there with plenty to say about this subject.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

Actually, Scott Hanba, an engineer and member of the FF Ad Hoc Committee, did a comprehensive engineering study last year of a Kent FF versus the same chassis with a Honda CBR600RR, and the CBR has a distinct advantage. Here is the performance summary table and Scott's thoughts.

http://home.earthlink.net/%7Erps1976...20CBR600RR.GIF

Summary
• CBR600RR Engine with 1000 lb weight spec will highly outperform the Kent powertrain
• Need to look at Road America (or similar) gearing to capture 140 mph speed range
• Possibilities for equalization include mandating sprocket ratios and SIR
• Kent will likely always be at a disadvantage at race starts

We used dyno sheets from a competitive FF engine and the SportRider dyno sheets for the Honda.

Stan

By trying to reduce the number of National formula car classes would we put Formula SCCA cars and FC cars in with F1000? As they are supposed to be faster than an FC or FSCCA car will we see restrictions put on the F1000 cars to try to give the other two groups a chance? Boy would they cry over that idea!;)

Jay, I agree with you that long-term we need to have class consolidation in the formula ranks. Last August I wrote the following plan for consolidation which was briefed to the BoD. They chose not to implement the plan at that time, but I am sure we are all aware of the line from the "FE" press release where the BoD urged future consolidation of classes.

Here's what the proposed new structure looks like…

-- Formula A, based on the present Formula Atlantic class.

--- Common features include advanced performance and safety technologies such as composite tubs, large wings, full tunnels and wide, sticky tires to maximize performance.

--- The performance envelope is potentially the highest in SCCA, with a target horsepower of 250-275 hp from a wide variety of engine options, including GT-3 and large displacement motorcycle engines, in addition to traditional high-revving, small-displacement auto-based Atlantic engines.

-- Formula B, based on the consolidation of Formula Mazda with some of the lower-spec current Atlantic cars, such as F-SCCA, F-3, Fran-Am, and FA-Zetec, as well as the proposed F-1000 class.

--- Tube frame or composite chassis, smaller wings and tires than in FA, and flat bottoms with restricted diffusers in place of full tunnels.

--- Somewhat lower performance potential than FA, with 170-180 hp from a wide variety of restricted rotary and piston engine options. Emphasis would be on lower engine cost via restricted engine development and long engine service life.

-- Formula C, based on current Formula Continental cars.

--- Features based on current FC rule set, with emphasis on maintaining the lowest practical cost for a winged formula car. Consideration could be given to imposing competition adjustments for performance enhancing features which raise the cost of competition.

--- Performance potential based on current Pinto-powered FC cars with 140-145 hp. Engine options would modified as needed to keep pace with Pro-FF2000 developments, such as has been done with the FC-Zetec. As with the Zetec, the idea would be to attract new cars through the continuation of the trickle-down of ex-Pro cars to club racing. It also retains the value of Pinto-powered cars for vintage racing by not forcing them to lose their value through mandated engine updates.

-- Formula D, based on consolidation of the present Formula Ford and Formula 500 classes, with options for alternate-spec new cars to assure the continued viability of the class in future.

--- Feature set emphasizing lowest practical cost with tube frame chassis, no wings, and severely restricted aero treatment. Consideration could be given to requiring a long lived spec tire.

--- Performance envelope defined by relatively low power to weight ratio and lower grip tires. Current FF Kent engine would define performance potential for the foreseeable future.

--- New cars and engines conforming to the feature set and performance potential would be welcome. Anticipated additions include new or older cars converted to restricted modern multi-valve EFI engines for lower engine acquisition cost, longer engine service life, greater fuel economy and lower maintenance. The Formula Ford Ad Hoc Committee recently advanced a proposal to add 2 modern 4-valve EFI engine options to FF, along with a small displacement motorcycle engine option. These additions would be identified as sub-classes within “FD”, much as the VW and m/c options were in FC through the 2005 season. This would help retain the value of traditional FF cars with their Kent engines for vintage use, while encouraging the introduction of cost-saving technologies to the class.

