Bill,
I'm sure I'm not the on only one with a solid design in mind, the bigger question is, what price would the market bear?
Tony
Bill,
I'm sure I'm not the on only one with a solid design in mind, the bigger question is, what price would the market bear?
Tony
Originally Posted by tonyave
Correctomundo Tony.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
What is a flat bottom ground effects car? I thought "flat bottom" and "ground effects" were two different things -- it's either one or the other. I can find many references that claim flat bottoms were mandated to eliminate ground effects.
Hey Tony,
I still remember you passing me on the outside of the carousel at the Sprints...in the XFR.........the shame of it all !
Anyway, for you and Jay: we all know talk is cheap. the economy sucks, and FA's are expensive, but........
I believe a new, complete, FA would have to come to the market for less than 100k. I don't think an F3 can be properly converted for that price to FA spec. Possibly you could re-engine the car for that, if you could get approval from the CRB, per the existing line spec table.
If the car worked, probably sell 5. Not a very good volume when Ralt use to sell 30-40 new cars every year.
I'm all ears,
Bill
Ha! Flat bottoms might have been introduced to eliminate ground effects, but all they do is limit them somewhat. A modern formula car with a flat bottom, or even a stepped bottom, makes most of its downforce with the undertray.
There isn't enough of a market for Atlantic cars to support a proper clean sheet of paper design. For a company like Lola or Dallara to design a new car with a full aero development effort would cost at least $2 million, probably more. You can't design a competitive FA car without very high level CFD resources; it's not going to happen in someone's garage based on what "looks" right. Plus any new composite FA chassis has to be crash tested (I believe) which is not cheap.
I'd love to design a new Atlantic car, and Radon Sport has the capability to do it right, but I can't make a business case for it.
I agree with Bill, the best way to get new cars (and new competitors) into the class is to allow F3 cars to be competitive with existing cars with no modifications other than installing a different engine. That would require approving something like the K20 or MZR (or both) in a 240-250 hp configuration, preferably by using IIRs and controlled ECU maps. The rules seem to allow it without any sort of rules change process, but I'm not sure how existing FA competitors would feel about it.
Nathan
Also....
Signature Racing has 3 Dallara F308/9 rollers for sale @ 55,000 euro.....around $72k.
New bespoke MZR/Duratec/K20a....around $30k......plus fitment kit and mapping for sir/iir/comp limit......
North of 100k ??
Forest vs Trees
It seems we're losing our focus here.
There are plenty of FA chassis sitting around in this country. I'd say a healthy minority, maybe even a majority, of them aren't being campaigned for one reason or another.
The (stated) goal of the SCCA's engine machinations was to get more of these chassis/drivers out to the races. You know - lower engine costs, equality across the range of engine/chassis combinations, etc.
Adding an new overdog chassis/engine/aero car to this mix isn't going to encourage people to run what they have, I don't think.
Paul, you touched on the point about the number of FA's currently parked for one reason or another. We jump started the Series with a 3 weekend test to see how many people want to come out and play. If we get a reasonable response, we'll expand the calender.
I suspect the expense of the motors (except the 016 Duratech) are one of the primary reasons so many remain in garages. If we can sort through 'table E', simplify it and come up with one or more modern, long lived, competitive motors, wouldn't that make some sense?
----------
In memory of Joe Stimola and Glenn Phillips
Motor Sense.
Bob,
Yes, it would make sense. Simplifying is always better.
I'd simplify it a lot - 1600 cc only, but that's just me.
Just about all the chassis out there can run with a 1600 cc motor of some sort. The cost of converting to engine 'x', combined with the cost of engine 'x' makes the payback period for those conversions pretty long, years at least.
You mentioned the 016 Duratech as an example. Allowing that car was a big mistake. Again, just my opinion.
There certainly is no reason from a car count status to introduce new cars, we used to get 40 plus cars just in the ralt years.
As to the engines, im sure it seemed like a good idea to find less expensive engines, but unless you come up with ONE configuration and go with it you open up a can of worms in terms if figuring which config is best. Never mind the endless lobbying that ensues when trying to equalize different engines.
