Wrong people building carbon fiber cars?

[Franklin]

A couple of weeks ago, Speedvision's Sport Aviation show had a segment on the Giles G-200. The G-200 is a single seat all-carbon-fiber airplane built for world-class aerobatic competition. In kit form, the G-200 is $44,000. Factory-built, the G-200 is $120,000. I wonder how many G-200 kits you could get for the price of one Reynard CART car kit.

[Crash Test]

How many plane kits will be made compared to the number of car kits? The more you make, the cheaper they are, right?

[Neil C]

Crash is right, but even if he isn't, it's simply a matter of two forces, supply and demand.

You have wandered into my field of expertise, economics.

[enzo]

Again Frankie has shown that his fertile mind lacks in depth knowledge of the subject.

Whilst an aeobatic plane is a complex piece of machinery, it doesn't even begin to compare to a CART vehicle in shear number of parts - castings, machined components, fabricated components. A Reynard parts book is over 100 pages long, and doesn't list the internals of purchased vendor compnents such as shocks. Nor does it list how much of the purchase price of each part is to cover the cost of trackside engineering support, research & development, etc.

To give a quick perspective of vehicle "cost" - in '87, the direct cost to March for a car was about $70K, which didn't include R&D. track support. shipping, etc. The sale price at that time was in the $180k range - some were sold for more, some for less, and replacement parts sales per car averaged $500k during the course of the year ( March parts only). March 's balance sheet came up over $5 million in the red that year.

A current Reynard is a much more sophisticated car than a March of that time, and R&D costs have skyrocketed because of the intense competition. As a result, retail prices have also risen.

I somehow doubt that Reynard wishes to reproduce the financial fate of March.

[yelwoci]

Enzo,
Would it be possible/feasible to build car to '67 style, but with modern cockpit/tub/chassis contruction/engineering.

Run them on relatively narrow tyres and we might have an interesting F1 race.

Further, If F1 converted wheels to 15" rather than 13" wouldn't this increase aero drag and slow cars down.

Just Monday morning thoughts

IanC

[Franklin]

The posting in quotes below is from "Murph" on Seventhgear.
To put these prices into perspective, an NHRA Pro Stock is easily one of
the most complex and finely tuned cars in motorsports. You can put one
on the starting line for $167,000 ($73,000 car, $80,000 engine, $7,700
transmission, and $6,300 clutch). a Pro Stock is a 1,000+ horsepower 200 mph car.

$2 million is enough to GENEROUSLY fund an entire Top Fuel team on the NHRA circuit for an entire year.

To set the first supersonic land speed record, Richard Noble's Thrust
SSC team spent $4 million (NOT per year but TOTAL). And that included
researching (rocket sled model tests, computational fluid dynamics,
etc), designing, and building (with features such as computer-controlled
active suspension) the biggest, heaviest, most complex, and most
powerful car in the entire history of motorsports.

Sincerely, Franklin Ratliff

"murph
Member posted 04-03-2000 11:04 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a difference between "parts" and a "kit".
The basic champ car chassis goes for about $600,000. A superspeedway
"kit" (specialized wings, undertray, etc) does indeed run about
$150,000.

Now, replacement parts cost less, about $15K is what I hear for a nose
wing for example.

And yes, these prices do indeed include NRE costs. The production run is
so small that the costs absorbed pass on to the customers in a big way.

Considering Lola and Reynard are for-profit enterprises, it's not
surprising. They don't "write off" any of their costs to advertising the
way the engine manufacturers do. (For example, an engine lease for a
season costs the teams about $2Million per car, but the engine
manufacturer is burning about $8M-$10M per car, the difference is
written off as "promotion.")"

[enzo]

Frankie - Thrust was built/designed with an amasing amount of free time donated by many people. Had it not been for their generosity, the cost would have been $40 million, not $4 million.

