These are ideas that I'm throwing out for trying to expand on the class. I'm not a rules maker. Even if I came out and said wheels need to be this wide, these engines should weigh this much, etc it would all be supposition at this point. The trick is to get the conversation going and use the details to balance future mods against existing performance. It's just a direction that I believe will appeal to a wider audience than what we have now. The philosophy of no internal engine work would have to be the same, and with the class restructured like this I don't see increased expenses, other than for the people that want to change their existing cars.
In regards to the shocks, I understand what you're saying about batch testing. But today we have no dampening and we have lots of guys tricking a little 2" rubber to be a suspension. Certainly any shock is better than where we are today, and mass produced shocks should be pretty repeatable. Yes, they will wear out, just like our rubber biscuits do now. Currently you could (and maybe some do) spend lots of time, effort, and money tuning what we have now. I believe that a shock package like this would strip away the magic. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > <<<BTW, seeing as we have NO dampening now I think it will be some > time before we even get around to finding nth degree performance thru > "fine tuning" shocks.>>> > > The issue I was referring to isn't buying 12 different > types/brands/models of shock to find the right damping match for the > car (although that IS an issue). The issue is that cheap shocks > aren't consistent. You probably don't want radically (and randomly) > different damping left-to-right on a given axle. In order to get a > set of 4 shocks that have close enough performance characteristics - > even among the same part # - you have to buy a bunch and sort them. > I'd suggest you go to the APEXSpeed website and have a look through > the FSCCA threads on their spec shocks. These were supposedly > designed to all be the same - they weren't, even though they were the > same model from the same vendor. > > <<<As for the wheels and tires we can limit widths to maybe a 7" rim > instead of 8", etc.>>> > > That's a pretty big rim - FC specs. FF is currently running a 5.5" > maximum width, and they have a fairly wide rear tire. > > <<<The OD on some 13" tires are close to what we are running today. >>> > > True. > > <<<The advantages are that they are perceived as "real" wheels and > tires, they are already manufactured, they will take a lot of > undampened travel out of the car, they will handle better, and they > will look pretty cool. >>> > > That handling advantage, though, is the problem. How would we > equalize performance with the current 10" cars that can't easily be > modded? If we have to add weight, we've increased cost and reduced > reliability in other ways, right? > > The only way I see that sort of change working is in conjunction with > other changes, i.e., 600cc cars can run 13" wheels, but they have to > run at a higher weight. In effect, thought, what you have done is > created a whole new class - F600 - that runs roughly the same speed as > the existing F500s, but does so with totally different components. > > If you make that many changes (shocks, tires, engines), why wouldn't > you just lump FF, F500 and F600 all together into FD (or equivalent)? > What keeps F500 on the map as a distinct low-cost class? [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type text/x-vcard which had a name of jwhit.vcf] ________________________________ 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! ***
