Click on the paragraphs...Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
...or go here:
https://www.palatov.com/shop/suspens...ular-uprights/
https://www.palatov.com/shop/suspens...-uprights-gtx/
I stumbled on this guys personal design site years ago, and he's really made a go of it.
http://www.dpcars.net/
Honda engines
Stan, do you think that Honda is still willing to supply crate engines?
Which model-year engine would they supply?
Do you think they would still want $7500 for one?
What will be the electronic/ECU challenges with the Honda engine?
Thanks Alan. This forum has so little contrast in the print I cannot see links unless they're underlined. I should have moused over them.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
With 140 HP and 80 ft-lbs in a 950-lb car, you'd get acceleration similar to an FC. But without wings, so slower in the corners.
Why not build in an upgrade path, starting with a non-winged car with FF lap-times (115 HP, 80 ft-lbs) and allowing an upgrade to a car with FC lap-times (140 HP, 80 ft-lbs) by adding wings and inserting a larger restrictor?
Greg
I want to add a cautionary note here about doing a deal with any OEM engine supplier.
1. They will want an exclusive deal...no deciding you want an engine from X if Y has the contract.
2. They will want to upgrade at their convenience, not yours.
3. The cost will likely be 3X what you would pay for a good used engine.
Etc.
This made sense for FF because Ford had told SCCA to go pound sand, and we needed help RIGHT NOW. I'm not convinced it makes sense for FJ, UNLESS there is a consensus that a single engine choice is what folks want.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
I agree--it's better not to be dependent on a single supplier, unless we got some sort of amazing deal. I'd rather see several engines allowed.
The question is how to equalize them. Apparently, simply using the same size restrictor won't do it.
Regarding the ECU, there's a discussion here. Gary Hickman said that turning off the gyro sensors and speed sensors is a problem. David Ferguson offered a MoTeC system, but it was $3340 including his MC firmware. jchracer suggested Pro-EFI in Arizona, although I don't see support for MC engines. Steve said that Honda makes a racing version of their ECU.
Other ideas for an ECU?
I think we should use the same engine, just with a rolling year model update every x number of years. Let’s not get into the nightmare of engine parity between makes. When I raced in FHonda in the U.K. you could run any cbr 600 up to the FW model. This was opened up after a couple of years to the next model in the line up.
Why not? Because I do not believe we can get two classes. One will be well nigh impossible. Two simply isn't going to happen.
Remember, this idea was first seriously floated a DOZEN years ago, when it was proposed to allow m/c powered cars in FF. The proposal was rejected after the FF community threatened revolt. The notion is no more popular today, because the Fit fixed the problem.
There has to be a rational opening for the class. FB was approved because it fit nicely between FC and FA. F5 was originally between FV and FF, but sped up over the years. There is an opening between FF and FC, but IMO FJ will have to be clearly faster than FF, and slower than FC to have a prayer of getting approved. If it's only FF-fast, people will shrug and say we already have FF. Too fast and they will say we already have FC/E/M.
It's like getting tax reform done, you have to please too many constituencies on the one hand, and run the risk of pissing off too many on the other.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Alan, my target was $500 for the wheel, spindle, bearings, brake caliper, rotor and upright. I think I am fairly close to that number. Definitely not over $600. Part of the trick is to use some production parts that can be bought in the after market new or salvaged in good working order. Much like FV.
You can source individual parts for less that what it might take me to build the parts I have designed, but when you look at the total cost, it will be hard to beat a package that is designed as a complete system, a corner that works in all four locations.
Every pound you add to a car, increases the cost of building the car. Heavier requires more structure.
That's one solution, and I'd be happy to go along with it if that's what folks want.
The other is to set, say, 32mm restrictors and let the market sort out which engine is best. That's what happened in FB, and nobody complains. They just install the best engine. That said, IMO it only becomes important when picking which engine makes the MOST power at high RPMs. If you restrict them to small restrictors, I doubt it's as critical.
Last edited by Stan Clayton; 12.10.17 at 8:02 PM.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
I was one of the very few in the early FB develop days to suggest/support a rolling year eligibility for engines. They didn't go that way, and it worked out okay because they didn't build/sell hundreds of cars. Why weren't a bunch of cars built? How come the numbers haven't continued to climb? (I'm ignorant of the reasons)
Is there anything the "FJ" community can learn from it?
