Hi Steve, Yes, I know that the CVTs that we will drive in 20 years will be much better then what we drive now, either in our cars -if they still exist- or street driven cars. I would hope that is the case anyway :-). The point I was trying to make is that the CVT concept is the future, not a gearbox.
As I mentioned, F1 wanted to go CVT but was denied that by the PTB :-). Were those manufacturers/drivers wrong in thinking that would be good move? And yes, I'm sure their CVTs would be a lot more complicated then ours but again it's the concept I'm touting :-). If F1 did go CVT, do you think that the newbys would think differently about a CVT? I think so. So bottom line, I really think we need more of a educational and promotional move then anything else. Yes, you are correct in that newbys know nothing of what a CVT is or can do. But those fault is that? It is "ours" because we don't try to promote the class, advertise, or encourage discussion about our cars. But we are willing to, it seems, completely restructure and cause an upheaval in what F5 is all about in the hope that it will attract new people. This change will not be F5, it will be a completely new class. I lay a goodly amount of blame for the lack of participation from current drivers as well as new drivers squarely on the way the CRB handled the 493 engine addition. The added weight wasn't well received and that caused questions about F5s future. The CRB's response was not supported by the facts and testing data they were given. I feel it caused a lot of potential owners/drivers to shy away from this class due to the extra weight and their sense that we didn't have a good future. At the moment, we don't have a production engine to use in new cars. But that hasn't stopped FF or FV from succeeding, so I think we can't blame that. We can still rebuild a 494 or a 493 for a lot cheaper then a MC engine rebuild, either ourselves or by a "professional". Jay has posted that information although of course, there is one dissenter :-). Perhaps a MC engine will help, but that is a big gamble because the folks who can't afford what is being proposed will eventually leave. And what is being presented is ultimately a DSR without fenders; a $35-40,000 car. Maybe not right away, but quick enough. Folks don't enter local Nationals now to qualify for Topeka because they can't rationalize the expense of going to Kansas. What makes anyone think that they will be able to afford the conversion to, or buy new, any of these MC engined, shock suspended vehicles? Are we just changing "old" for "new" and hoping? I know some have said they wanted to do something so that the current genre of cars will not be displaced. I applaud that. But how can you do that with a MC engine and a transmission that will require a goodly amount of revision to the rear of the car currently running, without even considering the cost of the MC engine/transmission at, I think Jay said, $4700? And then you add the shocks. No, I think that this is more wishful thinking then anything else. So, I think we really are playing a zero sum game at best. As I said in another post, I think maybe some form of compromise or "less ambitious" idea is in order to get everyone on board and behind any proposal to the CRB/BOD. Perhaps a 4 cycle snowmobile engined, CVT chassis without shocks should be our next move after some extensive research. I don't think a shock suspended, 600cc MC engined car is the answer. Art ________________________________ 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! ***