Everyone gets attracted to a high level class because of the way the cars perform, sound, and look. Then once they get there, they want to make it less expensive. Atlantic engines are not too expensive for the performance they put out IMO. if you think more people will do it if you change them to restricted high mileage you are wrong. Unless there is ONE obvious engine wirh a relatively low buy in. Otherwise, you will ALWAYS spend more money on constant development of the restricted engine than you ever will replacing mileaged out parts.
Tony
And another thing!
While im at it, just a quick note on the prize money, the days of prize money racing are, temporarily at least, over as far as road racing goes. Look at the ALMS payouts for 2012, you couldnt put fuel in the transporter for what first place pays these days, and if you have a factory affiliation you get zero.
Imsa lites pays......zero.
Grand Am paid 10 to 15k to win in DP when i was running my team, of couse the entry was 5000. And the test day fee....
These days we have to pay for the track time, so until you can start pulling in enough spectators to get the promotors attention, dont expect big prize money. Those days are over, at least for now.
Tony
F3 vs FA
I have often wondered what would have happened if Vicky and Carl had decided to go with F3 type chassis and the FA engine rules instead fo doing a spec. chassis to the FA rules. And they had left the class open for development. I don't think that the argument that spec cars save money is true.
The best days for prize money in road racing were the FV races in the late 60's when you could win more than a new car cost if you won either Daytona or Nassau.
Interesting about prize money. This fall I considered campaigning a car in the 2012 STARS national midget series here at Grundy Co. Speedway here in Illinois. They pay you to show up and they pay over 5 deep per event plus lots of miscellaneous contingencies. Did a test with a top level team in the series and decided that turning left got a little to monotonous for my liking (even after setting respectable times). The danger factor also struck me a little with the protection level in car and such. To bad, it would have been fun to actually race for a decent dime.
They did have a nice tire rule to save money by limiting the amount of new tire usage. That equals a pretty big line item for those interested in saving some coinage.
The reason Atlantic cars died is because there are no men anymore, wife allows the weenie husband 4 hours a weekend which equates to a round of golf then back to be hen pecked. Same thing happened to General Aviation the most prosperous years with the most disposable income was the last 15 years and people learning to fly has dramatically decreased from its peak in the height of stagflation in 1981.
Other men are living thru their sons and getting away from the wife with the guise spending time with their son.
As for 1600cc engine it is nice but do we need a rebuild every 3 race weekends can't we at least make it a season. But then again if you want to hear 12k rpm then I guess any engine will need a rebuild.
Pretty much this. And that hundred-grand doesn't even begun to address the cost of adapting the chassis and aero to the wider FA tires and more permissive aero rules.
So put your checkbooks away and buy yourself an Atlantic if you want to go FA racing. You'll be lots of time and money ahead.
Last edited by Stan Clayton; 01.02.12 at 3:26 PM. Reason: correct my speeling airers... ;^)
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
define a season charles ? If you mean around 400 miles a weekend for 7 weekend then the 2.3 in pro trim in the swift 016a will do it easily though near the end you'll need to send the ECU back to cosworth to be reset as they control the ECU mileage. The engine will go longer then they allow the ECU mileage to run. Lame but thats life right now.( I forget the mileage marker but the ECU goes into limp home mode and wont rev above something like 3k rpm) Of course that motor only fits a 016a, which will also fit you with lots of room to spare. Just get ready to spend between 80-100k depending on the package and whose car you bought. and cars are getting harder to find as a few people are hoarding them to use as track day and vintage money makers.
And frankly Ive seen results from a 016a that suggests that the SIR SCCA gave it didnt completely cut its balls off.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Runoffs 1 Gold 3 Silver 3 bronze, 8 Divisional , 6 Regional Champs , 3x Drivers of the year awards
huh.
So then, slight diversion, but the latest issue of RaceCar Engineering has an article showing that rolling wheels add downforce on "ground effect" cars. A locked wheel removes that additional downforce. So would you say that this same downforce effect from the rolling wheel exists for flat bottom cars as well?