IF you want substantial numbers folks must believe they have reasonable access to the same stuff the guy up front is running. If the masses don't believe so, you won't get good numbers.
Is the FJ concept going to be considered a success if 10 cars are sold/built after year one, or does that take 50 cars? Five years out are they hoping for 50 cars or 500 cars?
The (mass) market likes spec. If we don't like spec, that's fine, but name the last successful non spec class to be introduced. . .
If, from an engineering viewpoint, we detest spec, why not engineer the heck out of prototype no.1 and make that the spec car? As though it was a blank sheet of paper build from scratch. Then just duplicate it 500 times.
Understood. I was just offering another option to consider. I realize it's a good bit more than your target.
...I was one of the very few in the early FB develop days to suggest/support a rolling year eligibility for engines. They didn't go that way, and it worked out okay because they didn't build/sell hundreds of cars. Why weren't a bunch of cars built? How come the numbers haven't continued to climb? (I'm ignorant of the reasons) About 70 cars were built, but IMO they are are competing in too crowded a space (winged formula cars).
Is there anything the "FJ" community can learn from it? Cost control. Cost control. Cost control. The first year of FE sold 50 cars at (IIRC) $26,950. The second year they sold 25 at $34,900. Third year 12 at $40k, and so on. Last I checked they cost $60k and had just broken 130 total sold. The SRF3 sells for $36k for a pallet kit. If we can keep the price of an FJ under that we stand a chance.
IF you want substantial numbers folks must believe they have reasonable access to the same stuff the guy up front is running. If the masses don't believe so, you won't get good numbers.
Is the FJ concept going to be considered a success if 10 cars are sold/built after year one, or does that take 50 cars? Five years out are they hoping for 50 cars or 500 cars? It took 5 or 6 years for FB to get to 50 cars. We sold two last year, but I don't know of any other new ones sold in the past few years.
The (mass) market likes spec. If we don't like spec, that's fine, but name the last successful non spec class to be introduced. STL is only 5 or 6 years old IIRC, and is SCCA's third largest class after SRF and SM. It's affordable, has common sense rules, and is reasonably quick.
If, from an engineering viewpoint, we detest spec, why not engineer the heck out of prototype no.1 and make that the spec car? As though it was a blank sheet of paper build from scratch. Then just duplicate it 500 times.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
OK, well, you know a lot more about SCCA politics than I do.
Personally, getting a new class defined is not a goal. As far as I can tell, the only advantage to getting a class defined is that you can then go to the Run-offs. I have no interest in going to the Run-offs, so I don't need a new class. I think a lot of people have no interest in going to the Run-offs. I don't see any other reason to have a new class.
I foresee the path of this class much like that of Formula First. Regional only. Maybe a "Hoosier Tour" or some similar organization that scores the positions from the official finishing sheet in which the cars just run as FS.
Do we really need the SCCA stamp of approval? I don't think we do.
Longer term, there should be consolidation of the open-wheel classes in the SCCA. I think it should look like P1 and P2. One faster class for winged cars in which FM, FC, FE just become spec-lines. And another class for unwinged cars, in which FF, F5, FV, FST become spec-lines.
In which case, just as in P1/P2, there would be a variety of engines and weights allowed. And these two cars we're talking about would fit right in.
Until then, we do like FST.
However, if you don't buy that proposal, and you believe that this car has to fit in between the speeds of the existing classes, as you proposed, then another way to do that is to put a sports-racer body on it and fit it between P2 and SRF3. There's a huge gap there.
I would actually prefer this option. I think the additional safety (possibly only perceived) could attract those Spec Miata and other sedan racers into a purpose-built car.
Greg
Last edited by holmberg; 12.10.17 at 10:25 PM.
This entire issue has so many impediments it is not possible to list them all. The reality is that someone or a team of someones must design and build a protoype and then show it off at the Runoffs and multiple other venues.
Then we will see if there is any REAL interest. It can already run in FS with zero problems and in FB with some minor mods.
If there is enough interest a class will be created and pretty quickly imo. Another opinion of mine is that OW club racing, in general, is in serious trouble in the USA.
