How to break F1 lap records with a $50,000 to $100,000 car

Use the many aerodynamics concepts currently banned in F1 (steering fins, variable incidence wings, suspension mounted wings, fan suction, venturi diffuser sidepods, etc). Add banned mechanical concepts such as asymmetric braking. Drop in a low percentage nitro motor built to run just a few laps.

Franklin, sometimes.... just sometimes.....

Now, surely the great thing about having different formulae is precisely that. They are DIFFERENT.

Drag racing is your thing. That is clear from many threads. So be it. There's nothing wrong with drag racing.

I, on the other hand, get a kick out of seeing a car turn a corner once in a while, and I enjoy seeing them come back and try the same corner lap after lap. And I also like seeing them come by in a different order occasionally.

It is easy to say that you can make a wiz-bang speedster go faster by taking everything that has been ruled off-limits and bunging it on the poor little beastie.

I rather think that there is technical achievement to be seen in the F1 designers looking at the narrowly defined parameters of car design that they are allowed, and then using them to find optimum performance - within those parameters. It is, if you will, a formula. And that is why it is christened as such.

That, in my book, takes real ingenuity.

zzzzzzzz.......

Franklin give it a break hey? And you want to know why they gave you the punt from 7g?? Go on, buy yourself a mirror and have a good hard look at yourself...

Originally posted by TimD
There's nothing wrong with drag racing.


I could take issue with you on that statement Tim. And I will.

How can you call it racing? There's no overtaking, just a faster car, no out braking or driver skill (unless you class hangining on for grim dreath until the engine blows a skill). In fact its no better than golf in terms of a sport.

Wonder if this'll raise a reaction? ;)

Theres lots of overtaking in drag racing Peter...duurrrr...

But couldnt they improve touring cars and nascar by getting rid of the roof, adding wings here there and everywhere, and giving them a 3 stage booster of an Appolo rocket. Think about it, how fast would that go!!!:)

CT. You mean like "my engine is much more powerful than yours, overtaking", or "I can out-brake you into this corner and then pass you on the apex", type of overtaking. I know what I mean and there's none of it in drag racing.;)

Mind you, there's not much of it in F1 so I think they've already been listening to Franklin.

You bet it'll raise a reaction. And this is soooo off topic too.

Don't knock golf. Ever. Fine sport. It's a good way to

a) Get exercise
b) Take money off your mates
c) Relax after the (excitement/anger*) of a grand prix


* Substitute either word, depending on whether you watch the GP, or find it irritating that bugger all happens in most of them any more.

By the way, those wide low profile tires that have predominated in open wheel racing since the mid-sixties were invented by a DRAG RACER (Mickey Thompson).

And Peter given the way in which you so loudly protest I wonder whether it is in fact due to the realization that a small team working in a well-equipped NASCAR/drag racing shop could build an open wheeler which would blow away your beloved F1 cars.

Originally posted by Franklin
By the way, those wide low profile tires that have predominated in open wheel racing since the mid-sixties were invented by a DRAG RACER (Mickey Thompson).

And Peter given the way in which you so loudly protest I wonder whether it is in fact due to the realization that a small team working in a well-equipped NASCAR/drag racing shop could build an open wheeler which would blow away your beloved F1 cars.

There's some reaction then.;)

Weren't slicks invented by Firestone in the sixties and first used by Chapperal? Don't know about any dragster bloke inventing them. He may have asked the tyre companies to develop something.

If your contention about the small team is correct, why aren't they doing it? Surely F1/Indy pays more than Drag/NASCAR?;)

Golf? A sport? Nah, you're kidding me!!!

The first wide low profile tires ever used in open wheel racing were Goodyears built to Mickey Thompson's specifications and introduced at the 1963 Indy 500 on Thompson's team cars. (Maybe the wrong person is administrating this forum.)

The first wide low profile tires ever used in open wheel racing were Goodyears built to Mickey Thompson's specifications and introduced at the 1963 Indy 500 on Thompson's team cars. (Maybe the wrong person is administrating this forum.)