-- Formula Vee would remain in its present configuration. Even though the cars are based on the long out of production era of air cooled VW engines, the class still enjoys strong participation and competitors have readily adopted aftermarket sources for hard to obtain or out of production OEM parts.

As long as "adjustments" can be made to try to "equalize" the different cars within a "Class" like FB. Maybe the required data boxes could be used more often than just the runoffs?
I can see that cars in FB like the FSCCA and FA/Zetec would have similar horsepower but a large weight difference from an F1000 car. Would adjustments be made by adding weight to the F1000? If you get involved with this Stan you will have created a life time job in your retirment years!;)

Disagree with that track. It's Big Brother black helicopter socialism and does not belong here. There seems to be enough difficulty in trying to gain parity between the Pinto and Zetec, so how in blazes can "parity" be created amongst all those cars in each group? It would require more of those Black Data Boxes and much more administrative burden from Big Brother trying to put His solution on everybody else. All it does is add to increased justification for Big Brother's existence and more cost.

The solution is to let Darwin and natural selection take its due course. The BOD has put a limit on the number of Runoffs classes, and that type of rationing will create a natural solution.

Stan's slides are nice, but they are really one dimensional. There needs to be some graphs showing some possible correlations between numbers of entries and other variables to help determine WHY the drop is occurring (rather than everyone's opinion). Perhaps one to try would be number of new cars built in each class per year vs. entries - possibly in groups of 2-3 years (a lag between cars built one year and entries the following year). Perhaps natural selection is already taking its course - evidenced by the limited FC and FF numbers. Anything Big Brother tries to do to alter that natural course will ultimately fail.

But this thread is not directly about the Formula car groupings (why do we need X groupings anyway?), but about FD. What is still missing is what Steve Lathrop says - low cost cars in a stepping stone for development. FF is long way past that, and any spec class won't do it either. Create an F600 and let FF, FC, F_Whatever find its own Darwin path.

I am really glad to see that there appears to be some real interest in class consolidation. I think it is imperative that we persue this issue. As long as there is an opportunity to equalize cars so that existing cars can continue to race we will be OK.

My only comment is that 3 winged classes may be too much. Perhaps it would be easy enough to allow Zetec Continentals to run in the "FB" class with F1000. Additionally current Pinto engined cars could easily upgrade to Zetec engines as their engines need replacement or rebuild. My understanding is that the Zetec will make 170 very reliable & low cost HP.

I would be really surprised if a 105hp to 110hp 600cc engine will keep up with current FFords at 1000 lbs all up race weight. However there is certainly nothing wrong with trying as long as the opportunity exists to make adjustments. It should be fairly easy to convert an FFord to a 600cc bike engine & make 900 lbs.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

I guess I don't see this "real interest in consolidation" that you mentioned. The only time a class is interested in having different types of cars included is when they are included at a significant disadvantage. The FF guys weren't interested in having bike engines. THe FC guys have Zetec now, but the Zetec is still at a disadvantage based on what I have read and there is discussion on this board about the distrust in the process to attempt to equalize. FA let other cars in but they are all at a disadvantage to the classic FA.

For example, I was at the National at MSR Houston today and there were two Swift 008s and 6 or 7 Pro FMs. With the exception of one very good driver that hung in there like a trooper, there was no comparison. They didn't have a chance.

So, it would be interesting to see the process to try to consolidate. Lets take the example of FB/FC consolidation. Who would given the advantage? Give it to the new class on the block. That wouldnt be fair. Give it to the existing structure that has been around for a while but seems to be in decine? That would likely kill the class that is very likely to grow rapidly and help the formula ranks.

How about let the existing process, that was just created by letting the consumers decide just like Rob has mentioned, run its course. Let it work for a few years before we meddle with it. If the FF guys dont want bike engines, then fine, let them be and meet the number requirements on their own merit. Similarly with every other class. What's the rush?

