Accessibility of modern racing

What a brilliant thread.

As soon as I started reading this I thought of the technology that is displayed in British Hillclimbing, but Keith has already beaten me to the punch on bringing it up.
I think one of the issues is the culture in this country. This country loves bigger better faster more…for less. Space and resources have always been in plentiful supply here and the racing tends to reflect that. Big V8’s, big chassis, add more power to make it go faster. That was reflected in the cars of the golden post war era and had a trickle down to the racing that became popular. V8’s were perfect for putting in drag cars, NASCAR’s, CAN-AM etc. The wonderful laissez-faire attitude in this country helped develop that. The down side of that is the American racing industry focused on that and developed around that.

In Europe resources and space was always at far more of a premium, especially in the post war era. Small roads, big crowded cities, scarce resources and expensive energy meant the whole racing culture in Europe was based around small and efficient in all things.
People mention the ‘garagistas’ in F1, originally a derogatory term thrown out by Enzo Ferrari at the small British teams like Cooper and Lotus. But in the early 70’s the Connew was literally an F1 car designed and built in a home garage by 3-4 guys

It was entered in a handful of F1 and F5000 races (with a different engine of course) in the early 70’s.
In the 80’s there were a number of Group C2 cars that were effectively home built. Probably the most successful was Gordon Spice who was a race driver and businessman; he started building his own cars with Ray Belm and started Spice Engineering. To me that was the equivalent of a bunch of GRM guys going racing then designing and building an LMP2 car today.

I remember reading an article in either Cars and Cars Conversions (CCC a dearly missed British motorsport magazine like GRM on steroids) or Autosport about the first home built Carbon Composite monocoque Hillclimb car circa 1990. These days home designed and low production carbon monocoques are relatively common in Europe. Some people do pre preg layup with vac bagging in a homemade warm space; others outsource the production of parts they’ve designed to larger shops. I see nothing to stop a group of geeks designing and having a carbon tub autoclaved after pooling their recourses.

The issue is how high a category would you be allowed to shoot for? These days just about everything below F1 in single seaters is a spec series, so unless you’ve got the facilities and business plan to provide hundreds of cars and spares you can forget that.

In endurance racing it’s a similar issue. The top tier is certainly factories only in LMP1. For a start you need not just a mega high spec dedicated engine, but a custom ERS system too so that’s out. What about LMP2? Well the issue is there to help make the business case better for small(er) racing car manufacturers they a limiting the number of different chassis allowed. So while it’s not a spec series, you have to choose from one of three (I think, it may be four) chassis in an effort to make sure that each manufacturer gets a share of the market and not be stuck with only one car they spent millions on developing. Below that it’s down to LMGTE class which are production based so don’t count. Scrub European endurance racing.

What about American endurance racing? That’s out too, DP’s are going away to get parity with Europe, which is ironic as the old ALMS was all about parity with Europe, then it got too expensive and merged with Grand-Am under IMSA, which is now effectively going back to Euro parity, albeit without the LMP1’s
I’m desperately trying to stay away from the NASCAR world here so what’s left?
What about DTM? While they ‘look like’ production ish cars they are the closest thing to a single seater you’ll find this side of GP3. They’ve got carbon tubs, 6 speed sequential boxes, NA 4.0L V8’s limited to 500hp. I don’t know if they’d let you run, but I’m sure there’s a good chance as long as your name is sufficiently Teutonic and you can show you’re serious and could get a manufacturer to sell you an engine. Hey, it’s proving to be a stepping stone in and out of F1, so it’s pretty top line?

If not DTM then what? I don’t know. Even regional sports car championships like the British GT championship that used to get some weird and wonderful vehicles is basically a regional GT3 championship these days. The Japanese GT Championship is a weird amalgam of GT3 cars and GT500 cars (DTM like chassis offshoot) maybe you could find an in there?

The FIA do run the European hillclimb championship with some serious cars. That’s definitely open to home builders as is the British hillclimb championship. Does designing a carbon tub single seater with an old Judd or Cosworth V10 stroked to 4.0L with pretty liberal aero rules weighing less than 1,000lb’s wet with driver sound fun? If the British or European championship don’t sound high profile enough for you what about taking a crack at Pikes Peak? That gets lots of media attention with Red Bull, Citroen, Loeb, Tajima, Suzuki etc. throwing their weight behind it? A Radical won last year and Radical started out as basically a garage built kit car company. I think we have the answer. GRM readers take on the hill record at Pikes Peak!

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

So what you are suggesting isn't that the tech isn't available to most- it's the rules that basically dictate a specific chassis. BTW, DP was actually a bad suggestion- they had a very tight limit on who built the cars, too.

For the most part, NASCAR is like that, too. The rules are so tight that there's no real room to be super creative in how the car is built- it's all in being creative in how the car is tuned.

Indy car was cool even when it was mostly Marches and Lolas. One could still try in the 80's. Until the split- then the two forced to be basically spec cars. Which they are now between two fixed sources.

Kinda sucks.

Nobody could dream to field a car unless there was a LOT of money as a resource to give to a lot of other people.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: When was the last time a "garageista" competed in an F1 race, or at Indy? It's happened. And now it's virtually impossible. I understand that that that's not appealing to you. But I bet some are. AND it's interesting how the most accessible series is the one most here don't like. At least it is to me.

I didn't mention the rules. Even if you had the skills and the funding, you just can't build an F1 car and show up for qualifying anymore. It's just not allowed. You need to be a team that's fully bought into the Bernie Show. And coincidentally, there's also a worry about grid sizes. Hmm...

I don't know much about Indy, but as far as I can tell it's pretty close to a spec series now, even more so than F1. That's a shame, because the 500 used to be one of the biggest areas for a small team with wild ideas. But that was a long, long time ago. Then the speeds got serious.

I was watching the 12 hrs of Bathurst this weekend, and there were some small teams in that event - including, if I heard correctly, a BMW that's raced that particular event 10 times (article). No way that's a factory setup, that's gotta be a small team with some DIY parts on it. And they're racing in an international event with multiple factory teams and ex-F1 drivers on the grid.

The reason it's all gone spec series is that cost to develope these cars has exploded. Back in the early 70's at Brabham Gordon Murray basically WAS the design department for the F1 cars and they still managed to win championships and a few years earlier while his F1 designers were 'only' race winners rather than championship winners he had time to go home at night and single handedly design a LEMans car for Alain de Dadenet.

Computers, CAD, FEA, Fluid dynamics, modeling programs on one hand brought great economies of scale to the work involved in designing race cars for about 5 seconds until people realized that if you threw 300 engineers with computers at a problem you could design, prove out and reject thousands of ideas before setting scissors to pre peg. Hass is a tiny new team in F1 terms and I believe they have 130 people on their F1 staff while every single thing they are allowed to buy from Ferrari they have, and everything else is being designed and built by Dallara. Effectively they have 130 people to build and race an F1 kit car. It's the quantity of design work that's made it impossible for the small guy to compete on the international stage anymore.

Let people bring their 80s, 90s, 2000s prepped cars, have a power/weight ratio limit, call it the Gran Turismo series, tie it in with the new game for advertising. 93 Honda Civic vs stuff like 2014 Mustang GT and all kind of other shenanigans. Let people bring their garage builds like LeMons.

That's what I want to see, old-school UFC of auto racing. If some car is "best" or becomes dominate: leave it be. Let the builders/manufacturers sort it out. If a early 90s civic garage build dominates a factory effort 2010s one oh well, you make the E36 M3tier car.

Reprep costs, and proximity to the masses is an important consideration.

