http://www.superleagueformula.com/superleague

This is a race car series into it's second year run in co-junction with Soccer Teams - cars are interesting .

750hp 4.2 V12 sounds here which in my opinion sounds better than the current screach......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRB9NprklY8...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xRFYB5vJHY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkzdFK6US3k...feature=related

Chassis is a cosmetically updated CHAMP design by Panoz. Engine by TWR (if I recall correctly). Bourdais should do well, although it was not the chassis run by NHLR.

Sadly they use spec cars, engines, electronics and tires.

Jesus shut up already.

A friend that raced both tells me the 2 cars handle significantly different. The V-12 changes the balance of the car and isn't near as strong at the lower revs. Apparently, it pulls nicely once wound up a bit, though. It sounds great, huh?

...and +1 to Ross.

Marvin the Robot - Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy

Mm... Different tyres? (equivalent of 1psi lower front & 4psi lower rear)

I've got this pain in all the diodes down my left side. Huh! Brain the size of a planet and all they ask me to do is open the doors.

Well, call me out of touch - as I know you will - but I didn't realize this series was still running. I remember it being announced with fanfares, rockets and scantily-dressed girls, but after that - just goes to show... something.

I remember watching this series a couple of times last year. The racing was surprisingly good, it reminded me a bit of GP2 only with V12s.

The 60-degree 4.2 litre V12 - a clean sheet of paper design - is built by Menard Competition Technologies in Oxfordshire.
It is weighing in at just 140 kg.
Pushes out 750 bhp @ 11750 rpm and 510 NM @ 9500-10500 rpm with a 12000 rpm redline.

Probably overkill, can imagine (or not!) the price of a unit.

The 12000 is enough for a great noise - F1 take note (I don't like the screech of F1's, sound being personal of course).

I'm amazed that today is the first time I heard about them, it's obviously not going to be newspaper stuff here but I do wonder around the web looking at various race series and news. I only knew about this because Boudais announced he will drive them.

Maybe Bernie's not getting a slice and not helping along the way.

Oops. Thanks for the correction. Right place, wrong time frame.

Wouldn't it make better economic sense to run SBC engines of near equal output?













Actually think those look and sound pretty cool.

The engine has the advantage (over SBC) of lower weight and better sound.

Reverse grid for race 2 should produce a good spectacle.

Yes but in a spec series engine weight is for all intents and purposes irrelevant, given that the heavier engine never will meet or need to outperform the lighter one. I agree the V-12 probably sounds better, but that's a wholly subjective thing. I have no reason to believe a majority of others will agree.

I think you'd probably in fact be nuts to choose anything but a SBC of some sort for any spec series that requires an engine putting out between say 300 and 900bhp. Frankly if F1 wants to continue the way it's headed, a crate SBC begins to look like probably the most logical solution even there. Just let the teams use their own logos on the valve covers and I'm convinced given the utter lack of complaint about the drift of the series towards spec cars that your average technically illiterate, tipsy fan either trackside or watching on the couch would be none the wiser.

Your not in the minority at all and to continue the theme further, why do you need Ti, Carbon Fibre, knock off wheels or any other unobtanium when the cars are all the same? - It's ridiculous.

This series should have chosen 7 litre LS7's for sure being what it is, also the audience (Soccer crowd base) that they are trying to attract (apparently) would deal with the low fequncy of a thundering V8 better too I feel.

The problem for F1 is that the Chevs/Fords answer isn't expensive and how to pocket sponsors money - and I'm not joking about that.

Anyway, I'm getting to the point of "putting my money where my mouth is" albeit slowly. I can't see my race series starting anytime next year as it's already September now

It is ridiculous to use anything more exotic than a cheap production based engine, aluminum and lug nuts on a spec car even at the highest level. The people selling the plastic tubs will tell you that CFRP is safer and maybe it is for a given weight but weight is close to irrelevant on a spec car, if it's deemed too slow you can simply add wing, tire and/or displacement at essentially no cost at all.

