S2 Proposal

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Tigaman		#241	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3082 05/18/09 15:34:38 Administrator	David Arundel wrote: A word from the vintage side. My motto is simplify and execute. This has turned into a very complex discussion. Why do new cars cost so much? Tub, body, uprights, arms, wheels, transmission, modern engine..how can that cost $80,000? That does have me laughing, Dave. Sorry! It's easy (if you want to win) to spend that much and MORE. That's why there are not hundreds of cars built to this simple, highly restrictive spec anymore. Because if you add it all up, it ain't cheap. Just got my new Taylor catalog today. Heck, I can't afford to go Production car racing anymore, that's for sure! Simple answer? Don't ever add up the numbers... -Peter www.peterkrause.net "The Driver is the Greatest Performance Variable in the Racing Equation."
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
David Arundel		#242	[url]	[-]
Posts: 62 05/19/09 10:05:02	Still...in many endeavors....we don't just "build" what we want...we build to a set price. When they build a new building they say..."we have $5 million to spend....what is the MOST building we can build for that $5 million." My question is...what is the MOST S2 we could build at a more reasonable entry cost. How much turnkey race car could I get for $60,000? I would like to see someone take a shot at that. Yes...for $80,000 it would be better, faster and cooler. Yes...for $100,000 it would be even better, faster and cooler. But...at a certain point....it is very unaffordable. Yes...paddle shift is cool, but as Colin F. points out...not really faster. Same with many "upgrades." We want great performance, great looks and decent durability...I think the entry cost is the biggest deterrent to many of us buying new cars.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
mbrandt1402		#243	[url]	[-]
Posts: 307 05/19/09 11:22:17	Well said, Dave. This shouldn't be an exercise in what is possible, but what is practical. The chosen ECU and Jenvey intake are good examples.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Colin Feyerabend	Fiction or fantasy	#244	[url]	[-]
Posts: 218 05/19/09 13:28:08	Hi Dave, I think our new Duratec cars cover the whole price range, you can buy a roller now for $20,000, back in the 90's a late Lola cost about £25,000 as a roller, a turn key car today at £35,000 is better value now some 18 years later. Yes some of the manufacturers charge more and some guys have the money to spend more so you will always have buyers of those cars. Why it WILL work is you have cars like the Lola at the top of the range down to cars like the MCR at the bottom of the price range, but to go lower you can buy them in kit form and then of course you have the secondhand cars that bridge the gap between the price of selling a Pinto car and buying a Duratec one. You are correct over here I have been at pains to exclude technology, as technology cost money in all sorts of guises. You are much more relaxed on this front and that puts the price up of buying the car and running it. We don't allow such things as 3 or 4 way dampers, diffusers, racing clutches, paddle shift etc etc but our cars are still amazingly quick without all this fancy stuff. Our ECU costs £350 but I don't think you should scrimp on the engine. The Jenvey intake is a great system and looks the part and when the base engine is so cheap you can afford to have some decent ancillaries. You only need to buy them once. The great thing about banning technology is that it levels the playing field for the manufacturers. Fred Bloggs in his lock up garage can produce a car that is as quick if not quicker than the big boys like Lola. This is especially true when it comes to aero devises. This enables the spawning of the small time S2 builders that made S2 such a diverse formula. We now have the small manufacturers like Motus and RAY selling cars as well as the established ones like Carbir and Lola. In fact the front running Duratec is a Gunn another low volume manufacturer. The point here is that money will not necessarly buy you a better or faster car, without the technology there is no point in paying $100,000 or $80,000 as a result people are producing low budget cars in the region of $50,000 for a turn key car or $20,000 as a roller or $15,000 in kit form. To be honest you need both extrems out there. What killed our Supersports in the UK was allowing technology especially aero aids, as a result the most expensive car bristled with every aero you could imagine and won every time. This meant if you didn't have $100,000 to spend on this car you couldn't win. What a surprise the formula died..... Its fantastic to see you guys moving slowly towards the new Duratec cars and the quicker you allow them to run at their full potential without modification the better. 200 bhp on a bog standard engine is awesomely quick and soooo cheap to run, that's what will attract people back into S2 again. Not going the same speed as a modified Pinto....... oops over stepped the mark again, sorry... but it has been rather quite lately..... and watch out for the new MARCH later this year and Brian will have finished the new Carbir very soon.........
