I agree Chuck, that is why my target weight is 550 lbs for a modern 80" wheel base car.
Thanks ... Jay Novak -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Voboril Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 2:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [F500] RE: Min weight blues Jay, Thanks for bringing it up, but I'm not forgetting Carbon Fiber ! Some of those hillclimb cars are indeed CF and that is how they get a 97 to 100 inch WB car to weigh in like a tube frame 80" WB car. Going back to old World cheap F440 technology and costs: The Z19's with 150# drivers came in at 700# + probably 10# margin with 1 3/8" solid steel rear axles and solid steel front uprights and spindles. Thick steel shock housings in the back. Big 1/4" steel plates for the front suspension rubbers to bear against. Brass, not aluminum and plastic radiators. Thick F-glass sidepods, not 2 layup stuff. All I am saying is that with todays cheap and lighter CNC'd aluminum uprights, calipers, and hubs. Then adding hollow rear axles, a low tech, low cost F500 is quite practical. Chuck ______________________________________________________________ From: "Jay Novak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [email protected] To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [F500] RE: Min weight blues Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:52:26 -0400 >Chuck you are absolutely right about the British hill climb cars. What you >are forgetting however is that those super light cars cost %50K to build & >are CARBOV fiber everything. F500 is a very low cost entry level class & >who can afford to or will want to spend that kind of $$ for a F500 car. > > >Thanks ... Jay Novak > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck >Voboril >Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 12:07 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [F500] RE: Min weight blues > > > There are British hillclimb and sprint(hillclimb on a level > track) cars being built with 97" long WB and 255 HP MC motors that > only weigh about 550# w/out driver. A kaw motor is about 100 pounds > lighter than the bike motors going in those cars. Add 18 pounds for a > primary and secondary clutch and that's still 80 pounds lighter. > > No coil springs and heavy 'ol shock absorbers either :-> > > I would be extremely embarassed if I could not modifiy or build a > new Kaw powered car to 700# complete with fire system and 5 gal fuel > cell. > > There were 250 Zinks built and most had to run considerable > ballast(30+ lbs.) to road race with lightweight drivers in the 150 > pound category to meet 700#. > > Those old cars did not have the advantage of present day lightweight > CNC'd billlet uprights ,hubs, or hollow steel rear axles, either. > > Bulding a lightweight car is about the most technically > non-challenging thing one could ever do. > > If you haven't got the skill or you weigh 300 pounds, then stick with > a 494 or 493. > > As to high compression Kaws, I know the guys that built and road raced > motors like that. > > The AMW's still kicked their rumps like they were tie d to a > tree when they came on the scene. > > As to Solo, in my personal opinion, the current min Kaw weight > probably will not change. > > Chuck Voboril > __________________________________________________________ ____ > > From: "Jay Novak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [F500] 440 vs 494 > Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:58:26 -0400 > >I agree that it will be very difficult to do a 700 Lb Kawasaki > powered car. > >It could be done with a 150 to 170 lb driver but still not > easy. I think > >the 494 or the 493 will be very tough to beat because they have a > very wide > >powerband & a ton more torque than the Kawasaki. > > > >My 1st 80" wheelbase car weighed 715 with me in it & I weighed > about 165 at > >the time with no real effort at trying to make the car light, just > a super > >simple car. > > > >If I do design a new car & I am thinking about it, the target > weight will be > >550 lbs without driver & fuel. I know this is very do-able with a > lot of > >design integration. A couple of my older cars were right there so > I know it > >can be done. > > > >Way to much on my plate right now but maybe next year. > > > > > >Thanks ... Jay Novak > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Richard > >Schmidt > >Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 9:24 PM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: [F500] 440 vs 494 > > > >This is great news, but (you just knew there would be a but), I > still don't > >think it will even the playing field in road racing. > > > >First of all, it is not that easy to lose 50 lbs. Just ask anyone > on a diet > >! All of the cars out there are designed to weigh 750 with a > reasonable > >weight driver. I don't see how you can get a car down to the 700 > lb mark > >and not reduce the structural integrity. When I first raced my > F500 with the > >Kawasaki, I had to add ballast. That all changed with the change > over to > >four link suspension and the added bodywork to get the aero > working. > > > >I am not the familiar with the new chassis, but I suspect they are > all being > >designed for the 493 engine and thus would not be able to get down > to the > >700 lb min. > > > >Just one more small change, allow increasing the compression ratio > to about > >9:1 on the Kawasaki. This would be so easy, just mill some metal > off the > >head, reshape the dome, and presto, a 90 HP Kawasaki ! > > > >Ofcourse some clever chassis designer, Jay are you listing > ?, could build a > >new chassis just for the Kawasaki using all the improvements > learned over > >the years, but apply it to a car designed for a engine from > yesteryear. > > > >Richard > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Stan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[email protected]> > >Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 3:13 PM > >Subject: Re: [F500] 440 vs 494 > > > > > > > Effective May 1st, Kawi's can run at 700 lbs for even more fun! > > > > > > > > > Stan > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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! > *** > >_______________________________________________ > >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! > *** >_______________________________________________ >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! *** >_______________________________________________ >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! *** _______________________________________________ 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! *** _______________________________________________ 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! ***