My plan is to build a demonstration prototype. It will happen. I much prefer to work with other builders so that we can have some level of consensus on the design concept.
Last edited by Jnovak; 12.10.17 at 10:07 PM.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
A crazy question about ECU's
M/C engines are pretty basic regarding fuel and ignition maps. Some have variable venturi's so lock them out.. Why not use a flashable ECU from a manufacturer (2008 Suzuki GSXR for example) and make that the "optional" standard ECU. It should not take very long to get the maps right for any available engine.
John Rounds
error post
Last edited by Jnovak; 12.12.17 at 12:33 PM.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
This idea may have some merit but it will take an electronic wizard to figure it out.
Last edited by Jnovak; 12.12.17 at 8:30 PM.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Thinking that would have to have been the Gloria, run out of Philip Creighton Motorsports, up the street in Alpharetta, and piloted by Italian driver Davide Rigon.
Is there people wanting to buy & run these cars? If so why not take deposits for 10% of the value of whatever you are producing & then see if there is any real interest. You will be able to quickly determine how many people are interested in this or not.
Steve Bamford
Thanks Glenn,
Gloria also produced a line of open wheel racers in Italy. Don't know if they were ever very successful.
FWIW, Davide Rigon eventually went on to do a few Friday stints with the Ferrari F1 team. Probably the last SCCA card carrier to do so in recent memory.
M
Torsional Stiffness - Steve?
Steve Lathrop: In the FSV days (1970's) the Zink Z11 was a tube frame car even though the class allowed aluminum monocoque construction. I built a monocoque chassis for the Z11 and called it the Z14. The suspension was the same and the setups were the same for both the Z11 and Z14. The only significant difference was the torsional stiffness of the chassis. The Z10/Z11 was less than 2000 ft pounds per degree for the whole car as raced. The Z14 was over 4000 pounds. The difference in the feel and the effort it took to drive the Z14 compared to the Z11 was dramatic. The Z14 you could drive with you finger tips. That difference in torsional stiffness can be translated into better mechanical grip.
Stan Clayton: The brochure that came with my '74 Zink says it's a 10/11, and it's so soft I had to quadruple my front wheel rates to get something I could actually feel...
Apologies for taking this thread off the main topic - I thought the conventional wisdom was that stiffening the springs with a soft chassis was counter-productive (after a while) because the chassis would just flex when the suspension wouldn't, and that would not always result in a desirable behavior. Now actually it sounds to me like the Z10 is already quite a bit stiffer than your average Vintage chassis, but still... Any insights for this un-schooled enthusiast?
TIA - Gerhard
The resultant wheel rate was still less than 300 lbs, which probably put it at about the right rate for the chassis.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Steve,
I just had a look at a Zink Z-14 FSV project yesterday.
“Racing makes heroin addiction look like a vague wish for something salty.” -Peter Egan
Torsional stiffness
When I was working at Ford Racing doing NASCAR engineering work, I designed a test chassis that had adjustable torsional stiffness from about 7000 ft-lbs/deg to almost 30,000 ft-lb/deg. Now this was when many chassis had torsional stiffness around 5000-6000 ft-lbs/deg. We tested it with many top drivers but mostly with 1 driver and he decided that he prefered about 15,000 ft-lbs/deg.
We also learned that lateral bending stiffness was very important. So that led us to assist our teams with some design optimization that worked out pretty well at that time. I have no idea where they are now days as that work happened around 15 years ago.
Last edited by Jnovak; 12.12.17 at 10:19 PM.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
To add a bit to Jay's comments, the chassis stiffness can be thought of as a spring. It is a spring between the front axle and the rear axle. We also have anti roll bars to control the roll beyond what the springs provide.
As the chassis torsional rate goes up, the sway bars can be reduced. The end result is the same roll control.
When we had very flexible chassis, we used some really big sway bars to get the handling we were looking for. Down side of this approach is a relatively high single wheel spring rate ( the wheel rate for the spring and sway bar).
One thing that went on as we were developing cars through the 1970s to this day has been the corresponding development of the tires. The only thing that has been constant about the tires is that they are mostly black and we use air or some type of gas to pressurize them before use.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote