Somebody could argue F1000 is the modern day version of THIS, but I find the simplicity of these post-war Formula 500 cars to be compelling. Probably about as fast as early FV. I wish we had a thread where we designed something like it--the Manx Norton engine was too highly stressed for the purpose. Surely The Hive can brainstorm a "parts-bin" car using stupidly common components for Challenge cost. Consider it run up the flagpole. Let's see if anyone salutes...
Definitely love the idea, but what are the limitations? What spec do you want to follow?
I should build a cycle cart for use getting around at the Challenge.
In reply to stroker :
The Royal Enfield motor may be the only motorcycle company interested in using their engine for this.
With their factory recently upgraded and an obvious hunger to crack into the American market the tie- in would be a wonderful promotional opportunity for them.
The chassis could be a simple tube frame and perhaps even built by them. It wouldn't be much more expensive than a motorcycle.
here's some more information about the cars of the time. Obviously, there would have to be significant improvements in safety design for today.
I love the small bore old classes that promoted DIY specials.
Honestly I think the future for something like this would ideally be a spec electric drivetrain with say 40hp, and a replaceable battery pack that gives 30 min of runtime.
But along the repurpose of production parts I think something along the lines of a Spec Racer Ford with modern 1.5l small car FWD engines and open chassis/body designs makes sense. A closed wheel spec allows the most flexibility for the builder to use the car. Closed wheel Trackdays and race series are abundant and you maybe could even run them with the low dollar endurance organizations if enough get built to make a class.
Specs would be dead simple, Use NASA/Gridlife Dyno based HP limitations with a minimum weight with driver that gives 10-12:1 LB/HP. That should result in a ~1200lb car with 100-120Hp which should allow any manufacturers engine to be used. High HP engines would result in extra weight. Make the HP/WT target such that chassis/body construction using mild steel and aluminum or fiberglass body can meet the target. Probably have a min Wheelbase. Aero rules should be simple but allow some max length diffuser starting at the rear axle and use of a wind to push performance up. Body design should be free but a control section at the rear axle should be utlized that requires a template to contact the body with <1/2" of gap. This would ensure the net cross sectional area of all the cars is basically identical while still allowing design freedom of the body Aesthetic and front.
I would build a car for such a series for sure. Should be super cheap to run and maintain. You could use strut rear from something like a Mazda 2 and a Miata front subframe and very basic chassis. Use a center seat Wrap it in a relatively simple body that looks Rush SR ish and have super reliable 10:1 power to weight, super long tire life fun.
In reply to nocones :
While I love the creativity and potential low cost idea of DIY. If the formula is going to succeed it has to be tightly controlled so it's not the engine of the week and chassis of the month.
The formula is simple the more money spent the faster the cars go and the fewer who can afford them. Tightly controlled specs? Costs per unit go down and participation goes up.
This could be an entry level thing.
Low price, lower speed, more racing.
Also could develop "magic" tires. It really wouldn't be that hard to make the tires overheat with over aggressive driving, but then a cooling lap or two and have them return to sticky.
stroker said:here's some more information about the cars of the time. Obviously, there would have to be significant improvements in safety design for today.
Part of the joy? Nature of the cars is also why they so quickly feel out of acceptance.
Have you ever smelled castor oil in these? Wonderful!!!! They were lubricated by the Caster Bean oil. ( hence Castrol) Castrol has long since stopped using that oil because while it was much better than the poorly refined oils available at the time it had its own issues.
Mainly the castor bean oil would burn and make deposits that required great force to remove.
They also used Alcohol. Not the nice ethanol used today, but methanol. Typically made from coal tar or wood waste. But sometimes from garbage,
That is nasty, toxic stuff. Methanol if you drink it you die. Ethanol if you drink it you get happy and then drunk.
Plus methanol is bad to breathe and is absorbed by skin causing cancers etc. nasty, toxic stuff. But methanol made more power than gasoline at a lower cost and wasn't taxed like Ethanol is.
But tuned to the max with alcohol and Caster Bean oil they were extremely hard to keep running. Cold, damp weather would actually cause the intake to freeze, creating havoc both trying to be kept running and going too rich and too lean.
That's what a kart's for.
In reply to chaparral :
Karts lack suspension and while that's OK for youth as adults age suspension become very important.
In reply to chaparral :
Yeah, I realize this version of Formula 500 would be a sort of duplication to karting, point taken. However, what appeals to me about this is the potential for the participants to invest (both financially and emotionally) and learn. If the series was "spec" as Frenchy suggests above, there would be advantages and disadvantages. The only real variable in a spec series would be the driver and the amount of money the team could throw at the car. What I'm envisioning is something like what NoCones suggests with a power to weight ratio to keep it competitive. My primary interest is something that allows participants to make the personal investment of building their own car if they choose (or, buying a "customer car" from a given supplier) and having the rules keep the costs at or below Challenge levels. A claiming rule might be something to explore. Some teams are going to find deals on Brand X components and others, Brand Y or Z. I think the participation would be improved with that flexibility. It might be my personal bias, but I would have very little interest in buying a spec car--I would want to be tasked to conceive, design then build the car with whatever I can find.
