In reply to Apexcarver :
Including the 4 Rotax engines I bought, I now have $6700 in the F500. By comparison I have $8270 (I keep spreadsheets) in the Datsun.
In reply to Apexcarver :
Including the 4 Rotax engines I bought, I now have $6700 in the F500. By comparison I have $8270 (I keep spreadsheets) in the Datsun.
In reply to Tom1200 :
I keep thinking about getting a spare 494, but I think if/when it goes I will drop the coin on upgrading to a 593HO
gumby said:In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :
Two questions:
Did anyone protest this car?
And, if you spoke with him, will we see him at the Challenge this year?
I'm sorry, I don't have much information to share. I hung around for a couple of minutes, but I needed to get to my work assignment. Never met the owner. The other people there seemed quite familiar with the car, and I'm sure it was class legal.
As for challenge, I think he's sure to have more than challenge money in just the heat exchangers. This was a serious race car.
gumby said:In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :
Two questions:
Did anyone protest this car?
And, if you spoke with him, will we see him at the Challenge this year?
I feel like some of us are missing something here.
I'm all for it.
In reply to David S. Wallens :
Back in the late 1940's early 1950's a tube frame car with a single cylinder 500 cc motorcycle engine started the career of Stirling Moss. That later developed into formula Jr based on cheap sedan parts and a tube frame. Formula V Formula Ford etc.
The offshoot of it was when Penske put a Buick Aluminum V8 into a formula 3 car (Cooper) with a wider body and sort of started the whole Can Am series.
Racing a tube frame car is cheaper and faster than racing production based cars.
I'm all for it.
Duke said:
I feel like some of us are missing something here.
Apparently accurate.
Fresh from a 2021 National Solo class Championship, that car has caused a large disturbance in the CP force. I am entertained by watching folks suddenly try to "fix" rules which have been in place for multiple years.
Also, the owner has previously been a pro driver at Challenge.
Somebody say tube-framed street car, at the track? Yes, please.
I am looking for a tube guy for my Opel. I guess that makes me in favor of them.
Here is my hangup with tube frame cars. Every time I see one, the silhouette that is draped over it looks incredible. It always makes me say "why didn't they make that from the factory?"
The other problem I have with them is that it then becomes a spec car like NASCAR. There is no weakness, there is no advantage. Everybody is driving the same damn pile of E36 M3. You don't get to see the cool cars rise to the top. Instead you get to see the best drivers, and the teams with the most money win. and if one particular car chassis rises to the top, then it gets Nerfed by some rule for the next year until everything just becomes this grey pudding. Like nascar. Like f1. Like Indy. Like Lmp.
Notice how world rally has not done this.
In GT3 racing - which is effectively based on production shells - if a chassis rises to the top, it gets nerfed by a Balance of Performance adjustment. This is not unique to tube frame cars, it's racing in the regulated era. If you don't do it, then everyone complains because the racing isn't good enough because one chassis is dominating.
World Rally won't let you run a Subaru engine in World Rally. Those cars are pretty heavily specified under the skin.
Junghole said:Here is my hangup with tube frame cars. They are not cars.
FTFY.
Junghole said:
Keith Tanner said:What is your personal definition of a CAR?
No tube chassis.
gumby said:Duke said:
I feel like some of us are missing something here.Apparently accurate.
Fresh from a 2021 National Solo class Championship, that car has caused a large disturbance in the CP force. I am entertained by watching folks suddenly try to "fix" rules which have been in place for multiple years.
Also, the owner has previously been a pro driver at Challenge.
There's a bit more nuance... Normally cp is a bit more of a "has to be a shell" class and not as much tube chassis. BUT, there's a loophole that lets roadrace GCR (rules) cars run as "in excess" in CP. Noone had really built a GCR rules car just for autox till that one and they found areas in the roadrace rules that were advantageous. 4cyl turbo, wings, they are parts a solo rulebook car couldn't have. So, it may have moved the needle of what a cutting edge CP car needs to be to be competitive.
There are others who know way more on it on here though.
In reply to Apexcarver :
My Datsun is preparred to SCCA GT-5 / GTL; when I do autocross it runs in E-prepared. There are two things on the car I know would not be legal if it were CP only but are because it fits the GTL rule set.
I'll just leave this here. For reasons.
Driven5 said:Junghole said:Here is my hangup with tube frame cars. They are not cars.
FTFY.
Junghole said:
Keith Tanner said:What is your personal definition of a CAR?
No tube chassis.
Hey thanks for quoting that, you saved me a bunch of time
A tube frame car is better in every possible way. Performance, maintenance, repairing crash damage are all easier on a tube framed car. I am surprised anyone that trailers a car bothers with a production based shell.
gumby said:In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :
Two questions:
Did anyone protest this car?