Ken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay N

I would be really surprised if a 105hp to 110hp 600cc engine will keep up with current FFords at 1000 lbs all up race weight. However there is certainly nothing wrong with trying as long as the opportunity exists to make adjustments. It should be fairly easy to convert an FFord to a 600cc bike engine & make 900 lbs.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

---

The newest 600cc m/c engines make about 108 hp at the wheel, so it is probably safe to say that their power at the countershaft is on the order of 115 hp, which is almost exactly what we see from a fresh Kent engine on the dyno. The Kent's peak torque of 110 lbs-ft is better than the 45 or so lbs-ft from a m/c engine. That's 110/45=2.44 times that of the m/c, but the new m/c engines' red line of ~16,500 RPM yields a ratio of 16,500/6800=2.43, so their net power to the ground is almost exactly equal. However, since the new FB cars are coming it at less then 800 lbs dry, it is safe to say that a wingless F600 will weigh about 750...call it 950 as raced with a 200 lbs pilot. (Thanks to Steve Lathrop for that suggestion!)

So where are we? Think about it...the latest F500s can run heads-up with the best FFs. They are down 15+ hp from FFs, and they have crap suspensions in comparison, but because of their light weight they are just as fast. MASS is the great enemy of efficiency! And because an F600 would not have the wings (~25 lbs in my experience), and a 600cc motor is ~20 lbs lighter than a liter motor, a realistic weight of 950 is doable without any exotic measures. So, it is 150 lbs lighter and has the same net power. Ipso facto, it would be quicker, if not faster.

Besides, if folks were excited by the Stohr FB at Roebling Road going by at 12,700 RPM, what will they think of an FD going by at 16,000+ RPM? :p

Stan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VehDyn

For example, I was at the National at MSR Houston today and there were two Swift 008s and 6 or 7 Pro FMs. With the exception of one very good driver that hung in there like a trooper, there was no comparison. They didn't have a chance.

---

They didn't stand a chance because of the configuration that Star Mazda chose for the class, Ken, not due to any decision on our part to hold them back. FWIW, the CRB will be coming out with a generic Renesis spec line for FA and CSR that puts them on equal footing with the best 1600cc auto engines. And the Zetec will be on equal footing from this July.

We are working our way to being able to bring new cars/engines into existing classes without having to do the parity dance. The GT classes are furthest ahead, but the others will catch up.

Stan

Stan;

I hate to think that we can not come up with a better idea to control tire costs than the old bromide of "spec. tires". I will accept that maybe there is no other solution, but I think we should try hard to find some other way.

Because F600 will have to be on the track with FF and FC, in the interest of safety and good racing experience, the F600 should corner on a par with the other cars on the track. As such F600 should not be on DOT tires or super hard racing slicks.

Most of pro series limit the number of tires you can use. I think that the pro F2000 limit is one set.

If you just implimented a one set only rule, then you have increased tire life by one third.

Your 2 session tire situation is more a reflection of the people you are listening to than the true performance of the tires. The experience of my drivers at the pointy end of the competition is that tires can go 2 weekends and some time more. Because there is no on track penality to abusing tires and because it is easier to put a new set of tires on than learn to get a good setup on the car and learn to drive with that setup, people will continue to use a new set of each race weekend.

My thought is to:
1. All tires are marked prior to the first practice session
2. Have a limit of one set of sticker tires per weekend.
3. Have a time penality of 1% for each sticker tire used in qualifying (if you qualify on stickers you have a 4% time penality)
4. Have a 1.5% time penality for each sticker tire you start a race with. The time penality is added to you qualifying time and you are regridded accordingly.
5. Tires that have more than one race stamp may be used without limit.

Some program like this would put a premium on making tires last at least 2 weekends. You might be able to construct a scenario that favors 3 weekend tires.

People say they want tires that last, then make tire longevity a part of winning.

The tire testing I have done, has shown me that the current selection of tires will give a good 100 miles. Interestingly we have had the best performance over the full 100 miles with some of the softer compounds. But those soft compounds tires had many heat cycles. I am certain I can find tires that will do better if that is part of winning.

Lets get the tire companies in on this section of the rules.

I would hope that F600 would not be a "spec car" in any way. We already have Spec. Racer for those who want that type racing at this level. F1 used a longevity rule to control tires, maybe we can do something similar with F600.

I think Stan is on the right track, 100%, with the proposed A,B,C D classes as long as we manage to tweak rules so everyone has a fighting chance.