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
David Arundel		#245	[url]	[-]
Posts: 63 05/19/09 18:03:43	Thank you Mark and Colin. I think Colin has touched on another fantastic idea! We should be able to buy new cars in kit form. Most of us can put them together...not a big deal. One of the most successful sports racers of all time was the Lotus 23B. I think that over its lifetime, as many as 1/2 of the Lotus 23's were sold as kits. Just sell us the parts...tub, arms, uprights, bodywork etc. etc. Most of us could save as much as $10,000 or more by doing the assembly work ourselves. I think that is a great idea...and I hope it is something the manufacturers would consider. I still think you ought to be able to buy a very, very capable "new" S2 for $60,000 or less. Colin....you have added some GREAT insight to this argument. Let's keep it simple!!! There are many series for those with BIG pockets who MUST have the latest and the greatest. I think what we need is more NEW cars. I can't see spending thousands and thousands to modify my 24 year old Swift DB2. As I said earlier...I would pay $60,000 for a turnkey new S2...but I won't spend $75,000 or $100,000!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthew DiRenzo	Quick update	#246	[url]	[-]
Posts: 87 05/21/09 11:28:42	The MZR proposal is under review by the FSRAC this week. Once we receive their input, I'll post a more extensive update outlining any changes that were made (if any).
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthew DiRenzo	Latest news	#247	[url]	[-]
Posts: 89 06/08/09 17:54:28	The FSRAC has reviewed the MZR proposal, and both they and the CRB support it in principle. However, they've requested that we demonstrate the package on-track by July 4 in order to have it approved in time for next year. While the dyno work is largely done, having a car on track that soon will be difficult. Further discussions will take place at the June Sprints, so it's possible a compromise will be reached. In the worst case, i.e. the new engine being delayed to 2011, I've suggested that the aluminum brake calipers and possibly 5-speed upgrades be submitted in time for next year. That would at least get the ball rolling for all of those who wish to convert rather than purchase new cars. Given the palpable effects of the economic downturn on our racing budgets, spreading the upgrade costs out may not be such a bad idea. In any case, expect to see more updates by the end of the month. Note that the previously mentioned "member input period" will now be postponed until we reach an agreement with the CRB / FSRAC on how the proposal will be published. Just the typical SCCA process here, nothing unexpected.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
rajaracer	MZR Proposal....	#248	[url]	[-]
Posts: 289 06/09/09 08:59:19	just a question...what would the FSRAC expect to see from a race-ready package? do they expect a car with the new engine mounted will perform substantially better than the dyno results would indicate? are they worried about something blowing up? i don't see any merit in postponing either the proposal or the new engine. on another note, i would hold off on the gearbox change for the near term. i'm ok with the alu calipers, but i wouldn't push the gearbox. i'm sure people would like to absorb one big upgrade at a time. marc
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Tony Sleath		#249	[url]	[-]
Posts: 214 06/09/09 09:12:05	I've traded some e-mails with a member of the CRB and basically they want to make sure that if the new engine is approved by the membership that they know it will actually function on track and that is not superior to the current engine. They do not want January 1st to come along and all of a sudden the package doesn't work out of the box or it is significantly better on the track even though the dyno curves looked similar. Our original intention was to run the engine by now but due to some delays this past winter we won't run it now until after the Runoffs. We want to concentrate on this season for now. Since the package is proven in the UK and the only thing we have to do here in the states versus the UK cars is to prove out the ECU map that we will use I'm hoping we can work on a compromise with the CRB. I plan to speak with some members of the CRB at the June Sprints. Apparently they are planning to have an informal meeting of sorts on Friday evening. I would like to invite everyone that will be there to join me in the discussion.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthew DiRenzo		#250	[url]	[-]
Posts: 90 06/10/09 04:12:58	Tony's outlined the situation clearly, but I do agree with Marc. I doubt anyone here expects the package to be 100% perfect on launch day, given that the proposal has (by necessity) been developed in a short amount of time. I can also say, as someone who definitely won't be an early adopter of the MZR (for budgetary reasons), that I'm not worried about the inevitable parity adjustments that the MZR map will need over the initial months. For me, weighing half a season's worth of mild annoyance vs. the long-term survival of the class isn't much of a contest. For what it's worth, I specifically requested that aluminum calipers be prioritized should the engine be delayed. I agree that 5-speeds can wait, since that's a concession to the new cars more than anything else... and they won't be coming without the engine.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthew DiRenzo	Update	#251	[url]	[-]
Posts: 92 06/22/09 21:38:57	Unfortunately, the CRB / FSRAC weren't willing to compromise on their requirement to have a car tested on track by July 4. We won't have a car on track until August. This means that while the MZR proposal may appear in FasTrack this year, if approved, it won't go into effect until 2011. I don't agree with their reasons, but that's how it is. 5-speed boxes will come with the new engine, not before. However, a request for member input on permitting aluminum brake calipers will appear in August's FasTrack. The rule will appear as written in the proposal linked on page 1 of this thread. If approved, aluminum calipers will be legal for the 2010 season. Consider the calipers stage one of our long-term plan targeted for 2011 -- vote accordingly. I'll post another update after the MZR package has been tested on track.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