Excuse me Franklin, I'm one of the administrators of this forum. The others are KC, Liz and Invader.
I fail to see what the use of the first wide low profile tyres by Mickey Thompson has to do with being the wrong person to administrate this forum.
Are you referring to the fact we don't know what we are talking about?
Well, we don't know everything, you know.
We are fans of the sport in the first place and we like to learn more about it by visiting these forums and reading what other members have to say about a certain subject.
Members like you, Franklin.
You have a far greater technical knowledge than I do, so all I can do is learn from you.
But I think it's inappropriate to say that whenever a person doesn't possess the same knowledge as you do, he's the wrong person to do the job.

If you have a problem with the way this forum is administrated, you are invited to e-mail me with your complaints.
They will be read and taken into account as long as they're rational.

Oh sorry Peter, i didn't sound sarcastic enough:)

Im not ragging drag racing, what a way to spend saturday might, getting your ears and brain blasted in to outer spacemit is just that circuit stuff is what i was bred on, and i can see myself dying with it...

Hey Franklin, I think your the greatest! I think you would make a fantastic moderator...Bwahahahah....:)

[Sorry, sarcastic again:)]

Actually, to be a little serious, this should really be in the technical forum.

Mr F. I was referring to slicks whilst you actually just meant reduced profile tyres. How did that help in drag racing then? The rears on a dragster always look like doughnuts to me. Low profile tyres are generally noted for their cornering properties (reduced slip etc.) so why did your drag man need these tyres?

CT. Obviously you play golf to improve your career development. Can't think of any other reason.

Thanks. I needed to laugh at the ridiculous again.

"so why did your drag man need these tyres?"

Because the clueless geniuses in Indy car and F1 after 30+ years had still not figured out that tall narrow tires were a hugely dumb idea.

And speaking of clueless, people who have no idea who Mickey Thompson was might be wise to refrain from ever again commenting on any auto racing related topic.

Good one Franklin:)

So who do you think will win in Canada?

And speaking of clueless, people who have no idea who Mickey Thompson was might be wise to refrain from ever again commenting on any auto racing related topic.

Really Franklin, is there a way to talk to you in a normal sense.
Is it possible for you to come down from that throne you're sitting on and mingle with us mere mortals.

Isn't the purpose of a forum to discuss topics of interest and in the meanwhile respect each others interpretations?

It seems to me all you can do is to make us aware of the fact you know it all and we're just a bunch of nono's.

That's a very objectionable habit.
I can tell you that if you're looking for a discussion forum where everyone is incredibly knowledgeable, it doesn't exist anywhere on the Net.

We're here for the love of the sport, and most of us are not involved in the technical side of it.

But we're grateful we have the possibility to learn from others like Sparky, Dino, enzo and all those members who know more about it than most of us.
And you, Franklin, we can also learn from you.
We can be the pupils and you can be the teacher.
But the first thing to do in order to spread your knowledge amongst us, is to respect us for what we don't know.

I don't know Mickey Thompson, never heard of him, and according to your expression mentioned above I should no longer comment to any auto racing related topic anymore.
Well, I'm sure that goes for many of us, and then what?
I think you'll find yourself a lonely man here, with no one to talk to.

By the way, I share Peter's sentiments this topic belongs in the Technical Forum and will thus move it there.
[Edited by Gerard on 15th June 2000]

And then of course there are those of us for whom the name Mickey Thompson does mean something.

And are keeping silent about it.

If you follow me.

Thanks for moving this Gerard. Sorry to disturb you Sparkster. (Where are you BTW?).

On the Mickey Thompson issue I am totally clueless but if it has anything to do with motorsport history you know where to post it Tim.

However I would respectfully request that unless Mr F controls his obviously large ego, I would ask him not to post in that forum.

