Jan said it Chuck. Your analysis is correct. The only downside to 85" is weight.
Thanks ... Jay Novak -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Voboril Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 9:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [F500] RE: Min weight blues 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! *** _______________________________________________ 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! ***