A top fuel dragster is a very simple (comparitively) single purpose, small performance envelope machine. Outside of the engine, they can be built by just about anyone, using very low tech -ie. agricultural - construction methods. There is more technology is a modern Formula Ford. So the prices you quote aren't all that surprising - I'm just not sure why you would use it as an example for this argurment - apples & oranges.

You made the statement that a Pro Stock car is easily one of the most complex & highly tuned cars in motorsports ( or something to that effect ). As I have worked on/designed/constructed/driven Pro Stocks, TopFuel, CART, F1 (parts only), and most other classes in most forms of motorsports, I'm interested to hear your specific arguements to back up that claim. Please enlighten me as to what I've missd all these years. I would argue that a Pro Stocker, as well as all other drag cars, is a very basic, limited and low performance envelope/low technology vehicle that can be built in most peoples garages (albiet a very well equipped garage), and run by by a minimal crew of minimal skill level. Please give me the specifics as to how it compares.

[Franklin]

The message below, aside from simultaneously being one of the most pompous, arrogant, and ignorant postings I've ever seen on a message board or forum, is also complete bull****. You claim to "have worked on/designed/constructed/driven Pro Stocks, TopFuel,
CART, F1 (parts only), and most other classes in most forms of
motorsports" yet you hide behind a name like "Enzo." Just how gullible do you think the rest of us are?

"You made the statement that a Pro Stock car is easily one of the most
complex & highly tuned cars in motorsports ( or something to that effect
). As I have worked on/designed/constructed/driven Pro Stocks, TopFuel,
CART, F1 (parts only), and most other classes in most forms of
motorsports, I'm interested to hear your specific arguements to back up
that claim. Please enlighten me as to what I've missd all these years. I
would argue that a Pro Stocker, as well as all other drag cars, is a
very basic, limited and low performance envelope/low technology vehicle
that can be built in most peoples garages (albiet a very well equipped
garage), and run by by a minimal crew of minimal skill level. Please
give me the specifics as to how it compares. "

[enzo]

Seriously, Frankie - I and the rest here would like to hear/read your justification for the Pro Stock claim. If you can't answer, please just say so ! If you can answer, we'd like to know the details! No bull !

As for the rest - some of us have just been very lucky in life to actually do a multitude of things that most people can only dream about.

[Franklin]

You mean aside from the fact that even though they're manually shifted 1,000+ horsepower 200 mph cars the typical spread in a 16 car field is a tenth of a second or less?

[enzo]

Frankie : this debate is going to take forever if that's the best you can do for answering a legit question. All your answer tells me is that they have a lot of HP, and that the competition is good, but nothing about what makes them so supposedly complex.

But, just for the heck of it, lets examine your "facts" :

Lets compare competitiveness.

ProStock qualifying times at Las Vegas last week verses CART qualifying at Homestead:
Pole 24th Spread % Diff
ProS 7.048 7.157 .109 .015
CART 19.255 20.741 1.486 .077

On sheer numbers, this one goes to the doorslammer. Take into account the vast difference in complexity of making those qualifying runs, and the CART competitiveness comes out way ahead.

Lets try something else : power to weight ratios.

HP Wt. Ratio
ProS 1300 2350 1.8 lb/HP
CART 875 1570 1.79
F1 875 1300 1.48

This one doesn't look too good for the doorslammer, but I guess it's only numbers. ( Yes, the 1300 # is correct - you missed there).I'll grant that the 1/4 mile times of the PS will be better ( neither CART nor F1 are designed for drag racing) it looks like the PS will lose out in acceleration rate in any equal drive ratio.

OK, maybe the HP/Cu.in. numbers ?

Cu.In. HP hp/cu.in.
ProS 500 1300 2.6
CART 161.7 875 5.4
F1 183 875 4.78

Oops - the doorslammer loses big time. And to top it off, the CART engine has to use Methanol, a fuel with half the calorific value, AND meet a 1.8 MPG rule to boot ! Hmmmm....