Now Mr F. Perhaps you could answer my question viz the subject of slip requirements on tires (sic) that don't need to turn corners. As opposed to those which do in Indy or F1.;)

Mickey Thompson was the hot rodder who demonstrated that hot rodders could push the performance envelope on a world class level. Besides being the man who in 1962 introduced wide low profile tires to open wheel racing, Mickey Thompson was the first man to clock speeds of over 300 mph and 400 mph with automotive engines. He was also the first American driver to clock speeds of over 300 mph and 400 mph, only the second driver period to clock over 400 mph, and the first driver to clock over 300 mph with normally aspirated engines. Thompson also did much to advance offroad racing, including founding SCORE.

Thanks for that Mr F. May I direct you to the Historic Forum where you may wish to discuss the life and times of this obviously gifted man in Tim's topic "Mickey Thompson". But please be polite.;)

For god sake
cant u lot stop *****ing?
someone give franklin a slap and be done with it all!!

one thing, no yank has EVER beat english engineering.
saw yesterday that jaguar have got a yank team manager, poor things destined to the back of them grid

THR.

A little harsh if not indeed totally incorrect.

Carrol Shelby took an extremely good chassis (AC) and made the Cobra. The Chapperals were the most innovative sportscars of their day. It was Jim Hall and I believe he was an American.

Chapman took the Chaperall concept (fans sucking air under the car) and developed ground effects.

However. Americans were rather slow at monocoques and mid engines. It took some serious embarassment to get them to change.

So, whilst I would agree that the US has not always been at the forefront of innovative competition engineering, I don't consider them to be the failures you suggest.

BTW. Franklin can be somewhat abrasive but if he can make an effort to DISCUSS things then so can we.;)

Actually, HOT RODDERS beat everybody there (except Auto Union).

By 1952, HOT RODDERS were going over 200 mph at Bonneville in an open wheel car with full spaceframe, rear engine, independent rear suspension, and reclined seating position.

Beat everybody WHERE exactly?

Sometimes WHERE is not a place.

Ah, I see.

I beg your pardon - ambiguity strikes again.

I suppose that strictly speaking, your argument is valid - that Auto Union was the only road-course manufacturer whose cars could outdrag a purpose built sprint car - if I understand you correctly.

But again, it is a question of formulae. It has to be said that a salt lake speedster is not designed to tackle a road course. Because its design is not constrained by the need to go around corners, it is impossible to argue that the road-racer designers have missed a trick by failing to adopt sprint practice.

Ignoring all the *****in' and snipin' for a moment, ;) I looked at the original thread title, and came up with this.

It's difficult to find a circuit that is unchanged from it's original configuration. The closest I could find is Spa Francorchamps, which also happens to be many driver's favourite circuit.

Taking the 1997 race, Jacques Villeneuve in the Williams FW19 achieved the fastest lap - 1m52.692 @ 138.314 mph.

Going back to 1983, (I believe the earliest possible Belgian event while still holding a direct comparison) Andrea de Cesaris, in the Alfa Romeo 183T, got the fastest lap - 2m07.493 @ 121.930

Now, I'm having some difficulty in establishing a budget for any team in 1983, let alone Alfa, but I can imagine it probably wasn't even 8 - 10% of todays expenditure. Is it possible that teams spent ten times the amount of money to simply reduce the lap record by 15 seconds??

No. What they have done is spend an inordinate amount of money to overcome ever-tightening legislation aimed at reducing speeds.

Of course it would be possible to break lap records with a car as 'cheap' as Franklin suggests but:

How long would it last? Two, three laps?

Does it have to be built to the current F1 Sporting Regs? Oh? Then I'm afraid it can't be done.

As you suggest Franklin, it would involve the use of:

...steering fins, variable incidence wings, suspension mounted wings, fan suction, venturi diffuser sidepods, etc. Add banned mechanical concepts such as asymmetric braking. Drop in a low percentage nitro motor built to run just a few laps.

What would this achieve? As a drag racing fan, you are so obviously in awe of a car that can lap at that speed, ie, be that fast and go round corners quickly.

The two are not mutually exclusive. But it does depend on the FORMULA.

