Jay, you said:
"My humble opinion is that an 85" wheelbase would make the car
heavier, but would be more stable at speed. It would also make more
room for a tall driver."
Not only is stability improved with longer WB, but more downforce is
available from greater under-car area, AND more turning moment is
available from the front wheels thru a longer WB to overcome the
locked rear.
Chuck Voboril
______________________________________________________________
From: "Jan Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [F500] RE: Min weight blues
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:36:13 -0500
>Hey Jay,
>Just want your humble opinion. If the rules allowed a 85" wheel
base,
>would you build one that size? Why or why not? My humble opinion
is that
>an 85" wheelbase would make the car heavier, but would be more
stable at
>speed. It would also make more room for a tall driver.
>Bill Schmidt 78" wheelbase Red Devil
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/22/06 6:44 PM >>>
>I agree Chuck, that is why my target weight is 550 lbs for a
modern 80"
>wheel base car.
>
>
>Thanks ... Jay Novak
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
>Chuck
>Voboril
>Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 2:35 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [F500] RE: Min weight blues
>
>
> Jay, Thanks for bringing it up, but I'm not forgetting
Carbon
>Fiber
> !
>
> Some of those hillclimb cars are indeed CF and that is how
they get
>a
> 97 to 100 inch WB car to weigh in like a tube frame 80" WB
car.
>
> Going back to old World cheap F440 technology and costs:
>
> The Z19's with 150# drivers came in at 700# + probably 10#
margin
>with
> 1 3/8" solid steel rear axles and solid steel front
uprights
>and
> spindles. Thick steel shock housings in the back. Big
1/4"
>steel
> plates for the front suspension rubbers to bear
against. Brass,
>not
> aluminum and plastic radiators. Thick F-glass sidepods, not
2
>layup
> stuff.
>
> All I am saying is that with todays cheap and lighter CNC'd
>aluminum
> uprights, calipers, and hubs. Then adding hollow rear
axles, a
>low
> tech, low cost F500 is quite practical.
>
> Chuck
> __________________________________________________________
____
>
> From: "Jay Novak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> To: <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: [F500] RE: Min weight blues
> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:52:26 -0400
> >Chuck you are absolutely right about the British
hill climb
> cars. What you
> >are forgetting however is that those super light cars cost
%50K to
> build &
> >are CARBOV fiber everything. F500 is a very low cost
entry level
> class &
> >who can afford to or will want to spend that kind of $$ for
a F500
> car.
> >
> >
> >Thanks ... Jay Novak
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf
> Of Chuck
> >Voboril
> >Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 12:07 AM
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: [F500] RE: Min weight blues
> >
> >
> > There are British
> hillclimb and sprint(hillclimb on a level
> > track) cars being built with 97" long WB and
255 HP MC
> motors that
> > only weigh about 550# w/out driver. A kaw motor
is about
> 100 pounds
> > lighter than the bike motors going in those
cars. Add 18
> pounds for a
> > primary and secondary clutch and that's still 80
pounds
> lighter.
> >
> > No coil springs and heavy 'ol shock absorbers either
:->
> >
> > I would be extremely embarassed if I could not
modifiy or
> build a
> > new Kaw powered car to 700# complete with fire
system and 5
> gal fuel
> > cell.
> >
> > There
> were 250 Zinks built and most had to run considerab
le
> > ballast(30+ lbs.) to road race with lightweight
drivers in
> the 150
> > pound category to meet 700#.
> >
> > Those old cars did not have the advantage of
present day
> lightweight
> > CNC'd billlet uprights ,hubs, or hollow steel rear
axles,
> either.
> >
> > Bulding a lightweight car is
about the
> most technically
> > non-challenging thing one could ever do.
> >
> > If you haven't got the skill or you weigh 300
pounds, then
> stick with
> > a 494 or 493.
> >
> > As to high compression Kaws, I know the guys that
built and
> road raced
> > motors like that.
> >
> > The AMW's still kicked their rumps like they we
re tie
> d to a
> > tree when they came on the scene.
> >
> > As to Solo,
in my personal opinion, the
> current min Kaw weight
> > probably will not change.