All good & logical. But I doubt that any production-based engine is designed to act as the structure connecting the two axles of a vehicle. Having made the decision to use surplus CHAMP chassis for the Superleague series, then the requirement for a "structural" engine would follow. The last Chevy badged engine I saw (IRL, & curiously designed by a Ford company), dissipated almost 30 percent of road input energy. Probably the reason it was unreliable &, at least in part, the reason IRL now runs with spec engines. Nothing is insurmountable, of course, but I guess that the current package was reasonably cost-effective.

Compared with the CHAMP configuration, the Superleague vehicle is a little heavier, with a c.g. a little closer to the rear axle. However Firestone tyres have been replaced by Michelins on smaller rims. I am fairly sure that is the principal reason for handling differences.

It is good and logical - Its a radical new inovation called 'steel tubes' from the rear bulkhead a per many conveted F1's and sports car chassis to F5000 and Sports sedan classes respectively from the late 60's on and up until the most recent examples being Australian Formula Holden/F4000 that stuck 400hp GM3.8 V6's in the rear of fresh F3000 chassis.

And thats just some examples, then theres many a hillclimb car made from converted Atlantics etc. with other motors stuffed in the rear - theres a BMW 6 in one floating around the net.

"cost effective"? - I will simply finger point at the people who made money from this deal along the way.

Anyway, I hope that some success goes their way, should have the ability to overpower the tyres I hope for bit more of a spectacle - I hope for the success so the FIA has a hard look at why.

I have actually encountered your steel tubes, funnily enough, although they aren't necessarily the most efficient way of adding stiffness (as opposed to strength). I like the word "stuff". I presume it is appropriate.

Your third para suggests that you might like to take financial advice before starting your own race series, if that is your plan.

But there you go. Remember to concentrate when keeping your feet on the pedals.

There's a word for some of the attempts at steel tubes bracing engine bays in LMP cars for example... ballast.

Ben

The MCT Project 717 engine is probably quite cheap for a 750 hp race engine; it's quite conventional, nothing extreme, not even titanium con rods. The selection of a V12 configuration was for the sound, the formula promotors did not want a V8 engine for that reason. There are also not that many 750 hp road car V12 engines that you can convert to a race engine, especially since the promotors wanted five figure engine speeds. There was also a 140 kg weight goal, and a 700 mm maximum length for the engine. The engine does also have the power potential for a 'push to pass' system, unrestricted it can provide about 800 hp.

The engine is designed for 10,000 km rebuild intervals. The engine also have separate liners in order to reduce rebuild costs. It uses a 93 mm bore, just as Menards IRL engine that today powers Caparo T1 (with increased stroke).

I think this was announced with all the bells and whistles a few years ago then died a death and was resurrected a year or so later. Remember it's function is to make money. Decisions will have been made by marketing people, like it or not low tech won't hack it, F1 is the pinnacle so cars need to resemble those and not just aesthetically.
As for using a road engine base (I assume SBC is small block Chevvy), from a marketing viewpoint it is a non starter. From an engineering point of view how heavy is it? I would guess at least twice the weight of the pukka race engine being used, an extra 100-150kg at the rear of the car isn't going to help. Will it be reliable given the requirement for it to be a stressed member? I know you can put a spaceframe in but why go to the bother of modifying a race chassis to fit a production engine? How much would it cost to buy a SBC engine with comparable output and life to the proper race engine? Is it cheaper?
It is not about doing things cheaply, it is about creating the required image efficiently to maximise your profit from your chosen market segment.

Yeah I like the word 'stuff; too

Spec series cars don't have to be expensive, you may not get Desmo's or my own drift. Why use more expensive aero tube for wishbones instead of round if they are all the same car for example?

I spannered for a sports car team for 2 races in Oz (sports car racing was never big there), thats all I lasted - the money waste was laffable and I was distgusted.

Later I did some prep side work for a top car team and the same result, at least some of it ended in my pockett - felt sorry for the sponsors though.





Well for the bulk of your post I would simply answer with F5000, the most available true fast motorsports category ever (I think) - quite handy with the then cast iron SBC (and a few Fords).

The rest is simple, the cars and the categories just keep coming and going, it's fun to some to tip in 50, 100, 200,000 bucks for a few years and race a few friends but it becomes boring, lot of money to be bored "hey, offshore powerboat racing looks fun this year" ... series dies.