The fact that F1 teams have had to spend sooooo much money in order to be as quick as previous years, is because the authorities are trying to reduce speeds for safety reasons. However much we all hate it, it is a good idea. Had there been no deaths or injuries in the sport since 1950, there would likely be fewer restrictions, and higher speeds. Thus, the teams would need to spend significantly less in order to break todays lap records.

But then todays lap records would be higher, so...

Oh, To heck with it. ;)

Makes sense to me...

"I suppose that strictly speaking, your argument is valid - that Auto Union was the only road-course manufacturer whose cars could outdrag a purpose built sprint car - if I understand you correctly."

No, TimD, you completely misunderstood me. What I said was that a decade before the rear engine revolution happened in Indy car and F1, hot rodders were already building rear-engine open wheel cars (lakesters) and going over 200 mph with them at Bonneville. The only Europeans who beat the hot rodders to this configuration were Auto Union engineers in the mid and late thirties.

And as David Coulthard himself said over the weekend, not only are F1 cars (unlike Indy cars) not built to hit walls but if an F1 driver finds himself in a position where he can hit a wall it's because the FIA screwed up.

http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/images/icons/icon5.gif

That was Coulthard's explanation of why an Indy car chassis weighs "three times more than an F1 chassis" (which gets me to wondering exactly how much ballast they have to put in an F1 car just to get it up to the minimum weight).

No, when I said http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/images/icons/icon5.gif I meant what does Coulthards opinion on vehicle stength have to do with the budget required to go quickly... once or twice (if it can hold up)... and against the current rules?

Originally posted by Franklin
That was Coulthard's explanation of why an Indy car chassis weighs "three times more than an F1 chassis" (which gets me to wondering exactly how much ballast they have to put in an F1 car just to get it up to the minimum weight).

FYI The best F1 cars allegedly weigh 440kg with engine, the worst about 480kg.

IRL/INDY cards are heavier 'cos that what the rules stipulate.

IanC

Well PM you certainly did get a few reactions ...... there really is nothing like a friendly and spirited debate - and that was nothing like a friendly and spirited debate ! But seriously(ish) there's a lot of skill , and , for that matter , overtaking involved in golf - for example a good friend of mine was playing recently , when , in trying a daring overtaking maneouvre on a battery powered trolley , rode the banking a little high and turned his golf buggy over....scattering all his clubs and breaking his partner's ankle in the process when landing on him ! Thats without mentioning all the groups I have to let play through whilst I'm looking for my balls in the rough....Anyway back to the plot....
Franklin , sorry but I've never heard of Mickey Thompson either , infact when he was inventing 'fat' tyres I wasn't even born , bear in mind we are talking about something 38 years ago ! And as for the Auto Union thing are you admitting that the guys in drag (or should I re-phrase that) copied the Auto union idea rather than coming up with it themselves for which you deride F1 so much.
Long live freedom of speech ! But lets stay polite to our fellow petrolheads (or nitrousheads)- now there's a point - how much faster would an F1 car be with Nitrous ?

Originally posted by Slowcoach...

now there's a point - how much faster would an F1 car be with Nitrous?


You know, I asked that very same question... http://ten-tenths.accelerator.org/forum/showthread.php?threadid=1613

Who knows?

Ah, but don't you see, Slowcoach?

The golf trolley that turned over was designed by idiots. No wonder your poor friend hurt himself when the people who build golf carts persist in using their outmoded backwater technology.

The way to make a more advanced golf cart is to replace the little frilly canopy with an all enveloping tubular roll cage, remove that inefficient and frankly tardy electric motor and fit a General Electric J-79 powerplant from a Lockheed Starfighter, fit wide tyres, so as to be able to roll the greens while moving off from the tee (thus killing two birds with one stone), and of course, vitally, rework all golf courses into 18 greens, all in a straight line, so that the golf trolley does not have to turn any significant corners.

While reworking the golf courses, you should of course eliminate all of those dangerous trees and sandtraps, and replace them with lakes which slow the balls - and indeed the golf trolleys - far more effectively.

It's the way forward. Deep down, you know it's true.

