>These weights assume someone stays with the wide 5 hub layout. They could just as easily run our kinds of hubs and rotors in the front, which would reduce weight even more.
Really, you got to be kidding! We never thought of that! :-) Imagine that, they being able to use the same stuff we do. What a novel approach. John, for the sake of ending this pissing contest, let's "give you" a reduction in unsprung weight, although not near what you have suggested. Overall, it's not going to add much to their performance even if that performance increase could be measured. And along the lines of the 145 HP engine that you are sure can be produced out of a very restricted 1915cc motor, your exaggerating the overall significance of any reduction they can attain. They are still dealing with an archaic design that really hobbles improvements. If I were you, I'd be more worried about the new car that Gary is testing. I think you may forget all about the Vees after you get a gander of that. End of conversation since we don't seem to be getting anywhere. Just write your letter. We'll read it and discuss your point of view :-). Art -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Whitling Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 1:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [F500] FM Autocrosser ALERT!_PS Art One more thing to add about brake weights, Art These weights assume someone stays with the wide 5 hub layout. They could just as easily run our kinds of hubs and rotors in the front, which would reduce weight even more. But you probably knew that didn't you?? In any case it's QUITE a bit different from ADDING weight, wouldn't you say? Who exactly did you guys listen to when you were reviewing these proposals? Perhaps only the guys that were asking for these changes? If so maybe they weren't quite truthful .. I cannot imagine why though .. all they want is a "level" playing field .. :-! John Whitling wrote: >And the difference in weight between cast iron and steel? Not much, and >you know, I haven't spent more than 5 minutes researching it .. how >much time did you guys spend and how in the world can anyone think that >replacing those large cast steel drums with discs and aluminum hubs >will weigh more???????????????????? Have you ever even picked up a >backing plate for these cars? Very heavy. > >Art wrote: > > > >>John, >> >>That setup uses steel rotors. Check out D.3.5 which requires cast iron >>rotors. >> >>Glad you have studied the proposal..... >> >> >>Art >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >>John Whitling >>Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 12:26 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: [F500] FM Autocrosser ALERT! >> >>Art >>The existing drums and backing plates are over 17 lbs a corner right >>now. Go to this link and you'll see a hub, disc, caliper assy that weighs 9 lbs. >> >>http://www.cncbrakes.com/cncbrakes.com-asp//dbk.asp?grp=dbk&subgrp=r&s >>eries= >>645&subseries >> >>Glad to see you guys have thoroughly looked into the consequences .. >> >>Art wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>John, >>> >>>Chuck and I are not berating you, we are just challenging your posts >>>concerning outlandish claims of 145 HP Solo Vees and now, the added >>>claim of a 30# rotating unsprung weight savings if they go to discs. >>>John, you really need to check your facts. Discs will add weight, not >>>reduce it. VW drums are very small and light. Any VW vendor can >>>supply that information as can any VW engine builder supply the >>>needed information on engine performance with the mods we have >>>suggested. If you want that information, we feel it best that you do >>>your own research because it is obvious that you don't/won't believe >>>anything we >>> >>> >>> >>> >>tell you anyway. >> >> >> >> >>>So John, we are comfortable with the information we have gathered but >>>the only way you will be comfortable is to check it out yourself :-). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>You would think they wouldn't be so defensive about this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>What, you want us to ignore outlandish bogus information based upon, >>>I can only guess, emotion and not facts? :-) I don't think so. >>> >>>Art >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >>>John Whitling >>>Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 11:17 AM >>>To: [email protected] >>>Subject: Re: [F500] FM Autocrosser ALERT! >>> >>>Dave >>>Scott did not have a co driver in 06, or any other year. In addition, >>>in >>>06 he tried a radical front tire on the first day, so his first day >>>times weren't very good. I was pitted right beside him and witnessed >>>it all. And his second day nats times were pretty good. He was also >>>the fastest FM car in the test day before nats with his usual tire >>>setup, and if you know Scott, you know that he reminded us all of >>>that all week. BTW, the top four cars in the class were two driver >>>cars. It made a huge difference. I guess solo has now become a "team" sport. >>> >>>This whole idea of engine changes and limited slips being allowed is >>>just stupid, IMO. I'm sure Art and Chuck will claim otherwise and >>>beret me like they have anyone who has posted against these rules >>>have, but do a simple comparison between existing FF (C mod) rules of >>>110 hp, no limited slip, 1100 lbs weight, narrow narrow wheels and >>>cantilevered tires to those of the new Solo Vee and you get at least >>>130 hp, limited slip, weight of 975, and unlimited wheels and tires. >>>It just makes no sense. Much less so the comparison of the 500 cars >>>with go cart axles and not even shocks or springs. >>> >>>I agree with all the chassis stuff for the Vees. That's where the >>>concentration should be to equalize the field. Just the disc brakes >>>are going to take 30 lbs of rotating unsprung weight out of the cars >>>and make them much more neutral handling because they can now balance >>>corner entry with brakes like we do ... add to that the cambered >>>front ends and you have significant improvements. Also I agree about >>>the Formula >>> >>> >>> >>> >>First chassis. >> >> >> >> >>>After all it's in the chassis where the two cars are far apart, not motors. >>>The Vees have never been out powered by the 500s. >>> >>>It looks like the SEB/MAC just gave all the Vee guys anything that >>>any one of them asked for. If the SEB/MAC feels that these are good >>>rules maybe they should share the info they used to base all these >>>changes on rather than require us to hustle out to Vee engine >>>builders, etc and start from square one all over again. Instead all >>>we get is a bunch of crap from them about how we should go do >>>research now and fight these changes with a letter writing campaign. >>>You would think they wouldn't be so >>> >>> >>> >>> >>defensive about this. >> >> >> >> >>>Certainly Stan didn't treat the road racers that way last year. >>> >>>Dave Phaneuf wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Did Scott have a co-driver in 2006? >>>>I heard you were screwed without one. >>>>Maybe tire warming blankets should be legal? >>>>Dave Phaneuf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a >>>name of >>> >>> >>> >>> >>[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a >>name of >> >> > >[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a >name of jwhit.vcf] [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of ________________________________ 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! ***