Rally in the US being an example. Most could build a rally car. However, there just isn't a whole lot of rally events. So you must tow across the country. Much of your budget goes out your tow rigs tail pipe. Though you could legally drive your race car to the event. Reprep is also worth considering. When the event is done, how much work before you can race the car again? Rally on gravel can be brutal on a car.

Whether it's the internet or what, you certainly can find a way to drive a car in anger much easier than you could 20 years ago. There seem to be more entry level ways to get a taste of the action.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

Computers pretty much ruined most top tier racing series. In the 80s a privateer could go out and buy a 962, or a Lola or March CART car and expect to do well and possibly win a major international event. By the 90s those days were pretty much gone and now it's basically impossible.

If I was going to try an FIA series that is still pretty accessible it would be Super Trucks. They draw crowds, the equipment doesn't get outdated two races into the season, and my extra girth wouldn't be as much of an issue.

What I heard is you'll want more of the 25 hours of thunderhill and the 24 hours of the ring. Awesome events BTW.

You can build a TC level in PWC or GS/ST level Continental Tire series car and be competitive. Like Adrian said, the rest are getting pretty much spec cars. With GT3 and GT4, you couple potentially build one but the specs are so tight that it would be easier/cheaper to buy a factory car. All of the P2 cars are spec engine/chassis. F1 and Indy car forget about it.

With unlimited money, you could build a privateer P1 car. Go race against rebellion and the such.

I have no Doubt the talent and ability of the GRM collective, could ,field a simi competitive, or better car but you said Money aside.current series of racing in the BIG TIME require HUGE Money to get started,we could maintain a car but the specs to build a competive car mean just Buy one then lease an engine.check out Kurt Bush, that 78 car is messing with their Minds and they are Independent, but every thing is Store Bought. I've been out of racing a couple years now but 70's NASA T/A cars might be doable.

In a sense, the same thing applies to any motorsports that use stock or modified street cars. When I grew up (the 70s) most production cars were POS. If you threw a Ford V8 in a Capri or Manta, stiffened up the suspension and threw big tires on it, you'd have something that could shame literally any production car at the track.

Not so much any more. To make something that can run with the top production pony cars takes real skill and/or money. And whereas the pony car will be turning those fast lap times in luxury, the homebuilt will be crude by comparison. To make something that can beat a supercar at the track even more so.

I'm saying this not as a downer. In a way, our homebuilt creations are more special than ever because we're further from the mainstream than our predecessors. One of my greatest driving pleasures is spanking a car at the track that costs several times as much as mine. Now that car might be worth six or seven or ten times what mine's got into it.... all the better

With the emergence of Lemons/Chumpcar and Spec car classes, its clear that not everyone wants max - technology racing. The Luddite classes IMO are where the fun's at anyway.

Thanks berk I'm naming my future racing team "lukes Luddites"

I think the most competitive effort could be done with the least resources in a tube-frame class. The knowledge is out there, the tools and techniques are less specialized, and the materials are far more forgiving. You do not get a second chance at complex composite work, and the difference between a fully-developed and cured piece of composite and a splintery deathtrap is rather narrow.

I think even a good aluminum monocoque could be built by a competent fabricator, but, again, the math gets very complex, and the materials and techniques require a tiny margin of error.

Tube-frame stuff is entirely doable, though. In fact, we had a local guy who got a long way toward building his own Daytona Prototype, before rules changes started moving faster than his spare time.

Something to think about- a lot of the series are spec as it's thought that it will reduce costs. Kinda makes sense- as it levels out what is needed to race. And when the supplier is very limited, it's also true.

Once the method of making stuff gets out more, then the cost will go down, too.

So, from a grassroots level, if the cost of making a CF chassis that is able to meet the racing crash standards comes down enough, then the chassis maker should open back up. That way, creative use of computers and methods would be back to being rewarded, as you would be able to go racing again.

I think the issue is, and it was brought up in the bitch about Nascar thread, is that racing is a marketing tool. The race series is trying to make money on both ends. They want to make everyone the customer. The fan, the race teams, the sponsors. You come to the show, the Organization gets a piece of you. It isn't profitable to pander to the people who don't have money. LMP1 F1 OEMs have money.

That being said, I would bet cubic dollars that is what drives every decision. Oh we have people paying to run titted boar hogs with RC motors up thier butt? Get a class for that and start charging. NASCAR/FIA don't do this for free and that is what the top rungs are. Everything else is people trying to make money on it (I am not saying be Billionaires, but make money on it. Think Chump car and Lemons spend all that entry fee money to break even?), or farm class trying to get people into it. Same with all sports. Baseball actually has farm teams, Football has figured out how to make the tax payer pay for their farm teams with college football.

If race sanctioning bodies could figure out away to get people to go from a tax payer funded class to a top profitable tier they would. Even in the support roles....like FormulaSAE...wait I screwed that up didn't I?

In the end it is a honed skill, sure there are limits based on natural ability as to if you would ever be able to get to F1 levels, but with enough time and training I think most could get to a consistent top 15% of finishers any given weekend.

alfadriver wrote: Something to think about- a lot of the series are spec as it's thought that it will reduce costs. Kinda makes sense- as it levels out what is needed to race. And when the supplier is very limited, it's also true. Once the method of making stuff gets out more, then the cost will go down, too. So, from a grassroots level, if the cost of making a CF chassis that is able to meet the racing crash standards comes down enough, then the chassis maker should open back up. That way, creative use of computers and methods would be back to being rewarded, as you would be able to go racing again.

No reason you couldn't do a composite carbon/aramid fiber safety cell and attach it to a set of sub frames for the engine and suspension bits. That is what we do in boat racing. Hell if anyone wants one call Gary Pugh at Pugh Boat Works in Knoxville, TN. You can find him on the Book of Faces as well.

I think you would find it difficult to build a competitive Nascar chassis without a full shop of knowledgeable people. We ended up buying our chassis even though we were capable of producing one, simply because unless you absolutely have latest jigs, tables, and knowledge, you're going to be pretty far off on your geometry. And by pretty far off, I mean 100's and 1000's of an inch. Your average bunch of guys with a welder and a pile of tubes are never going to be able to get very far. And then you have the body to worry about. That's a totally different story. We did do a few clips in house, but in the end, we always took it back to the builder to "get it right". Yeah, it makes that much of a difference.

On the opposite note of what I said above, keep in mind a few guys in a helicopter plant built the Nissan GTP cars that all but vanquished the might of Porsche back in the late '80's. Having seen a couple of them under restoration in a friend's shop, they were an amazing work of art in aluminum honeycomb. I wish race cars were still made that way.

racerdave600 wrote: I think you would find it difficult to build a competitive Nascar chassis without a full shop of knowledgeable people. We ended up buying our chassis even though we were capable of producing one, simply because unless you absolutely have latest jigs, tables, and knowledge, you're going to be pretty far off on your geometry. And by pretty far off, I mean 100's and 1000's of an inch. Your average bunch of guys with a welder and a pile of tubes are never going to be able to get very far.

With no experience here to back me up I might hesitantly and respectfully disagree. Look at some of the work people do here fabbing stuff with very little equipment. I think people here have the ability to build the jigs needed with a decent plate as a base to build a perfect chassis. Also you build the main chassis first then attach the mounting lugs last so you can take account of any minor twist that has occurred during welding. Also when I read the original post I never thought of a bunch of GRMers taking on and beating the factory teams, I thought we were talking about being able to enter the series and not be a joke, I'm thinking of the Saubers of the world not the Manors. I was thinking sort of the 80:20 rule. 80% of the results for 20% of the investment. Yes, you don't really need to point out that F1 has the 108% rule so we'd sort of be talking the 92:08 rule

It is still possible to build a frontline off road racer in a small shop. While this is a 4 wheel forum there are a few World Superbike "Teams" are pretty close to the two blokes in a shed. Also many Irish road racers are two man operations and do quite well at the Isle of Man and Cookstown.