rajaracer	whatta crock....	#252	[url]	[-]
Posts: 296 06/23/09 04:49:09	that is such pound of bullsh*t. i still don't see the logic of having an on-track demonstrator for the advisory board to see. the engine can be spec'd on the dyno. if i want to put a new engine on my car that has been approved, let me worry about the development. one more year of waiting, one more year there is no alternative for those that want a sports racer that won't cost a small fortune, and one more year of being dive-bombed by the dsr/csr cars. unbelievable. apparently, the advidory board don't understand that the people most interested in seeing this through are going to the runoffs, and while i would love to be able to fabricate an entirely new rear to accomodate a new engine, test it for them, and then convert back in time to test for the runoffs, i have neither the time, nor the resources. marc
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthew DiRenzo		#253	[url]	[-]
Posts: 93 06/23/09 05:38:14	I agree Marc; I'm not impressed. It's particularly grating when you note that the F500 600cc motorcycle engine proposal will be published without on track testing, the ESR-in-S2 request was published without testing, the rather large ad-hoc FA engine changes to allow the Swift 016 was published with no testing (at least not publicly), etc. etc. etc. Any number of reasons will be cited, but ultimately it comes down to them not understanding S2's situation. Why a request for member input couldn't be published with a requirement that we complete testing by August or the proposal's implementation be delayed, I don't know. It seems like a perfectly reasonable deal... and I have no idea why it matters whether something gets published in the GCR, when we've got new stuff published in FasTrack all the time that won't appear until the next printing of the GCR. Anyway, it's all nonsense; my only suggestion is that anyone who doesn't like it complain.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
rajaracer	i'm writing	#254	[url]	[-]
Posts: 297 06/23/09 06:37:11	i'm writing an email to the crb and the f/sr advisory committee right now. i don't have stan clayton's or dave gomberg's email address, so i may have to forward the email later.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Dave Gomberg		#255	[url]	[-]
Posts: 124 06/23/09 06:58:23	First, let me confirm that the advisory committee has recommended to the CRB (which has not yet met to discuss this) that the addition of the 2.0 liter Duratec not be done for 2010 for lack of sufficient information. Whether or not you think the recommendation is correct, you should understand that the CRB is constrained by the schedule for rules changes to be in the 2010 GCR. The advisory committee does not feel there is enough information to go on right now, even though they support the proposal in principle. Second, it is true that the F500 600cc motorcycle proposal was published for member comment. It is also true that (independent of the input received from members) the committee has recommended to the CRB that the proposal be set aside until more information is available, both dyno and on track data. The earliest that these engines might be allowed is 2011. Dave David@Gomberg.info
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Matthew DiRenzo		#256	[url]	[-]
Posts: 94 06/23/09 08:10:09	And that is where the ball's being dropped on SCCA's end. At the very least, the MZR proposal should be published (in entirety) for member comment. Unlike the F500 proposal, our deal is more than just words on paper. While the FSRAC, being completely removed from the situation, may feel there's not enough information, all you have to do is call Steve Knapp to find out that there's a physical engine being developed at his shop. Call Brian Utt, so he can tell you that there's a Carbir conversion kit waiting on the engine. Call Tony to find out that his car will be torn down prior to the Runoffs solely to demonstrate this package on track in August. My point here is that very real time and money is being spent on this project. Not only does that effect us, but also people on the fence who are waiting to see "what happens." It's essential that member comment be solicited as soon as possible, so that we know this isn't a complete waste of time and resources. Who the hell wants to go through with all this only to have it voted down after the fact? If the actual implementation has to wait until 2011, fine... but the class needs a firm roadmap for all the reasons I've mentioned.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
rajaracer	my letter ....	#257	[url]	[-]
Posts: 298 06/23/09 08:47:46	Gentlemen….. I'm writing to express my displeasure with the apparent decision to not allow the recent new engine proposal to proceed without an on-track demonstration of the package. There is substantial data from the engine's use overseas (albeit in a higher horsepower configuration), and manufacturer and vendor data regarding gearbox integrity using the higher horsepower and torque of the new engine should be sufficient to allow this proposal to move forward. The Sports2000 class needs a modern engine, generating a modest increase in output from the current, 30-year-old Pinto engine. Not only are these engines failing (I've had 2 cam towers break in 1 year - this despite everyone saying that never happens!), but this class needs to modernize to draw new entrants that want a sports racer with limited rules (and a step up from SRFs). At this point, average speeds of the C & D sports racers have increased over the last few years considerably, while Sports2000 performance has not changed. I personally know of more than a few drivers that are tired of the ever increasing costs to run a DSR or CSR, and would welcome something similar in a less expensive class (a Sports2000 w/ the engine upgrade would cost half as much as a DSR or CSR). However, these individuals are not interested in racing something with a 30-year motor and a 35-year-old gearbox. The cars need to be modernized and this engine is the first step. This proposal needs to go forward as soon as possible in my opinion, and an on-track demonstration would not provide any new information than what is already known about the performance of the MZR engine (which I understand to be extremely flexible). Marc Walker 2005 National Champion Sports 2000