For some reason that I can't grasp, all racing series now are unobtainium and well supported by most Governing bodies to be exactly that, often so Manufactures can keep out the riff raff I'm guessing. It's ok to be beaten in a good race by another Factory but manufacturers do not like to be beaten by private teams even in their own brand.

Not sure about your comment on Chev engine for marketing and tech, NASCAR seems to be doing ok while hi tech series flounder on every side. I guarantee throw away the Honda's and replace them with Chev, Ford and Chrysler V8's into Indycars and the series will turn around. Australia has proven that over and over - stick with the Nations car culture base and you will do well. Toyota sell the most cars in Oz and make them here but ask anyone off the street to name an Oz car and the answer will be Holden or (Ford) Falcon.

I'm surprised how many of you think the average fan gives a shit about whats exactly under the hood just because we very small minority do.

Desmo for (FIA) President!!!

You get it all. It used to be embarrassing in Champ Car when the Minardi twin seaters would go out and sound _so much_ better than 'the show'. The specific output of these engines is not high. Ya, a SBC is going to be the least expensive engine you can produce for about any application from lawn-mower to Monster truck, but there are other things to consider.

Yes there is, such as capability of the engine to break traction, torque is a very valuable thing for the purpose.

Sound is a personal thing, this is my cup of tea as is the torque/traction ratio ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cijksRbhMA

Can't you sleep, Cheapy?

I want to, believe me, toothpicks under my eyelids - I am waiting for someone to answer the darn phone at the University of Calfornia.

They are supposed to be open at 9am which is 12am here and it's now 2am and still no answer

My daughter starts there in 2 weeks.

They're on Berkeley Pacific Time. It's still 1968...

Cheapracer, when did F5000 die? Potentially a competitor to F1 but which one still exists and why? I suspect commercial reasons not cost.
Your second paragraph is quite significant, you need to attract those people and extract money from them before they move on. Nowadays you need technology to do the attracting and large ammounts of money to take a % from.
As far as your third paragraph is concerned can I point you to my comment on the WRC?
NASCAR? That is the American equivalent of touring car racing but only turning left? Not being American I don't really know a lot about it. F1 is not a nations car culture it is international (more or less).
From my point of view I agree with you about money being wasted. What motorsport I have done has been on a very limited budget, I had to be clever and be able to my own work. However we are not talking about bargain basement amateur level but top proffessional level where money is the game, not sport.
I would guess the majority of F1 viewers are not motorsport fans, people will watch top "sporting" events, why is the thing that is important to the marketing people. They are not selling motorsport to motorsport people. Superleague is presumably targeting football fans rather than motorsport ones.
Like the noise on the youtube link you gave and it does look like a lot of fun to drive, sadly the latter isn't too important unless your business is selling the drive, not really a big enough market.

This sounds better to my ears.

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/AUDI-RS...limb_204597.htm

"Vorsprung durch Technik"

I'll get to the rest later but this one does and continues to grate me.

It's a money game when it's allowed to be, there are now many millionaires from different classes of motor sport - most noticeably F1 of course.

That the various Governing bodies allow this to continually happen - of course they are on the receiving end - is obscene when you consider the basis of why and how they are in place in the first instance.

At the end of the day it's the fan who suffers and just makes it all too far to reach for so many possible competitors.

You want an example, everyone does - 1982 Australian GP. Bob Jane imported a bunch of F1 drivers, Prost, Laffite, Jones, Piquet, Moreno and pitted them against Oz's best (we had a few handy drivers then too). They all drove 'cheap' Ralt RT4's and some other local Formula Pacific cars and the racing was just fantastic, totally worthy.

Top names driving cars that move around and are passable is a good combo. And no I don't think Rt4'ish type cars are the answer, not tuff enuff, just an example that hi tech/money isn't the answer as can be seen today.

I don't grasp the subtleties of british humor.
And I repeat, spec car racing ain't racing.

Because you like the sound or because it has to be impressive with all those cams spinning and valves doing their dance and skirtless pistons changing direction at X speed.....

When you listen to a V8 as above does it grate you, all that low tech?

Serious question.

