Ed, I think you missed the point.... Eric I agree, "if" there was to be a bike motored F500 type chassis, I think it should be added to the F500's, and not replaced by it. It seems odd how one particular manufacturer was talking up building a new chassis F1000 car, while the rest of the planet was dead against it, and then it went through.... Who's hands are in who's pockets!!! CR
edward capullo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Eric - Excellent post!!! We must remain focused on how to make F500 "as it is" more popular or we might stand a chance of losing our "most bang for the buck" status. I too am a regular reader of Apex Speed.com and followed the F1000 right from its' original concept. When I saw Lee Stohr first say he wasnt interested in building a F1000 car only to change his mind and to make preparations to build and sell one my first thought was there goes the low buck concept. Ed Capullo >From: Eric D Christensen >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: [F500] Editorial: How did F1000 go wrong? >Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:13:27 -0700 > >Every once in awhile I have to exercise my right as the host of f500.org >to stand on a soapbox and editorialize. And yes... I know I'm opening >myself up for flames by doing so! Bring it on! > >This isn't strictly F500, but I think it is F500 related in a way. What >has happened to F1000 in the course of being adopted by SCCA is a great >example of how good ideas and intentions can get derailed. > >Formula 1000 was originally conceived as being a (reasonably) low cost, >grass roots class. The intent was to get some older, no longer >competitive FC cars out of the garage and back on the track and to do so >inexpensively. Flat bottom car with a factory stock 1000cc bike motor, >chain driven, and no go-fast / spend-faster trick parts. > >Sound like a familiar theme? > >The original spec was for a simple flat bottom wings & slicks car with a >factory stock 1000cc bike motor and a chain drive. The first F1000 cars >built were just that - older FC chassis like 80s era DB-3s with a >wrecking yard bike motor. All told you could buy a chassis, put a motor >in it and even with fabrication costs have a F1000 track ready for about >$20K. Not bad for something that turns close to FA times, right? I'm not >ashamed to say, I was intrigued enough to start looking into it very >seriously. > >Then the fun began. Once SCCA started showing interest in sanctioning >F1000 things started to change. I'm not going to go into all the details >of what happened, how it happened or who's to blame. Heck, I don't know >all of the details and it's be more speculation than fact anyway. But >somewhere along the line F1000 morphed from a grass roots, low cost, >home-builder friendly class to being another big bucks class. > >Original concept: Retrofit existing older FC chassis and provide a place >for them to be competitive again. >As adopted by SCCA: New, purpose built F1000 chassis are the norm. >Several manufacturers have either released or will release for 2007 at >around $40K. Now that's a big jump from doing $2000 of fabrication on a >$10K chassis. > >Original Concept: Factory stock 1000cc bike motors with no modifications >allowed. >As adopted by SCCA: Stock bore, stroke and displacement - than means >BUILT engines with aftermarket parts, blueprinted and balanced. And of >course all the care and feeding that goes along with a built up motor. >Basically you are looking at DSR engines - they start about $8000 and go >up from there. That $1500 junkyard engine is going to need $5000+ of >work to make it competitive. > >The net result - The $20K F1000 concept has become a $50K car. Yeah, you >can still build one for $20 and run around in the back of the pack, but >you won't be competitive. Kinda like running a Kawasaki in F500. > >No conspiracy theories here... but I find it interesting that by the >time SCCA adopted the F1000 concept, it's costs has skyrocketed to the >point that Enterprises' FSCCA cars are a lot more cost effective. > >Anyway, the point being that the best intentions don't always come to >fruition. Keep that in mind when talking about fundamentally changing >the F500 concept by adding coil-over shocks, bike engines, etc. While >some changes are going to have to happen over time to keep F500 a viable >class, we must remain VERY vigilant that the concept of F500 is a grass >roots, home-builder friendly, low cost formula car. > >I guess I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that there *may* be an >opportunity to revise F500 to fill the void left by the hijacking of >F1000. There still is considerable interest in a low cost bike engine >formula car. If there is a way that a bike engine could be added to the >existing F500 spec as an additional configuration, it could be a very >good thing for the long term health of the class. On the other hand... >if done wrong, it could obsolete the 2 stroke / CVT combination and >current chassis and raise the cost of the class dramatically (ala >F1000). We must remain vigilant... > >----- >Eric D Christensen >Proadmin, Inc. Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. ________________________________ FormulaCar Magazine - A Proud Supporter of Formula 500 The Official Publication of Junior Formula Car Racing Subscribe Today! www.formulacarmag.com or 519-624-2003 _________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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! ***
