I agree with Ed and believe that neither of us "missed the point."
I, too, wish for F500 to remain essentially with the same formulae as we now
have. I can see how this (adding a 4-cycle bike motor to a class that
currently uses 2-cycle snowmobile motors) COULD unfold. Just suppose:
SCCA approves the "Yamagatcha XYZ600" for use in F500.
In the first season, the legacy F500's (the snowmobile folks) run off and
leave the bikers. Near the end of the season, f500.org and the comp board
emails light up whining about the significant performance delta. The Comp
Board responds with a 50# weight penalty for both 494 and 493 Rotax powered
cars. "Quinton Gotrocks" of "Rock On" racing decides to make a few bucks
and buys 36 (that's 3 dozen) XYZ600's and an appropriate set of "spare
parts" (truck loads of cranks, pistons, rods, cams, valves, heads, etc.) and
begins to build engines that sell considerably higher (he has a right to
make a fair profit) than the crate motors (motors directly from Yamagatcha).
The crate motor sells for (let's say) $3800 (machining of the PTO taper
extra) and the "motor" sells for (again, let's speculate) $5200. (NOTE:
Quinton got a volume discount on his bulk purchase.)
With the new weight penalty, the crate motor cars are on a par with the
legacy F5's, one class having an advantage at some tracks and the other the
rest of the tracks. Disparity is setting in. The legacy guys have a
disadvantage on long tracks and the bikers have a disadvantage on short
tracks (or visa versa, I don't care but, suffice to say, the performance
will be different and controversy will creep in causing more whining by some
of us). Meanwhile, back at the races, the bike "motors" (those high-dollar
blue-print pieces) are cleaning clocks everywhere. It is becoming clear
that, if one wants to win at every track, one best contact QG and make plans
to sink some dough into one of his motors.
For the next season, "Micro Go-Fast" is building a car specifically for the
XYZ600. Although not built specifically for the legacy motors, MGF will
provide a kit (at extra cost) to accommodate any legacy motor. All you have
to do to the new chassis' engine bay is (followed by a short list of welding
and cutting). A good question here would be "why?" but, hey, we're trying
to open the class up to people who like bike motors in cars (F1000 is not
suitable for them but, the reason escapes me). The new chassis and engine
combination goes like stink and sells for just under $22,000 (of course,
fire system, gauges, wheels, tires, and prep are extra and your job). The
first season goes well. There are 4 Go-Fasts in the top ten qualifying at
this season's Runoffs(r) and 8 in the entire race group of which six finish
the race, the best finish of the marque being 5th (remember, I'm making this
up but, it is based upon factors and issues that have been with this class
since the 80's). Not bad for a marque in its first year of involvement in
the class.
The following years are cluttered with issues on how to tech the motor,
options on adaptors for the 38mm Mikuni's on the XYZ600, how to check valve
lash in post race, policing the cam profile, how come rear tires wear out so
much faster on the bike-motored cars, and the usual "thermostat"-type
issues.
I won't bore you with the rest of the story (it IS a story). Can you see
where this could possibly take us? Do we want our class to risk these types
of possibilities? You won't do it with me.
There was some discussion a few years back (I believe) and, if memory
serves) the consensus of f500.org was that there was too much performance
disparity and conversion complexity in opening the class up to ANY 500cc
(+/- 10cc) snowmobile powerplant. In my opinion, THIS approach would
introduce the potential for FAR MORE performance disparity, complications,
re-written rules, and unwarranted cost than our previous discussion.
Sure, I am having fun here by making up stuff but, reread this little piece
and change some of the facts. Switch the initial performance advantage, for
example. The whining doesn't end but, the whiners are different. This is
NOT FACT-BASED but, it is based upon what could BECOME fact and also upon
what we all know IS fact.
Again, I am opposed to bike motors in THIS class. I am not opposed to
motorcycle powered cars. I just cannot afford them. I will NOT remain in
this class if bike motors are adopted. Personally I believe the SCCA would
oppose it on grounds that it is contrary to the intent of the class.
David Gill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Reinhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 4:08 PM
Subject: RE: [F500] Editorial: How did F1000 go wrong?
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! ***