- the crew make a desperate and futile attempt to engage Marvin's enthusiasm - he hasn't got one

Marvin is famous for being a paranoid, depressed robot - nothing is any good for poor old Marvin.





Not sure if you missed a point or not Ben, we are talking about tubs that commonly take engines as part of the chassis/stress and installing unstressed engines in the same hole for which you need a spaceframe or similar method.

The technology part is just a myth.
The most advanced GP cars ever made where the active rides of 92 and 93, and there where plenty of casual/comatose driver fanboys who disliked those cars, witch is part of the reason they where banned.


Sadly that's the truth. I call them the casual/comatose driver fanboys.

GP racing started to lose its traditional fanbase build on nationalistic manufacturer induced pride, car guys and fascination for the most advanced and fastest racecars, after WWII and started to go for the "personalities and crashes" crowd.

The turning point was the 1960s, when except for Ferrari, non of the appealing manufacturers where there anymore, and the likes of Jim Clark and especially Jackie Stewart realized how to make money via the driver image-endorsement deals/sponsorship system.

I've been called an ultra-purist eurocentric, racefan and carguy/gearhead, and I'm damn proud about it.

Without diversity, innovation, relevance it is not (true) motorsport, it is racertainment a.k.a. contemporary bread and circus, and I don't like that.
Videogames provide much better racertainment for much lower costs.

I will never consider the spec-garagiste/anglo-saxon/racertainment crap as any good, because it's the diversity-innovation-relevance that fascinate me.

Do you live in a shack in the woods?

Cheapracer, in the main I tend to agree with your sentiments. At the upper levels, motorsport (and other sports) is first and foremost a business, there are not enough motorsport fans for this to work (we are very much a minority unfortunately) so the business has to increase it's audience. There are large numbers of people who watch F1 who wouldn't watch motorsport in general so the marketing people must be doing something right. The same is true for other sports, lots of people watch say Wimbledon tennis but wouldn't watch tennis normally. If you want to create another (profitable) single seater formula you need to resemble F1 values (marketing keywords speed, technology, money?) and resemble F1 cars then add your "twist", in this case football to try and get a large audience base. If you can get enough people watching (on tv) you can get advertising money from companies wanting to sell them something. It is more complicated than this as marketing divide people up into groups. Most of the "lesser" sports pay to be on TV, the top ones such as F1 get paid. This is business, not sport.
Your 1982 example, presumably mr Jane paid the big names a lot of money to do the race, the names attracted (hopefully) a large enough audience to give a good return on the investment. This would have happened whether or not the racing was good. Had the race happened with unknown drivers the racing could easily have been very good but hardly anyone would have watched it.
I have no idea why people watch major sporting events, the vast majority of whom wouldn't watch minor (and possibly better viewing) events of a similar sport, I wish I did!

You forgot to add (perceived as) best (as in best driver, best teams and so on), and that's a big deal.

Again I do not grasp this humorous subtleties.
So say it straight if you've got something to say.

Well the race in anyones minds would not be as good because they wouldn't recognise the personalities who are doing it at the time regardless of actual lap times. Tennis final's ratings vary vastly depending on who's playing.

Of course he paid the drivers and probably a lot as they were the best in the world at that time and he would have made a loss as Oz TV would not have paid for it but he's a rich man and the long term plan was to get a F1 race proper.

My point is that you don't need all the bells and whistles to make either speed or entertainment, I understand why it's like it is and have posted it a few times as you did - it nicer to have 10% of 200 million in your pocket that you can cover than it is to have 5% of the recent 40 million figure that's very hard to hide. As long as the bullshit is bandied about unobtainium and development you can keep asking sponsors to cover it - it's a business so be it but I'm a motorsports fan and I'm trying to do something about it.

No, a van down by the RIVER!

Lighten up, Francis. In the final analysis, racers are a bunch of guys having fun and making money, a sweet combination. If you make them spend all their sponsor funding on technical innovations and all that jazz, there will not be enough left for business jets and country estates. Whose side are you on, anyway?

He's on the other side of the River, the woods side, opposite FB.

You're being awfully kind assuming there's sponsorship money to begin with.

I can smell the wood-smoke...