1. Mild steel tube frame (and current safety equipment) per SCCA specs.
2. Only narrow, DOT tires allowed.
3. Powerplants (max OEM claimed 110hp spec) are bone stock. No removal of material from any of the reciprocating assembly, the block or heads allowed.
4. No aero allowed. You can streamline but you may not direct airflow with fences, dams or fins.
All you've got to do is weld up the frame per SCCA rules, use appropriate uprights (Miata?) and then add a FWD powerplant mounted midships. As long as your power to weight ratio falls within the rules (e.g. ~12:1) and your build sheet shows the car components @ FMV put your build within Challenge pricing, you're good to go.
I think the diversity of the cars, the low cost and the potential for innovative advantage makes it an appealing combination. It appeals to me, at least.
In reply to stroker :
Could you conceive those rules with classes? Say 110 hp (oem). 250 hp (oem). 400 hp (oem)
A 250 hp at 2500 pounds. And 400 at 4000 pounds. ( those numbers would be SAE. net numbers of course.
The reason is, some people like a little smaller engine/car. Some want a medium sized car/engine. And obviously. ••••••
I'm assuming not street legal or muffled?
It's sort of a budget Can Am
While an open wheel race car is sexier and can be lighter, it's not allowed at places like HPDE days etc. which can be additional places to race
I would also suggest a maximum length/ width. Current Formula 1 cars are the same size as a Ford F-150 which is part of the reason the races turn into parades. Go down the middle of the track and only a slight shift basically blocks the track.
I believe we can build to a budget limit easier with junkyard parts. Raise the budget limit to include Challenge exempt items such as tires rather than allow new tires etc.
According to the Nelsons they spend about $4000 but only $2000 isn't exempt.
In reply to frenchyd :
Well, I can't say I'd rule it out automatically, but I'm not seeing how big motor cars are going to fall under a target of Challenge pricing. Again, the old Formula 500 is the inspiration so high hp doesn't really fit the concept. At the start I'd aim for ~110hp: max 1320lb. We don't need high top speed but reasonable cornering speed would make it fun and seem fast.
In reply to stroker :
Yeh 400 might be too hard to buy under the budget.
But 250 there are an awful lot of that class.
I do see one major problem. How are we going to find the experts who can look at an engine and say yes that's the 110 hp version and not the 130 hp. Etc.
Or have someone slide the optional performance camshaft into the stock engine? Or a Chip/tune in the ECU ?
One of the reasons I lost interest in SCCA was the post race tech inspections.
I believe in rules. But it shouldn't require a complete tear down ( and subsequent expensive rebuild) to collect the little plastic trophy.
I raced a B prod Corvette and as snarfy a motor as my budget allowed yet stone stock Formula Fords with probably 300 less horsepower actually turned faster laps. On high speed tracks like Brainerd and Elkhart Lake. So weight and frontal are two big burdens to bigger motors.
In reply to frenchyd :
Poke around NASA rules structure. That's basically how they do it. They have 7 classes (14 technically as you can also W2W the cars in ST which share the same specs) TTU exists and is an Unlimited class.
TT1 = “Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio” equal to, or greater than, 6.00:1
TT2 = “Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio” equal to, or greater than, 8.00:1
TT3 = “Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio” equal to, or greater than, 10.00:1
TT4 = “Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio” equal to, or greater than, 12.00:1
TT5 = “Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio” equal to, or greater than, 14.00:1
TT6 = “Adjusted Wt/HP Ratio” equal to, or greater than, 18.00:1
Gridlife the classing structure is a little more mod dependant but again is based on an acceptable power to weight limiting the HP you develop in a given class structure.
It works well for both these sanctioning bodies. And as someone who currently tracks a TT3 spec power to weight car, 10:1-12:1 is plenty fast and entertaining. NASA has an entire calculator to determine a modifyer for the power to weight based on things like Aero, Tire width, and certian chassis/suspension mods. The whole system works pretty well but participants are more of the "production based" type with limited numbers of Prototypes and a few Tube frame homebuilts mixed in.