Tom

In reply to Tom1200:

I would say yes, still wouldn't be cheap, maybe around $100k but you can buy competitive off road vehicles in that price range and just put a solid engine in it. Off road is more about knowing when to hit the brakes then knowing when to gun it anyway.

Tom1200 wrote: It is still possible to build a frontline off road racer in a small shop. While this is a 4 wheel forum there are a few World Superbike "Teams" are pretty close to the two blokes in a shed. Also many Irish road racers are two man operations and do quite well at the Isle of Man and Cookstown. Tom

That's a good point. A friend of my late fathers crewed for a European Side car championship duo. They could have moved up to the world championship but it was too much of a stretch. But as recently as 15 years ago basically a three man crew was competing in the European championship by leaving work early on Thursday, driving to the continent, racing and getting back just in time to go to work Monday morning. Hell on marriages, but they did it. All the prep was done in his suburban garage after work and on weekends. But that was with a purchased chassis and basic engine.

Flight Service wrote: In reply to Tom1200: I would say yes, still wouldn't be cheap, maybe around $100k but you can buy competitive off road vehicles in that price range and just put a solid engine in it. Off road is more about knowing when to hit the brakes then knowing when to gun it anyway.

You can't buy a competitive Ultra4 vehicle. You've gotta build that one. Heck, I don't think the jury's in on solid front axle vs IFS in that group. When you're climbing rock walls, it's all about the throttle...

Isn't motocross racing basically 90% normal guys, even at the top levels? When you consider you can buy the bike for like $5000, I have no idea what the upgrades cost, but also a single car garage would be enough room to do the work, and your hauler can be a pickup truck or van, it's pretty accessible.

gearheadmb wrote: Isn't motocross racing basically 90% normal guys, even at the top levels? When you consider you can buy the bike for like $5000, I have no idea what the upgrades cost, but also a single car garage would be enough room to do the work, and your hauler can be a pickup truck or van, it's pretty accessible.

No, I worked at a semi-pro shop and we sponsored Mike Brown when he was up and coming. (125cc AMA champ 2001) The # of man hours and testing we did was outrageous. Even at a semi-pro level (Honda gave us a little tech help and parts). He was riding a Honda with us (at the time the shop repped Honda and Suzuki, now they rep all 4 major Japanese labels and KTM)

Think of AMA motorcross like trying to compete in World Challenge. You may start off with a stock Civic, but it is far from that when you are finished.

The neat thing about motorcycle racing, is a mediocre prepared bike ridden by a great rider will get you noticed. I don't see that in car racing anymore.

FWIW Mike now does X-Games and Endurocross.

Him in the middle.

I think it was last year but it could have been 2014; Michael Dunlop got peaved at the factory team he was riding for and grabbed a Yamaha street bike tweaked the suspension and went out and won. I think the event was the Northwest 200 but it could have been Cookstown.

Tom

Keith Tanner wrote:

Flight Service wrote: In reply to Tom1200: I would say yes, still wouldn't be cheap, maybe around $100k but you can buy competitive off road vehicles in that price range and just put a solid engine in it. Off road is more about knowing when to hit the brakes then knowing when to gun it anyway.

You can't buy a competitive Ultra4 vehicle. You've gotta build that one. Heck, I don't think the jury's in on solid front axle vs IFS in that group. When you're climbing rock walls, it's all about the throttle...

different class

and the one you mentioned looks like a modified and race prepped Rock Buggy Which has been available for purchase since I was at SEMA in early 2000s

Off road racing, thanks to Gordon and Ivan Stewart, has arrive and drive spec classes just like Spec Miata and just like SM there are alot of the top guys that run that way.

As far as obtainable, top tier racing level, I would say off-road is the way to go.