This is what is needed to keep formula car racing alive and well in SCCA.

Let's move on with it.

A great idea Steve.

In F500 we typically get 2 full race weekends on a set of tires & we run right at the front every race weekend. So it can be done.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

Just from my past experience.

In FM we used a tire rule that said race what you qualified on. This did cut cost by limiting the the sets you needed for the weekend but it also cut track time. I would offend put down a fast lap in the am and sit out the second session to avoid the extra laps on the tires.

Something like FD would be entry level for open wheel, I would not want to see a rule that could potentially limit ones track time. Its already too short in scca racing.

I don't know the reason, But the Hankook Radial tire we used last year in F-2000 was the only tire I have every raced on when a sticker tire did not have an advantage. You could run all weekend with one set. Looking at the data, the cornering speeds are very close to the GY & others. The overall lap time is slower but it saves a ton of money.

Rob Nicholas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

Stan;

I hate to think that we can not come up with a better idea to control tire costs than the old bromide of "spec. tires". I will accept that maybe there is no other solution, but I think we should try hard to find some other way.

---

I am open to ideas, but I think that getting tire costs under control is a big key to the success of an entry level class.

Quote:

---

Because F600 will have to be on the track with FF and FC, in the interest of safety and good racing experience, the F600 should corner on a par with the other cars on the track. As such F600 should not be on DOT tires or super hard racing slicks.

---

FC, FF and CFF all run together now anyway, and the drivers have to account for differing cornering speeds, so I think this concern may be overstated.

Quote:

---

Most of pro series limit the number of tires you can use. I think that the pro F2000 limit is one set.

If you just implimented a one set only rule, then you have increased tire life by one third.

Your 2 session tire situation is more a reflection of the people you are listening to than the true performance of the tires. The experience of my drivers at the pointy end of the competition is that tires can go 2 weekends and some time more. Because there is no on track penality to abusing tires and because it is easier to put a new set of tires on than learn to get a good setup on the car and learn to drive with that setup, people will continue to use a new set of each race weekend.

My thought is to:
1. All tires are marked prior to the first practice session
2. Have a limit of one set of sticker tires per weekend.
3. Have a time penality of 1% for each sticker tire used in qualifying (if you qualify on stickers you have a 4% time penality)
4. Have a 1.5% time penality for each sticker tire you start a race with. The time penality is added to you qualifying time and you are regridded accordingly.
5. Tires that have more than one race stamp may be used without limit.

---

FM has a "race what you qualified on" tire rule, and we almost had to abandon the rule this year because the grid workers could/would not reliably mark tires. As a consequence, the rule is on "probation" this year while we try to get Regions to enforce it, but the bottom line is that in the chaos that is Club racing, enforcing such a rule has been problematical.

Quote:

---

Some program like this would put a premium on making tires last at least 2 weekends. You might be able to construct a scenario that favors 3 weekend tires.

People say they want tires that last, then make tire longevity a part of winning.

The tire testing I have done, has shown me that the current selection of tires will give a good 100 miles. Interestingly we have had the best performance over the full 100 miles with some of the softer compounds. But those soft compounds tires had many heat cycles. I am certain I can find tires that will do better if that is part of winning.

---

100 miles? That is barely more than one National race (45 mile race plus practice and qualifying), or $600 per race in tire costs alone, which I think is inappropriate for an entry level class. Even if the tires go twice that far, it still strikes me as violating the basic premise of a truly cost-effective class.

Quote:

---

Lets get the tire companies in on this section of the rules.

---

During the discussion last year about a tire rule for FF I spoke with reps from GY and Hoosier for their input. Both companies want wide-open tire rules. Period. Dot. End of discussion. Where the Club forces them to compete (SRF and SM), they will, but they don't like all-or-nothing propositions. I don't think they cared what tire type (racing or DoT) was permitted for any particular class, but they DEFINITELY wanted the opportunity to compete for sales in the class. That is why I commented as I did in the third choice in post #26 above.

Quote:

---

I would hope that F600 would not be a "spec car" in any way. We already have Spec. Racer for those who want that type racing at this level. F1 used a longevity rule to control tires, maybe we can do something similar with F600.