Stan,
I think we are agreed. My adlib of 100k + was only to have a re-engined F3.....it did not touch converting it to purpose built FA spec.
Come on Dauntless !
Bill
Bob,
I hope you are correct, and agree 100% the simplifing the situation would make sense. But I am not sure that additional engine options will get those parked FA's out on the track again. I know of quite a few FA's that spend most of their time in the garage, just venturing out for the occasional vintage event or track day. I could be wrong, but I do not think that engine costs are the primary reason for this, and I do not believe that many of these car owners would spend the time and money required for an engine conversion.
The best way to get more Atlantics out is to make sure that the 1600cc cars have a level playing field, and can at least be somewhat competitive with the various Table E options. This will require SIR (or IIR) sizes that restrict power/torque to 1.6L levels, and it will also be necessary to find a way to police the current SIR rules. I do not think that SCCA has the resources to enforce the SIR rules, but perhaps your Pro Series can make it work. It will be very tough to do without control ECU's and appropriate test equipment.
I really hope that your new series is a success, and if I can get the Ralt back together I may run the Atlanta event with you. Long term I hope that you will seriously consider moving away from the SCCA engine table, and make sure that the 1.6L powered cars can remain competitive.
Is the only overdog with 1.8 liter? From reading some of the comments here on Apex, I thought the latest rule change essentially took the other options down a notch to only being options for longevity, not necessarily competitive. But I am not a FA guy, so I only know what I have read.
Is there any data out there for people to see that shows how they balanced the individual engines or even if they balanced them?
Ken
while I dont in any way agree with it there is possibly an easy solution to the engine debates. Remove the 016a with its 'pro spec' 2.3 for a second becasue w/o it this series isnt getting off the ground. The long term problem will of course to be policing what is 'pro spec' which SCCA couldnt do with the fuel injected TRD motors and in 2001 finally threw their hands up in dispair and said we give up do what you want to them but like I said deal with that at a later date. This post is about something else.
all this table E debate , in the area the series is gonna draw from, is effectively about 2 race shops at this point. Swan and Grant racing. Grant has 2 cars with 1800's and who knows how many spare motors. Not sure at this stage how many clients Swan is running with 1800's and same goes for them with the spare engine deals. Has the series called them to get * firm* " yes we are coming to all the races this year and if it works we will commit full time in 13 to the pro series" The next question is to see if they are willing to run 1600's again. If Runoofs gossip is to be believed neither really like the table E motors.
If they are willing to switch to 1600's to run the series then ban the table E motors minus the pro spec 2.3 with its SIR and heavy weight problem solved. If they say we arent really sure , waiting to see what happens then the series has a choice to make.
Of course there is still Jacek but at some point if losing 1 car gets some kind of harmony for everyone else then thats the right choice....1600 toyotas , cosworths, mazda 12a brigeport( i think it was the bridge not peripheral port), and the Swift 016a with its pro spec 2.3 and SIR. I dont like it but I bet it makes the most people happy and techs life more easy
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Kevin,
As always, you are the voice of reason. However, it may be difficult to put that genie back in the bottle. After spending much effort ($) to develop the short stroke BD with barrel throttle, EFI, active lambda, coil-on-plug.....it was rendered ineffective by table E. I licked my wounds and took my little red wagon home to see what eventually played out.
I believe more table E motor programs exist than you expect. I also believe a number of 016's are being developed to FAspec with table E compliance. I fear more than Mucha would be lost to now returning to 1600/ line spec 016 cars.
Besides, this whole food fight started over the desire for longer mileage, readily available engine alternatives....hopefully that is still an achievable goal.
Regards,
Bill
Which is exactly why canning the Table E engines makes sense. These 1800 motors aren't longer life motors. But the 016 motors are. So, do what Kevin said. The options should be bring your 1600 under the old rules or your 2.3 with whatever restrictor is found to work in the quest for parity. If people wanted a choice, they now have it with the option for a long lasting restricted 2.3.