Eventually I want to do a project that is basically a Kart with a harness, rollcage, and suspension. Something like a F500, but with IRS and real shocks and motors that aren't snowmobile based. The low cost of Tires, towing, and general consumables for a <600lb overbuilt car could possibly push people with lower budgets toward racing again. Karts exists and are a thing but the injury risks due to just rough ride and incedents tend to keep more seasoned individuals away. Something that dimensionally and dynamically could stradle the line between works on a Kart track, but could work at a Road Course would be ideal. So think Rush SR but built around a 12:1 power to weight not 6:1, and -$40K in price. Use a 250CC motorcycle engine to get 35-40HP which should be entertaining if weight can be ~600lbs with driver. This would also be an excelent chassis application for a 30-40HP replaceable battery electric drivetrain. There is work being done in this area but what I have seen (DP cars, and CrossCarts) tends to be pointed at the "LETS GO REALLY FAST" using the light weight for more performance rather then for a better value proposition.
With some discussion I'm sure I could reach agreement on Strokers rule setup for FWD based MR prototypes. I would think this would be more of a modern interpretation of what Formula Vee was to Formula Ford. I don't think a $2000 style hard limit on budget is required, nor do I think a Claimer rule really works with DIY type classes. Use the power to weight ratio and rule structure to try to ensure that the performance target is largely achievable with a reduced budget. The largest group of people would be reached by a class that has options for people to "buy" a car, and also allows people to concievably be competitive "building" a car.
We have discussed on the forum before the idea of a "Open source" racecar, and with modern lazer tube and sheet cutting it's probably that you could develop a "flat pack" chassis kit but that's really an additional discussion. Both of these ideas (Small Kart based Sports Racer built a round a ~40HP 250cc bike engine and FWD based Sports Racer) would be good applications for that to get "pre designed" solutions out that people could build. Making a driver friendly suspension is a challenge for most people so assisting in that part would be good.
How do you regulate hp? Chassis Dyno at the track? But then what if you start out with timing off and mixture wrong but change it before the race?
If you do it coming off the track what's to prevent you from returning to the original setting on the cool off lap?
I suppose you could base things on lap times? But sand bagging has been known to occur? That's not fair either. Then you could run carbs without the ability to tune with a keystroke. But too many don't know how to get carbs running let alone tuned.
Could have blackbox dataloggers on all the cars, tapped in independently of the ECU, but that just complicates things and drives costs up.
While it would be fun, it would be somewhat duplicative.
Older powerplant and narrow tires? Formula Vee
Bike engine and open to a special build, but with tight budget controls? F5 (soon to be called F6 IIRC, we are changing class designations)
I mean,
Now, we use Hoosier bias ply slicks, but we have additional limitations that control costs
You can genuinely build your own "special" to the ruleset and go racing and all the way to the runoffs.
Buy a chassis/ kit versus build your own. I'm clearly in the build your own camp. Others may be in the buy camp. There are pros and cons to both.
They are not the same. The chief advantage of buy is equality. All of them the same.
Leaves those of use with an itch to be different no place to go.
But if my bubblegum and string chassis is faster those who bought will be discouraged.
In reply to kb58 :and didn't work in F1
frenchyd said:How do you regulate hp? Chassis Dyno at the track? But then what if you start out with timing off and mixture wrong but change it before the race?
If you do it coming off the track what's to prevent you from returning to the original setting on the cool off lap?
I suppose you could base things on lap times? But sand bagging has been known to occur? That's not fair either. Then you could run carbs without the ability to tune with a keystroke. But too many don't know how to get carbs running let alone tuned.
No disrespect intended whatsoever, but I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Let's figure out an attractive concept people value and in which they want to participate, then we'll worry about crossing T's and dotting I's for rules enforcement. If you look at the cars in the links I posted above and imagine those cars with legitimate front and rear roll bars, belts, etc., using homebuilt (or easily-sourced and affordable) parts and a bone stock auto/motorcycle powerplant less than 110hp it sounds a lot like Formula 1st with all the appeal of The Challenge and much lower cost and much more flexibility.
Simple ladder frame chassis with all suspension being a "spec" design. Spec brakes, tires, minimum weight, etc. For engine rules, just introduce a buyout rule. If everyone runs 1000cc bike engines then the mounting and chain would be pretty simple to remove in the event of a protest.
The biggest hurdle I would see in this would be the safety of such a chassis compared to what we can have now. Ladder frame cars, while cheap, will never compare to carbon tubs. I don't see a new class coming up with such "old" tech on the safety front.
Here's the spec body for your spec race series. 
As Apexcarver has pointed out the class already exists. While the two stroke cars are not for everyone, the bike motored cars are pretty foolproof. I've run three different single seat classes.over the years and F5/6 is by far the cheapest and least hassle free car to run. 8-12K will get you a solid car.
There are several people scratch building their own for roadrace and autox, it's a beautifully simple formula that is as fast or faster than formula fords...
This is my two stroke car, but you can see how simple it is and how a 600cc bike motor can work pretty easily.
Apexcarver said:
I'm 6'-3" 270. I don't think I can fit in that...
You'll need to log in to post.