Originally posted by TimD:

fit a General Electric J-79 powerplant from a Lockheed Starfighter, fit wide tyres, so as to be able to roll the greens while moving off from the tee (thus killing two birds with one stone)

Tim, I suspect you'll be killing more than just two birds with that approach!! http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

Well, I was always taught that in golf you had to try and score a birdie.

Ay thang yew....

Well I think thats game set and match to TimD......or is it , I think your idea's already been thought of , a couple of years back a guy won a Darwin award after he strapped an F15 jet engine to his golf cart - it may have been a Chevy on reflection but no-one will ever know - because they found a small tangle of metal embedded 400 feet up the face of a cliff a 1/4 of a mile away from where the skid marks ended on the highway - and not an Eagle in sight............

My golf kart accident happened when i was at the wheel, and a friend was working the pedals... anyways, i put the beast into forward gear and me mate hit the loud pedal...anyways it wound up wrapped around a tree...

how could this be fixed? DONT LET TEENAGERS BE IN CHARGE OF ANY VEHICLE!!!

OOps, sorry, what was this topic?:)

I have a friend who solved the slow golf-buggy problem by driving a mini van on the course instead, although it was not during a game but at night, and I believe it was alchohol fuelled as well!
(Don't try this at home kids, he was arrested and fined greatly for this activity several years ago....)

What was the topic again??

This may have deviated from the topic somewhat...
..and talking about $olf should be banned!.....

But Franklin has been quiet for several posts.. must be good... unless he's not permitted access to the internet at home!

<vbg>
IanC

When F1 has gotten so technically restrictive that apparently nobody believes you can't break F1 lap records with a $100,000 car, we would do well to ask ourselves whether there is anything left to attract original and innovative engineers to the sport.

Originally posted by Franklin
When F1 has gotten so technically restrictive that apparently nobody believes you can't break F1 lap records with a $100,000 car, we would do well to ask ourselves whether there is anything left to attract original and innovative engineers to the sport.

Well, I think we can answer our own question. Because its so restrictive the BEST brains are attracted to F1 for more reasons than money. It presents so much more of a challenge than a regulation free formula.;)

If we put Mika Hakkinen and a Mercedes engine in a Minardi chassis and whatever engine Minardi is running in a McLaren chassis, do you think anybody would be raving about the brilliant McLaren chassis design?

(Some relevant words from E.J. Potter)

"The evolution of stuff like this goes as follows: There is in the beginning a mechanical contrivance which evolves from a practical, useful machine intended to make mankind's work easier. A certain kind of tinkerer can't leave his car, boat, tractor etc. like it is. He has to improve it a little bit. Then somebody sees his work and has to do better. The ensuing spiral generates a vortex of rivalries that escalates all the participants to the point of formal competition or racing...

People like this can never leave well enough alone and eventually someone gets hurt in the process of proving that he is smarter and more daring than the next guy. Word of this gets around, and people want to watch this competition to be on hand when the next accident happens.

Now we need a place for official contests to take place and a promoter to advertise the events and collect the admission fees. So the contestants need to organise themselves to establish rules and standards for the competition, because the promoter ain't the teensiest bit interested in conserving the participants. He wants more gate revenue.

So of course, the smartest and boldest competitors get to be the loudest and most respected when it becomes time to set these rules in stone. By purely natural processes, the rules just happen to fit these guys like a glove, and soon they are winning a majority of the marbles every time.



This gets the attention of the promoters, who are out there beating the bushes for yankee dollars under and over the table to benefit any sponsor they can find with publicity.

Of course any money that trickles down the food chain will stop at the feet of the top guys in each class of competition who will consequently become unbeatable and a vicious loop will come into being that will cause any competitor with even half a brain to fade out of competition before he becomes bankrupt trying to keep up with the big boys.

Now we have less guys getting more money and the spiral escalates way beyond the point of sportsmanship and the reason for the sport is completely lost to everyone concerned.