And, if you spoke with him, will we see him at the Challenge this year?
No protests.. 
The car is super neat, and legal for CP as the rules are written. Started life as an ASA chassis. Should be a street legal car registered in Florida soon. He's got a ton of work into it, and it's fast.
Wally (Forum Supporter) said:A tube frame car is better in every possible way. Performance, maintenance, repairing crash damage are all easier on a tube framed car. I am surprised anyone that trailers a car bothers with a production based shell.
The reason to bother with a production car for a tube frame car is body panels.
Unless you have access to the molds for the wanted body you need stock panels to take molds off of.
The nice thing though is using a production based car as a starting point is the ease "repairs" can be carried out. I cover holes with shipping tape, cardboard, or whatever. Slather on bondo. Even use spray foam to build up surfaces, then roughly shape them with a cheese grater, before putting a thin layer of bondo over. Once the shape desired is achieved a quick coat of rattle can lacquer is sprayed over for quick drying. And the waxing begins. Most molds are light weight slash molds. Only a few parts are ever pulled so heavy production quality molds aren't needed.
Junghole said:Driven5 said:Junghole said:Here is my hangup with tube frame cars. They are not cars.
FTFY.
Junghole said:
Keith Tanner said:What is your personal definition of a CAR?
No tube chassis.
Hey thanks for quoting that, you saved me a bunch of time
Maybe, but if that's true then I think it's fair to say that production based cars aren't real race cars.
Even lower cost tube chassis, dedicated race cars are better race cars than production based ones.
In reply to APEowner :
I don't dispute them being better. When your entire chassis is infinitely adjustable, you can do anything. But there is definitely something lost between the characteristics of driving a car that has flaws, and driving a car that has all the flaws dialed out.
Junghole said:....The other problem I have with them is that it then becomes a spec car like NASCAR. There is no weakness, there is no advantage. Everybody is driving the same damn pile of E36 M3. You don't get to see the cool cars rise to the top. Instead you get to see the best drivers, and the teams with the most money win. and if one particular car chassis rises to the top, then it gets Nerfed by some rule for the next year until everything just becomes this grey pudding. Like nascar. Like f1. Like Indy. Like Lmp.
I understand the most money complaint but I'm not convinced that a more open rule book or starting with a production, road car based, chassis fixes it. The only series I've seen where money can't be turned into an advantage is ones where the sanctioning body provides the cars.
And, that brings me to the part of this argument that I really don't understand. Closely matched cars can produce some great racing. I don't understand why having it come down to driver ability, driver/crew chief communication and the resulting setup is a bad thing. I thought the IROC series produced some great racing. The NASCAR cup series is as tightly regulated as its ever been and the racing has been great (although restrictor plate racing is still both exciting and stupid but, that's another issue). I race a Spec Miata and a Formula Ford in large part because the rules are so tight and the cars are so closely matched.
Junghole said:In reply to APEowner :
I don't dispute them being better. When your entire chassis is infinitely adjustable, you can do anything. But there is definitely something lost between the characteristics of driving a car that has flaws, and driving a car that has all the flaws dialed out.
Sorry but just because you're using tubes instead of stampings doesn't mean all characteristics are dialed away.
With skill great improvements in handling can happen even with a car based on stampings instead of tubes. Any suspension geometry changes made to a tube frame could have originated with the stampings car or tube frame car.
Well, I touched on this, but how about the future and affordability?
NOTE: I am not talking about modifying older cars, I am saying if you draw a line in the sand and only consider something made 2021+
Say you want to go wheel to wheel racing...
Production car.
Tube car
Plus, the tube chassis lends itself to crash repair much more easially. You can cut apart a tube car much more easially then surgically removing unibody components for replacement. Most tube chassis are engineered such that the heim joints are the failure point, so if you shear off a corner of the suspension, its quickly replaceable if you have spare parts. OEM cars will bend up subframes very easially.
Work access... if you have worked on a tube chassis, you know what I am talking about. WAY WAY easier.
Upgrade ability/longevity - my 1994 KBS is a motor swap away from being able to run in the pack at runoffs. I can pretty much bolt in a rotax 593 (though I admit, a bike motor would need most of the car behind the roll hoop redone) As it is, my car started off with a 440 and was repowered in the 90's to a 494 for example. You can re-power tube cars more easily and modifying them is much simpler to do. This means most tube chassis have a longer relevant competitive life because they evolve more easily. Repositioning a tab or mount on a tube chassis is easier than redesigning a subframe, if you are even allowed to do that.
I know three other drivers who race both a tube frame car and a production car.
The four of us have gone to the tube car as our main race car because it's cheaper to run than the production based car.
Three of us have kept the production cars because they have sentimental value. I know if I didn't own the Datsun for 37 years it would be long gone.
You'll need to log in to post.
