Has anyone heard from Chuck Mcabee lately? I don't have his address and we had a great race last weekend at VIR. He won by 2 feet. If you're listening Chuck, reply to this mail, I have video of the race. Thanks Bill Bradley ---- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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! ***