What? You don't agree? Well, just think about what you saw at the last race you were at. No matter where you were, the pits were full of huge semi trucks with lavish trailers and race vehicles that were mobile billboards for everyone who whould give anything to the owners, or even more obscene yet, maybe the giving was done to the promoters or the sanctioning group. The participants had all modified the looks of their creations to please those with the big bucks to throw around in the name of a tax write-off. Artificial environments and garish costumes have denoted the redlight district everywhere in the world that I have ever seen. Phoniness and how-can-i-impress-you-now pervade the atmosphere so bad it chokes you.

Anybody connected to motorsports today because he loves engines and wants to see how his mechanical skills stack up is invisible in such a perverted atmosphere of people who have sold out everything for the almighty buck, which is therefore the lifeblood of the community that has completely lost its reason for being.





Ingenuity and originality are completely discounted to the point of being shunned and seen as a threat to the peace and progress of the establishment.

WHAT? Joe Schmerd has made an innovation that lets him win?

It doesn't cost anything?

Nobody in California manufactured it?

No contingency prize money?

Well to heck with him.

He's disqualified.

Who does he think he is, anyway?


Thousands of years ago somebody got famous for saying that the love of money is the root of all evil, and he looks smarter and smarter as time goes by. Since I think I'm so smart, you'll suppose I claim to have some remedy for this situation. It so happens I do, and next month I might tell you what it is. This ain't what I think, it's what I know. -- EJ Potter"

I have never agreed with the principle that money is the root of all evil. If you are driving and you hit a tree, do you blame it on the tree? No. Money is not evil, it is inanimate. People may do evil acts with money, but that is hardly the fault of the money.

Now, if F1 were to revert back to Formula Libre, it would have died out a long time ago. The costs would have escalated far out of control a long time ago. How much money did Auto Union and Daimler get out of the German government to pursue LSR records in the late twenties? How much did Alfa Romeo get to build the Bimotore to try and catch the two German juggernauts? If you could convert that money into today's money with inflation, I would be willing to bet that the sums are similar. While Formula Libre was definitely interesting for a short time because of the diversity of the fields, the anarchy involved took over. Racecars became too difficult to drive without either killing oneself or bystanders. Rules and equalization formulas took over to establish some sort of sanity and order to the chaos. By your thinking, racing legends such as Colin Chapman, Smokey Yunick, Ken Tyrell, and a host of others are not good engineers because they have to work inside a strict set of rules. I would argue the reverse, because they work inside the rules they have to be more creative than a guy who can just build a bigger motor to go faster.

Originally posted by KC
I have never agreed with the principle that money is the root of all evil. If you are driving and you hit a tree, do you blame it on the tree? No. Money is not evil, it is inanimate. People may do evil acts with money, but that is hardly the fault of the money.

Now, if F1 were to revert back to Formula Libre, it would have died out a long time ago. The costs would have escalated far out of control a long time ago. How much money did Auto Union and Daimler get out of the German government to pursue LSR records in the late twenties? How much did Alfa Romeo get to build the Bimotore to try and catch the two German juggernauts? If you could convert that money into today's money with inflation, I would be willing to bet that the sums are similar. While Formula Libre was definitely interesting for a short time because of the diversity of the fields, the anarchy involved took over. Racecars became too difficult to drive without either killing oneself or bystanders. Rules and equalization formulas took over to establish some sort of sanity and order to the chaos. By your thinking, racing legends such as Colin Chapman, Smokey Yunick, Ken Tyrell, and a host of others are not good engineers because they have to work inside a strict set of rules. I would argue the reverse, because they work inside the rules they have to be more creative than a guy who can just build a bigger motor to go faster.

Well, having considered the posts up to now and balancing the relative merits(?) of Franklin's "anything goes is best" theory against the extreme restrictions of F1 and other regulated championships which have given us such luminaries as Chapman, Byrne, Penske, Jim Hall and others I find it difficult to contemplate a free for all formula as the way forward. Where's the challenge in that?;)

So I think your post wraps it up nicely KC.