Well, that's what your numbers show so far. But these are only numbers, not descriptions of complexity. So far I fail to see where the "most complex" claim comes in - non of this meets the definition of "complex". Please continue to elaborate for our benefit.

Oh yes, to be fair : I meant to say that the PS was a "limited performance envelope" vehicle, not "low performace". Thats what I get for typing so late at night ! Obviously, any vehicle that can turn sub 7 second times is no slouch.

Anyway, we all await your next installment in this debate.

[enzo]

Yelwoki:

Sorry to have gotten sidetracked - your "Monday morning musings" are entirely feasable, though I'm not sure that I'd want to drive a wingless, front radiatored, 875 hp & no traction car around Spa ! Just a bit beyond my ability ! The current crop of F1 & CART guys who were raised on karts might find it fun, but the tranquilizer pill bill might be a bit high !

And yes, bigger diameter and/or wider tires will slow the staight line speeds. Wider tires will also allow greater mechanical grip & allow the cars to be less dependent on aero grip. Amusing how F1 is finally starting to admit that wider tires may be necessary to help improve the show.

Enough Saturday morning musings - I gotta work.

[Franklin]

Enzo -

With all of that fishing you did (throwing out red herrings), I thought I better remind people what I said. "...an NHRA Pro Stock is easily one of
the most complex and finely tuned cars in motorsports. You can put one
on the starting line for $167,000 ($73,000 car, $80,000 engine, $7,700
transmission, and $6,300 clutch). a Pro Stock is a 1,000+ horsepower 200
mph car."

The fact that not only does a tenth of a second spread typically cover an entire 16-car Pro Stock field, but that the elapsed times of a Warren Johnson will not vary from run to run by more than a couple of hundreths pretty much says it all.

[Crash Test]

To follow on from the previous post, there is a form of local cars here in Queensland known at the Gemini Sereis. They are the most basic of basic, near standard spec race cars, yet they continue to provide incredibly close results. In a recent 25km race, the top 2 cars were seperated by 0.002 seconds, with another bunch of cars within a second. Really amazing stuff. Yeah, some facts would help...

[enzo]

Frankie, you really are a trip ! All that tells us is that the competition is good, and the good guys are consistant. But still nothing to back up the "most complex and finely tuned" claim ! Maybe the problem you are having is that you have no real facts to back it up? How about giving us a system by system complexity comparison of the PS verses either a CART car or F1 ? Or don't you know the difference ?

We'll all wait for you as you dream up your next non-answer. This ought to be interesting, folks !

[Franklin]

Enzo,

I do know the difference between a response with "real facts" to back it up and one based on smoke screens and red herrings. I have yet to hear anything from you that says a Pro Stock is mechanically simpler than an Indy car or that it takes less work to keep the performance consistent.

[Peter Mallett]

Now then folks.

These topics are interesting and humorous. Please keep them that way and please also avoid critisising the poster. Its the post which we debate here.

Thanks folks.

And now.

Back to the topic.

[enzo]

Sorry Pete Frankies reputation preceds him. We're doing our best, but it's a bit like handling a spoiled 4-year-old !

Frankie:

You last post is pretty much as we expected. You are now beginning to sound like a parrot !

Everyone else here is already well versed on the subject of this "debate" - you sem to be the only one making broad sweeping claims that hve no basis in fact. I have limited my responses to specific statement of yours, and will continue to do so. Hardly the definition of "red herring" as you claim! Go buy a dictionary.

Further avoidance on your part on backing up your claims with hard facts will only serve to prove that you know not of what you speak.

Please justify your claims, or we will consider this thread closed.

[Franklin]

Enzo,

Ironic how your last response consisted of a bunch of general statements that made no attempt to address or even acknowledge the specifics of my last response. ("I have yet to hear anything from you that says a Pro Stock is
mechanically simpler than an Indy car or that it takes less work to keep the performance consistent.") So exactly why is it we should believe a Pro Stock mechanically simpler than an Indy car? And exactly why is it we should believe a Pro Stock is less work to keep consistent than an Indy car?