> >
> > Chuck Voboril
> > ___________________________________________________
_______
> ____
> >
> > From: "Jay Novak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: [email protected]
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Subject: RE: [F500] 440 vs 494
> > Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:58:26 -0400
> > >I agree that it will be very difficult to do a
700 Lb
> Kawasaki
> > powered car.
> > >It could be done with a 150 to 170 lb driv
er but
> still not
> > easy. I think
> > >the 494 or the 493 will be very tough to beat
because they
> have a
> > very wide
> > >powerband & a ton more torque than the Kawasaki.
> > >
> > >My 1st 80" wheelbase car weighed 715 with me in
it & I
> weighed
> > about 165 at
> > >the time with no real effort at trying to make
the car
> light, just
> > a super
> > >simple car.
> > >
> > >If I do design a new car & I am thinking about
it, the
> target
> > weight will be
> > >550 lbs without driver & fuel. I know this is very
do-able
> with a
> > lot of
> > >design integration. A couple of my older cars
were right
> there so
> > I know it
> > >can be done.
> > >
> > >Way to much on my plate right now but maybe next
year.
> > >
> > >
> > >Thanks ... Jay Novak
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
rg] On
> Behalf
> > Of Richard
> > >Schmidt
> > >Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:24 PM
> > >To: [email protected]
> > >Subject: Re: [F500] 440 vs 494
> > >
> > >This is great news, but (you just knew there
would be a
> but), I
> > still don't
> > >think it will even the playing field in road racing.
> > >
> > >First of all, it is not that easy to lose 50
lbs. Just ask
> anyone
> > on a diet
> > >! All of the cars out there are designed to
weigh 750
> with a
> > reasonable
> > >weight driver. I don't see how you can get a car
down to
> the 700
> > lb mark
> > >and not reduce the structural integrity. When
I first
> raced my
> > F500 with the
> > >Kawasaki, I had to add ballast. That all changed
with the
> change
> > over to
> > >four link suspension and the added bodywork t
o get
> the aero
> > working.
> > >
> > >I am not the familiar with the new chassis, but I
suspect
> they are
> > all being
> > >designed for the 493 engine and thus would not be
able to
> get down
> > to the
> > >700 lb min.
> > >
> > >Just one more small
change, allow increasing the
> compression ratio
> > to about
> > >9:1 on the Kawasaki. This would be so easy,
just mill
> some metal
> > off the
> > >head, reshape the dome, and presto, a 90 HP Kawasaki
!
> > >
> > >Ofcourse some clever chassis designer, Jay are
you
> listing
> > ?, could build a
> > >new chassis just for the Kawasaki using all
the
> improvements
> > learned over
> > >the years, but apply it to a car designed
for a
> engine from
> > yesteryear.
> > >
> > >Richard
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Stan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: <[email protected]>
> > >Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 3:13 PM
> > >Subject: Re: [F500] 440 vs 494
> > >
> > >
> > > > Effective May 1st, Kawi's can run at 700 lbs
for even
> more fun!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Stan
> > > >
> > > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >F500 mailing list - [email protected]
> > >To unsubscribe or change options please visit:
> > >http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500
> > >*** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests
to the
> mailing list!
> > ***
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >F500 mailing list - [email protected]
> > >To unsubscribe or change options please visit:
> > >http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500
> > >*** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests
to the
> mailing list!
> > ***
> >_______________________________________________
> >F500 mailing list - [email protected]
> >To unsubscribe or change options please visit:
> >http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500
> >*** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the
mailing list!
> ***
> >_______________________________________________
> >F500 mailing list - [email protected]
> >To unsubscribe or change options please visit:
> >http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500
> >*** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the
mailing list!
> ***
>_______________________________________________
>F500 mailing list - [email protected]
>To unsubscribe or change options please visit:
>http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500
>*** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list!
***
>_______________________________________________
>F500 mailing list - [email protected]
>To unsubscribe or change options please visit:
>http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500
>*** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list!
***
>_______________________________________________
>F500 mailing list - [email protected]
>To unsubscribe or change options please visit:
>http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500
>*** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list!
***
_______________________________________________
F500 mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe or change options please visit:
http://f500.org/mailman/listinfo/f500
*** Please, DO NOT send unsubscribe requests to the mailing list! ***