The irony is that although you mention that if we still had Formula Libre , costs would have escalated out of control. Many people would argue that the costs involved within Formula 1 are indeed astronomical and the original post by Franklin mentioned a figure of 'only' $50,000 to $100,000 for developing a car that he claimed might be able to break F1 lap records...........a mere drop in the ocean when compared to the budget of say Jaguar or Ferrari. But that is the problem with so many things in life , people are able to just throw money at the problem and often win , instead of just competeting for the sheer thrill of it regardless of where you finish ! (Which is what I hope must of us would do! -just for the thrill I mean)

Slowcoach, the problem isn't just about breaking lap records. As mentioned a few times in this thread, the technology is out there and relatively cheap. The problem lies in reliability. Taking Monaco as an extreme, there are numerous acceleration, braking, and high G loadings running through every component of the car, lap after lap for two hours. Not forgetting brushes with the armco and fellow competitors, the car has to be able to withstand an amazing amount of abuse, and do so reliably.
Much of the money spent on F1 these days will be in the area of ensuring the cars last the distance, a point not missed on Franklin...

Drop in a low percentage nitro motor built to run just a few laps.

With the restraints of technical regulations, it is a wonder these constructors manage to maintain the speeds of a few years ago. Legislate a reduced budget, and a reduction in speed, and there would be no way the cars would maintain their current form.

In fairness to franklin, his original post actually says "a few laps" or words of that nature. We are really arguing about longer distance racing which is not Mr F's bag.;)

I'm sure what Franklin meant to say was; "how to build a $50,000 to $100,000 F1 car that can out-qualify the current crop"

BTW, F1 Lap records can only be broken during an actual race can't they? Something Mr F's balsa wood example wouldn't last 3 minutes doing, I'm sure. ;)

Even with the extreme expense of F1 these days, it has not reached the point that a huge number of teams or suppliers or manufacturers are going to quit. The bad part is that like every other form of racing in the world, when the manufacturers get involved and spend the necessary funds to put together a proper effort, they will eventually quit. I doubt F1 will be immune to this. I can see in the next 10 years where the manufacturers like Renault, Honda, Toyota, Ford/Jaguar, and BMW will all be clamoring for a reduction in costs and some will quit the series. There comes a time when the advertising benefits of being a world stage winner do not outweigh the costs involved getting there. This can be ushered in by the dominance of one particular make as well. Group C sports cars in America collapsed after Nissan and Toyota had spent millions making their teams the top flight in the program and everyone else gave up and the series died. This could happen to F1 and I think would have happened 20 years ago if Formula Libre rules were adopted.

The biggest myth is the entire history of motorsports is that quantum leaps in performance or technology require quantum leaps in budget. It's finding all those incremental marginal improvements in performance that gets really expensive. (For example, the $200 to $300 million budgets of McLaren and Ferrari.)

"how to build a $50,000 to $100,000 F1 car that can out-qualify the current crop"

No Sparky, what I meant to say was HOW TO BUILD FOR $50,000 TO $100,000 AN OPEN WHEEL CAR THAT WILL RUN ANY F1 TRACK QUICKER THAN ANY F1 CAR EVER BUILT BY ANYBODY ANYWHERE.

Franklin, I've already agreed that it can be done, but with the set-up you suggest, and at that budget, anything built isn't going to last long.

You said yourself; "Drop in a low percentage nitro motor built to run just a few laps." Basically, a qualifying 'grenade' motor.

The fact is, and you also said this, that it can't be done without illegal parts.

SO ONCE AGAIN, WHAT'S THE POINT????? http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/images/icons/icon5.gif

The point, Sparky, is that Franklin is a stupid troll who only comes here to **** people off by posting the same old shyte again and again. Shame he doesn't **** off himself really.

By the way, Fat(fill in the blank), I forgot to mention that by using a surplus T-58 gas turbine you could not only build a $50,000 to $100,000 car capable of turning quicker laps than an F1 car but also capable of going the same distance).

Why not try approaching an F1 team boss with your plans Mr Franklyfullofshyte ? You never know, he just might show an interest. Or maybe not...