[Dino IV]

IMHO there's no need to be that defensive, Franklin. Enzo asked you fair and square what your arguments are for your statements of 'most complex vehicles' related to Pro-S.

So don't turn around that question anymore and show some arguments.

Regards,

Dino IV

[THR]

heres a reason.
since when can a competive fast car be built in a small workshop with no outside help?

pro stock, uses STOCK parts.
indy makes ALL the parts for the car. None, of "this will do it"

also the aero package of indy is far superioer to "pro stock american poo"
(look at the people who drive the pro stock cars, hardly bright r they)

so the point is, indy have to MAKE and deisgn the cars, where as pro stock are all well stock cas, that are basically the same. hence close times.

[Crash Test]

"hardly bright r they"
-Oh, dont crack me up....

[cmd]

"I have yet to hear anything from you that says a Pro Stock is mechanically simpler than an Indy car or that it takes less work to keep the performance consistent."

May I try?

A current Pro-Stock racecar is a front engined, beam axled (front and rear), racecar that has a relatively high C.G., lot's of weight in the driver protection system (roll cage), a push rod 500 CID. two valve engine maaking about 1800 to 2100 HP.

Other than the size and power of the engine, so is every early FORD pick-up truck, as is just about every current sprint car.

The chassis are steel, tube framed, triangulated structures with little torsional stiffness, some longitutinal beam stiffness...again, about the same type of construction of your average sprint car.

A Champ Car is a very stiff (both torsionally and beam, in all axes) carbon fiber skinned, aluminum honeycomb (except when ballistic Kevlar is used for impact and penetration) chassis that serves as a very stiff platform for complex front and rear suspension systems. The engines, are 17,000 RPM race engines that put out over 340 HP/liter.

The cars are designed to be driven on ovals, where steady-state torsional forces are generated for several seconds, four times a lap, and alternating torsional and bending forces on road courses.

The intent of the Champ Car chassis is to provide an almost infinately stiff platform so that each corner (suspension) is capable of predictable load inputs and response, and the chassis doesn't act like a fifth spring.

I could go on, but my fingers are getting tired, and I don't think that I'm going to get an informed response by you Franklin, so think what you like, and when you actually design and build something, we'll talk again.

[This message has been edited by cmd (edited 20 April 2000).]

[Neil C]

So there's a way to measure intelligence based on looks or the type of car a person drives/races?

I guess I better buy and Armani suit and a BMW. I'm feeling smarter already!

:confused:

[Franklin]

"A current Pro-Stock racecar is a front engined, beam axled (front and
rear), racecar that has a relatively high C.G., lot's of weight in the
driver protection system (roll cage), a push rod 500 CID. two valve
engine maaking about 1800 to 2100 HP."

When somebody who yammers endlessly about all the different racecars they've designed makes HUGE BONEHEAD FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS like saying that a Pro Stock has "a beam front axle" and "1,800 to 2,100 horsepower" the rest of us start wondering just how big a FRAUD that person is.

PRO STOCKS HAVE NEVER USED BEAM FRONT AXLES. PRO STOCKS DON'T HAVE 1,800 TO 2,100 HORSEPOWER. IN FACT, NONE OF THE NHRA PRO CATEGORIES CURRENTLY USE BEAM FRONT AXLES.

Pro Stocks have more like 1,100 to 1,200 horsepower, since they're not allowed to use nitrous oxide or supercharging. They've always had independent front suspension. They've been using Chapman strut front suspension since the early seventies. To make a four-link rear suspension work properly, a high degree of torsional rigidity is essential.

It is the Pro Mods which are the doorslammers that develop 1,800 to 2,100 horsepower because they can run either supercharging with alcohol or normally aspirated on gas with nitrous oxide.