You can't open up engine rules ranging from 1600 to 2500 with open ECU's and SIRs and hope to manage that. And it was lunacy to think the SCCA could. I can't speak for the organizers of the new FA Pro Series, but if I were running the show and looked at the current engine rules, I would laugh out loud and tell everyone to go home because there isn't enough tea in China to make me interested in managing the tech aspect. I can see the protests and fights already. Instead, I would make it open to the 1600 rules as they were before and some version of the Duratec.
P.W.
I would think that would limit your participants. My impression from the tech shed at the runoffs is that there are several table E engines out there and they are in the cars of the people running the most races. Pissing them off is unlikely to end well.
Kevin,
I am pretty sure that Polestar has a car with a 1.8L as well.
Gentlemen,
I have stayed out of this debate and let Robert Wright and Mike Eakin speak as appropriate but now feel the need to weigh in.
The market will drive the series and the rules.
Who is the market ? The current entrant base.
To that debate we intend to have town hall meetings at all three 2012 events and welcome all to participate, especially those actively involved as well as those knowledgeable individuals [you know who I mean, Kevin and Bill et al...] to help thrash out the future.
In the instance of no compromise or middle ground being found, and if the fighting, complaining, bickering, cheating and protesting gets to be to much we will simply not continue in 2013.
We don't have to do this, you know. As a business the series must be self-sustaining, just as F2000 and F1600 do. Our investment in added track time [I refer you to Tony Aves recent posts in this thread regarding the business environment we operate in] and added staffing [look for an exciting announcement momentarily] needs to be worthwhile and dealing with an uncooperative paddock is not part of that plan.
The idea is to offer the current runners a racing environment of single class races.
If it is an aggravating experience then it won't continue.
To answer one post from an outside non-Atlantic individual, purses will in no way make spending ridiculous amounts of money cost effective, the entrants will be racing for points and small returns, not huge rewards. The last Atlantic initiative to offer big purses crashed under that weight, among other factors.
If the Atlantic community supports the initiative and will work together for 2013 and beyond then we can have something pretty neat for all.
If they don't and won't, then it goes away.
As long as expectations are kept in check, let's see what and who we have this season before tearing each others heads off, and all the off season barking won't change anything anyway.
I keep going back to a Jimmy Vasser quote out of Racer a number of years ago, something to the effect that we can't really take ourselves to seriously, we are just racing cars after all.
The season really starts May 10-12 at Road Atlanta.
I've done enough engine development in my life, I have no interest in doing more. That said, I imagine some FA competitors enjoy developing engines the same way some of us enjoy developing aerodynamics or suspension. Is that so, or would everyone prefer that engines be more like a "black box" in the model of the Zetec or FIT?
Is anyone willing to disclose what the Toyota 1600 and 1800 engines are making now? And the restricted 2.3 liter in the 016? Is there a power level at which the 1600/1800 has a 2500+ mile life? (That's only half a season if the Atlantic Championship has the same track time as the F2000/F1600 series.)
Nathan
good luck getting the truth Nathan. We made 264 off Loyning dyno at the 03 runoffs with a Toyota FI 1600. Same motor won the runoffs in 10 in CSR and still made 264 off Elite dyno. the new motors are making more even still has a 1600. Had a builder quote me 270 for a 1600. Our Runoffs motor was good for 1200-1400 miles at 10,200 rpm. The 270 motor is being spun to 10,800 and I didnt ask about life.
When we ran our serious FA program we would run 10 or more races a year plus all the test days and a few private and did 3 rebuilds a year.
For the record I am 100% in favor of complete GCR motors. And unlike SCCA having the same tech staff at every race who is capable of teching the SIR's and stall test. I am just tired of all the complaining even before a single wheel has been turned.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Hey Kevin,
Maybe I missed something, but I didn't really hear any complaining.....seemed like an open discussion about potential and direction for the participants......people will always have different ideas.....that's different than complaining.
I'm out,
Bill
perhaps a poor choice of words Bill, but it seems an endless debate but people really dug in.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
I get the same numbers as Kevin...high 260's for a state-of-the-art 1600.