---

Please believe me when I say that I am not interested in another spec formula class. That said, I think that an effective tire strategy is key to a truly cost effective entry level class (whether F600 or the more inclusive FD concept). Permit a state-of-the-art racing tire, no matter the steps taken to prolong their lives, and we are right back in the technology wars that have driven FF to the state it is in today.

I think in other than a spec class, tires need to be free.

The other way to look at it is that I often run my older set of tires for practice and qualifying and save the newest for the race. So a rule stating only one set may be used for the weekend would force me to run all weekend on my "good" set, which is contrary to the whole idea of containing cost.

Did any of you know that Hankooks DOT Radial Race Tire for SS/Touring cars and their regular Slick road race tires have the same compounds?

That's right! What you have is one tire with DOT ratings and two grooves of "tread" available in X, Y and Z compounds, with another tire without the DOT rating and no grooves with the exact same X, Y and Z compounds.

What's this mean? DOT radial race tires and what we call slick can be the same tire. I do not know if the Hankook's mentioned above are the same construction or even the same carcas with different caps. I can find out if anyone is interested.

I'm not sold on this bike motor thing yet. Here are my questions:
What is the reason for going to bike power? I mean the real reason, not some cost saving BS. Sure, not having to buy a gearbox eliminates "X" cost, but isn't the same $$ going back into the trick diff carrier/rear subframe piece (ala Stohr)?

From what I see from DSR and from old friends that race in 600 SuperSport they go through more engines than I've ever personally gone through in any of my FF's. Sure, a stock 1000 is cheaper, but if it blows up three times a year or I have to upgrade every season where is the savings? So instead of giving $$ to my engine builder I spend it in time changing motors?

The biggest problem I see is this: Bike manufacturers will never care about our use of their hardware in a car. It won't help them sell a bike, ever.
For how many years did Ford have an interest in FF? 10? 15? That's better than nothing.

Is all this answering the question no one has asked? Until open wheel racing fixes itself at the top we at the bottom are screwed. No path, no possible opportunity, no nuthin.

You want to grow an open wheel class with buy in under $25,000?
Here is how:
1. Build it in China/Korea/India/etc Sorry, but the facts are the facts, cheap labor rules.
2. Build a marketing plan that ties a manufacturers involvement to new car sales. Someone out there wants to build their image through racing, and the tie in at the grassroots level can be made.
3. As much as we hate "Spec" things, certain items just make sense. Tires could be one. I like Steve's idea of "X" number of shock suppliers, using a base model rebuildable shock. Follow that idea for other cost control measure.
4. Rebuild the model that FF represented in the early days. What was that? That anything was possible! That winning could/would/should lead to an OPPORTUNITY. Ok, so include FC, F1000 etc. I don't care, as it's all about bringing back the possibility of opportunity. Yes, I know it was about the $$ then just as it is now, but we still need to help open the F**KING door.
5. Finally, clone ourselves so we can go back in time and have a go at this as young guns one more time! :D

The last statement is most telling, as the past is just that. Past. Gone. Over. Most of what we are trying to do is recreate the past, as I just did above.

We all have good intentions by our thoughts and ramblings, but like most of you I ain't buying a new car. Can't afford it. Don't have any interest in it. I'm happy with what I've got and I'm enjoying the level of commitment I can give.

Until we can get new players to devote themselves to open wheel road racing like we did when we were young none of this matters.

Sorry to be such a downer, but it's just how I see it. You may not, and frankly that's good!

Yes, my statement on "intellectual musings" was incorrect. It is necessary. I was pissed that there is consideration being given to making a set of rules that would render the current FF obsolete and thus valueless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

To those who say that we have too many classes, maybe if we get one of these classes really right then it will be obvious what classes need to be dropped. We actually have the proceedure in place. To do the run offs you have to make the numbers. To stay as a class you have to make the numbers. Get the class mix correct then this won't be an issue. Every one will gravitate to the popular classes.