Yeah, but then you get the problem of fuel capacity and braking. With all of this discussion, nobody has really disagreed with your correct statement that cars can be built to go faster than an F1 or Champ Car. However the latter two need to be built to regulations and as far as I am aware turbines and forced induction engines are banned from these formulae.

When these items could be used they were too expensive for the teams to try. Lotus had a go and Rover built and competed at Le Mans with a Gas Turbine car. So its not new. Its just not the formula.

And that where any argument falls down. To get the best out of a formula you need to spend money. At my level it involves having special engine components manufactured. I can't change my suspension etc. If I could do those things I would then be racing in a different category.;)

Oops - you blew it Frank. Turbines are notoriously slow to rev up, so I'm afraid that your dream car is gonna be rather slow off the corner.

The real question about all this is " So what ?" If some real engineers chose to do so, they could build a car that would eat a Top Fuel dragster alive, or a car that would set you gas pavement speed mark up over 600 mph. Building a straight line car is no big challenge if there are no rules. It's doing it within a set of rules that separates the real engineers from the hot rodder types. Even your beloved Nemesis ( or whatever the heck it is named) was built to a rules book - a plane built with no restrictions on design or components would make it looke like a Piper Cub. By the way, a Continental engine cost about $60k new, a carbon fiber prop a mimimum of $1k, and up to $10k or more, and two years of labor for two guys a minimum of $100k, so your budget claims are not real, no matter what anyone says.

You really are pathetic - go take your garbage elsewhere.

"The real question about all this is " So what ?" If some real engineers chose to do so, they could build a car that would eat a Top Fuel dragster alive, or a car that would set you gas pavement speed mark up over 600 mph. Building a straight line car is no big challenge if there are no rules. It's doing it within a set of rules that separates the real engineers from the hot rodder types. Even your beloved Nemesis ( or whatever the heck it is named) was built to a rules book - a plane built with no restrictions on design or components would make it looke like a Piper Cub. By the way, a Continental engine cost about $60k new, a carbon fiber prop a mimimum of $1k, and up to $10k or more, and two years of labor for two guys a minimum of $100k, so your budget claims are not real, no matter what anyone says."

Hey, MA (super genius), the website for Nemesis is http://www.nemesisnxt.com . Why don't you send them an e-mail pointing out what huge liars they must be because since obviously they are giving people completely bogus figures?

"Building a straight line car is no big challenge if there are no rules. It's doing it within a set of rules that separates the real engineers from the hot rodder types."

Well, MA (super doofus), the very term FASTEST SPEED ON PAVEMENT WITH GAS implies a car built to strict rules (or had that somehow completely escaped your attention?). It was a lakester (not a streamliner or an unlimited land speed record car), specifically a C/Blown Gas Lakester. And if it's not too hard for you to comprehend, the terms streamliner, C/Blown Gas and lakester must therefore imply the existence of a rulebook. Hopefully, you were sitting down as you read this earth-shattering revelation.

Funny you should mention that web site - in it they are quoted as saying that the labor bill would have been around $200k !!! Getting a bunch of free labor nad parts kinda warps the true costs to build something, doesn't it ?!!! If that were the TRUE cost of manufacture, you LSR should have been $100 by comparison !

Rules ? You call that a rule book ? Gad, F1 & CART designers would LOVE to have such an open rule book !

Again, the question is : WHO CARES ????????

It's obvious that you have absolutely no comprehension what goes into a top level road race car. Give it up befor you make an even bigger fool of yourself !

And somehow you have managed to ignore your own gaffaw with the turbine, genius boy ( or should that be Mullet Head ?)

Sorry for the name calling, just using your own favorite method of squirming while on the hook.

I've got to hand it to you "Franklin" for being able to make a post that has 65 replys!!.

You seem a very intense, technical person. Why don't you post a picture of you on this forum?

I might consider that, but first I'll need to get a decent photo of myself taken (my most recent one is a passport photo that looks more like a police mug shot).