About 5 hp and 18 lb-ft more for the 1800 with SIR as used in the Swift 014, and one can add about 8 hp on top of that to the 1800 by "tuning the leakiness" of the Swift's long intake tract downstream of the SIR to shutdown in 4 seconds. (Anybody still wondering why the guys with 1800s ran away from the 1600s at the Runoffs?)
I brought all this up to the Advisory Committee and the CSR and pushed for a new look at the FA and CSR engine tables, but it's like pissing upwind. The FA guy on the CRB runs the 1800 FA that was on pole, and another front qualifier (also with an 1800) is on the Advisory Committee, so my reward for raising the issue was to be fired from the Committee and then told that the Club is committed to SIRs. Draw your own conclusions.
Kevin may dismiss my comments as mere complaining, but I think the engine issues go a long ways towards explaining the decline in the class' participation.
I sincerely hope Mike Rand is serious when he says they'll address performance issues quickly. If he does they can have a successful series PLUS put pressure on the Club to fix its rules and processes (as happened with the Zetec in FC, and is happening with the Fit in FF). If I was on the east coast we would run their races, but I simply can't afford the long trek.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
I'm not an FA guy although I like watching them run, but Mike seems to be doing things right. After all, this new FA Series gives everyone who owns one a place for great single class racing. I commend him for that. I'm sure its not an easy task to have so many different cars with different engines be equal in terms of performance, but over the course of the first season I'm sure they'll get it figured out. All it takes is for as many teams as possible to participate and remain patient while it all gets figured out. I hope it works out because I'm really looking forward to watching a bunch of these cars run again. Kudos Mike!
Mike G.
I dont look at it as complaining Stan but rather a flaw SCCA has that a " pro series" shouldnt have which is the ability to properly tech the cars. Even at the Runoffs with good tech people its tough to deal with cars your just seeing for the 1st time and trying to battle compeititors who have spent a season preparing for the fight. A dedicated , and informed, tech staff atleast stands half a chance at the fight. Frankly I dont know why the club got married to SIR in both FA and GT when IMO IIR work better in most cases and have the added bonus of being cheaper for the competitor. The trouble at this stage if the series was to change would be to get competitors to allow builders to use their motors as the test mules and to get the builders on the same page. As I am sure you know the 2 biggest FA builders done exactly exchange christmas cards.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
If this is true, the standard SCCA test must be changed.
Note my post on "SIR Leak Down Test". Might be a simple change to keep everybody honest.
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49781
Last edited by supersonicus; 01.03.12 at 2:49 PM.
Thankless.....
You guys have no idea how lucky you are that Mike is doing this....
We had all this same banter when we re introduced Trans Am in 09. The most vocal posters showed up seldom or not at all.
I will say, as someone heavily involved in the racing engine business and also as one who likes to develop them, STOP thinking SIRs will save you money. The only way to get longer mileage engines that are easier to tech is to open them up and then limit the rpm, which of course needs to be fool proof.
And frankly the mileage a 1600 will run if you limit them to say 9500 is IMO acceptable for a class such as this. If you cant deal with that the 2000 series might be a better fit for you.
While this can be done, it is neither simple nor compatible with open ECUs. Here is the verbiage FIA uses for this test in Formula 3:
Moreover, FIA requires the use of a spec ECU to preclude any shenanigans. I'm not suggesting a test like you propose can't be done, but abandoning SIRs in favor of a restrictor plate like that used with the Zetec in FC is a much simpler and cheaper approach that is just as effective.5.6 Vacuum tightness control of the intake system
5.6.1) Control of the intake system
With at least one valve in each cylinder shut and the engine
throttles open, the complete intake system must be capable of
sustaining a vacuum of 0.2 bar.
Alternatively, if all the valves are shut, either by removing the
camshaft(s) or following a repair carried out under the supervision
of the scrutineers, a vacuum of 0.267 bar must be sustained.