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Dave Gomberg		#258	[url]	[-]
Posts: 125 06/23/09 10:09:26	Matthew DiRenzo wrote: And that is where the ball's being dropped on SCCA's end. At the very least, the MZR proposal should be published (in entirety) for member comment. Unlike the F500 proposal, our deal is more than just words on paper. While the FSRAC, being completely removed from the situation, may feel there's not enough information, all you have to do is call Steve Knapp to find out that there's a physical engine being developed at his shop. Call Brian Utt, so he can tell you that there's a Carbir conversion kit waiting on the engine. Call Tony to find out that his car will be torn down prior to the Runoffs solely to demonstrate this package on track in August. My point here is that very real time and money is being spent on this project. Not only does that effect us, but also people on the fence who are waiting to see "what happens." It's essential that member comment be solicited as soon as possible, so that we know this isn't a complete waste of time and resources. Who the hell wants to go through with all this only to have it voted down after the fact? If the actual implementation has to wait until 2011, fine... but the class needs a firm roadmap for all the reasons I've mentioned. I really don't want to get into a long argument here, but there is less difference between the two proposals than you imply. There are F500 chassis with engines installed. They have not been on track on a race weekend and we have received no dyno data. Those things will not happen in time to meet the deadlines for the 2010 GCR, so the committee recommended against the proposal. The equivalent information for the S2000 proposal will not be available to meet the deadlines for the 2010, so the committee made the same decision. If we were to publish the proposal in the next Fastrack (August) we would be raising false expectations - why would we ask people to weigh in on something we know we can't approve for 2010? (In the case of F500, we were told the information would be available by now. That didn't happen.) Dave
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Tony Sleath		#259	[url]	[-]
Posts: 217 06/23/09 10:25:15	Dave, I guess one of the things I don't understand is if the F/SRAC is worried about the engine being more powerful on track even if the dyno data suggests they are the same, why can't we say that the engine would be initially allowed with say 140 hp with the intention of matching it by say 6/1/2010. That way anyone that wants to convert their car over the winter can run in the early part of the season with a little less hp to get the "on track" data to satisfy whomever needs to be satisfied and at the same time the car registration would count as an S2 versus a CSR. Remember part of the reason we are doing this is to try and improve our car count so forcing me to run as a CSR does not help S2 car counts. If I run my car with a little less hp initially and get beat by all the pinto powered cars that are there for the weekend I'd end up finishing something like 2nd or 3rd in class, big deal. I really don't understand the need to have actual on track data, it won't prove anything. If the F/SRAC wants on track data to prove the new engine is not more powerful than the current engine we all know I could use an old NASCAR trick and put a magnet on the back of my throttle pedal so I wasn't getting full throttle. Then when my wheel speeds look the same as when I drove with the Pinto the data would say the engines are matched when in reality they are not. I'm not saying I would actually do this I'm just saying to prove that "on track" data is not everything. The reason the FC cars needed changes to the Zetec map is because you need multiple people running the new engine to get multiple data points which will only happen when/if the engine is approved.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Mark Schue	What info does on track data provide?	#260	[url]	[-]
Posts: 579 06/23/09 11:54:39	Dave, What information&data does F/SRAC need from on-track? It seems that there are so many factors involved that it would be difficult to draw any conclusions. The driver skill, the make and model of the car, the set up on the car, the quality of the conversion and prep, the data system and accuracy, etc. Any any of these factors could make it look better or worse. What am I not understanding? To answer your question on "why post the proposal now, even if it can't be approved for 2010?"...the answer is planning! If this is going to be approved for 2011, prep shops can start building conversion kits for the different makes and models now. Car builders can start designing new cars (assuming you buy into the theory: get a new engine and the builders will come). Car owners can determine what route they will take and plan (and save) accordingly. I'm getting close to being ready for an engine rebuild. Should I stay with the iron head, go alloy or nurse it around for the next 1.5 years and spend my money on the new engine, sell the old car and buy new car....or get out of the class. All depends on if and when this is going to happen. Dragging this uncertainy out over years is not helping. Mark
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

S2 Proposal

Quick Reply