---

Yes, the procedure is great. But in addition to that "survival of the fittest" procedure, the leadership in this organization must stop flooding the market with new classes with no apparent long term consideration, no vision. Right now it is more of a "Here, have a class, any class. Here's another. Want some more?" Sort of like tobacco companies in the 50s and 60s handing out free packs of cigs at every turn.

Rather than doing this in an uncoordinated fashion, there should be a moratorium on new classes (that goes for tin tops also), and a multi year, in depth analysis of all issues. And when the analysis is finished (and that includes alot of member input), then the BOD must have the courage to eliminate some classes (and consolidate a whole bunch of tin top classes). But it doesn't seem likely that an SCCA BOD could bring themselves to do this.

FD might be just fine, but my fear is it will get pushed into being a national class too soon, with not enough consideration of all issues. And the biggest of those issues is that any new FD class must have chassis rules that allow conversions of current FF chassis to be equal in performance potential to the new cars. As Steve wrote, start with the current FF chassis rules. And it would be fine to place some limit on dampers. Perhaps a rule could be written that limits shocks to 2 way adjustable only. [Edit: and using the current wt, minus whatever wt would be saved by the MC engine and lack of Hewland, would be necessary if we want conversions to be feasible.]

If current FF owners only had to purchase new wheels and perhaps shocks (depending on what they currently run), along with the engine change, it might work. We could use the engines as sculptures or something.

Jim

My only comment is that you should ask all the Spec Miata guys how cheaply that could get engines BEFORE it became a national class. Ask them what a national motor costs now.

Stan,

I agree that tires should be a major concern when attempting to contain costs. Along that line of thinking I don't believe an IT class like tire rule is the answer. Those tires are every bit as expensive as a slick and wear can be very similar. Sure, there are DOT tires used in IT racing like the V700 Kumho or Toyo RA-1 that last many, many cycles, but there are also tires like the Hoosier and V710 Kumho that don't. The hoosiers will run north of $600 a set and will be good for one race weekend.

I believe a really hard slick is the answer or a true treaded tire with a minimum tread depth and durometer reading.

Jay used a FF racing weight (car plus driver) of 1000 lbs. Is this a proposal (or did I miss something) since the current car plus driver min for an uprated engine is 1100 lbs.

Also, is part of the performance of a FF dependent on have the "right" ratio spread in a relatively torquey engine. If so, how will the 600 cc bike engines with what I assume are fixed ratios (except for final drive) fair on many tracks?

Dick (who has no idea what it would take to get my car and me down to 1000 lbs and I only weigh about 155)
85 VD FF 1600

I've been wondering for some time how inexpensive an entry level "real" formula car can be made, and here is what I have found.

The Banshee BTF 1600 sells for $12,995, and is built at Summit Point, WV.

http://www.frcca.com/images/FRCCA/banshee3.jpg

The Banshee may not represent the latest style, and it has an aircooled VW engine, but the design does give us an idea of what cost a minimalist car can be built to. The engine and trans are probably a wash, cost wise, with a late-model 600cc m/c engine and spool, and you'd need to provide for engine cooling, but I don't see any reason an attractive, quality turn-key entry level car can't be built and sold for under $25,000. Perhaps quite a bit under that figure.

BTW, I have a sales brochure for the Banshee with several more photos, but I haven't found any additional photos of them on the web. From the photos I have the car appears similar to late 70's FFs. Simple, straight forward and inexpensive. Interesting concept.

Stan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick R.

Jay used a FF racing weight (car plus driver) of 1000 lbs. Is this a proposal (or did I miss something) since the current car plus driver min for an uprated engine is 1100 lbs.

Also, is part of the performance of a FF dependent on have the "right" ratio spread in a relatively torquey engine. If so, how will the 600 cc bike engines with what I assume are fixed ratios (except for final drive) fair on many tracks?

Dick (who has no idea what it would take to get my car and me down to 1000 lbs and I only weigh about 155)
85 VD FF 1600

---

He's assuming the bike engine/trans would be ~100-lb lighter than the current FF engine.

I just got off the phone with a Z10 customer who says that in his region, many Club Ford drivers and putting new tires on every weekend.

If that is fairly common, then what is the case for a spec tire anyway?