Any device used for checking the vacuum must have a maximum
nominal output of 35 litres per minute and be capable of obtaining
a vacuum of 0.734 bar to 0.867 bar for zero airflow.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
One more note on the tech issue, just do the math guys; everyone wants excellent tech inspectors, maximum track time, good prize money, and oh by the way, as little an entry fee as possible......
As a guy who is part owner of the Trans Am Race Co, my experience with this is quite accurate here, nobody can be all things to all people, the series will have to take it in baby steps. But even then, keeping the rules simple makes tech easier. (and most importantly affordable to the organizers).
In my opinion, attracting more Atlantic competitors is necessary if this new pro series (and FA in general) is going to survive. I know many racers who dream of racing Atlantics but don't think they can afford it...and engine cost is the first thing they mention. Getting the car and staff to the track, fuel, lodging, meals, maintenance, and even tires (at least the 13" bias tires) aren't significantly more expensive than F2000. There are plenty of used cars out there, many of them cheaper than a comparable F2000 car.
So...is there a way to drastically reduce engine costs, even for the 1600 engines? I know engines like the 2.3 Duratec, the 2.0 MZR and the K20 will last essentially forever at 250 hp (assuming IIRs). How much power do the 1600/1800 Toyotas make at 9500 rpm like Tony suggests above? How long would they last at 250 hp?
One of the advantages of a benevolent dictatorship like the F2000/1600/Atlantic series is that they can do what's best for the series, even if it isn't immediately popular. If there were a foolproof method (perhaps a combination of rpm limits, IIRs and control ECUs) would there be anything wrong with limiting all the engines to the same power?
I don't know about you, but I would prefer 25 Atlantic cars racing against each other at 250 hp than 12 cars with 280 hp. And, if you reduce engine cost enough, Stan could afford to pay Kevin to bring his car to the track and he and Rennie could fly out to all the races.
Nathan
Engines costs
Tony mentioned this is one of his posts: The reason that FF and FC were able to make the switch from 'expensive' engines to 'cheap' engines is that someone chose the 'cheap' engine (Fit and Zetec) and said, 'that's it'. Use our choice or run the 'expensive' engines,
That's not what we have in FA. We have essentially every possible engine in existence.
What engine can't find a home in the SCCA engine table? Which one will be the 'best'. Will the 'best' be less expensive than the 1600 engines? How will we find out except by building them ($$$) and running them.
Here's a thought. How about a claiming rule for engines?
Correct. It doesn't matter what car one races. All those "overhead items" cost the same. There are some variable costs that differ class to class, but the basics of hauling one's car and team are the same.
There is no way to drastically reduce the cost of a 250 hp 1600. If we were talking 225-ish hp that would be another thing, but that last 10% of performance costs 80% of the budget...just like in fighter planes, rocket engines, etc.So...is there a way to drastically reduce engine costs, even for the 1600 engines? I know engines like the 2.3 Duratec, the 2.0 MZR and the K20 will last essentially forever at 250 hp (assuming IIRs). How much power do the 1600/1800 Toyotas make at 9500 rpm like Tony suggests above? How long would they last at 250 hp?
The key to engine longevity is to keep its specific output to a maximum of about 125 hp/L. Ever wonder how a Zetec can run 10,000 race miles with dirt cheap internals? Its specific output is only about 80 hp/L. In contrast, a 1600 at 270 hp is getting ~170 hp/L, so its TBO is "Runoffs week".
That's why the CRB listed the <10:1 2.0L and <9:1 2.5L options several years ago. The 2.0L hit the nail on the head, but the 2.5L option overshot the mark a bit, and in their panic the CRB threw the baby out with the bathwater. The new Honda K20 is a bit over 10:1, but HPD have held it to 250 hp with a spec intake and ECU, so I think it would make a great addition to the class.
I'm confident all three of us would be happy with such an arrangement.And, if you reduce engine cost enough, Stan could afford to pay Kevin to bring his car to the track and he and Rennie could fly out to all the races.Nathan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
I would hate to pay for it, but knowing that the top 1600s make 270 hp makes me want one even more.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote