Posted 27 November 2007 - 21:18
Gerard, you're an absolute goldmine! Another intersting thread opened by you!
I think the '500-3' concept is a case of taking an ideology one step too far.
According to Francois Jolly's delightful little Editions du Palmier book, "L'épopée francaise des "Racers 500"", the '500-3 movement' was instigated by the magazine 'L'Automobile' in about 1959 in an attempt to recreate the spirit of the original 500cc F3 movement. Of course the 500-3 cars lacked the fourth wheel of even most primitive cyclecars of pre-WWI and the 1920s, and handling was poor compared to a genuine 500cc F3; there's even a picture of Terigi overturning in Casablanca to prove the point.
Given that most 500cc F3 cars ran without a differential, I really doubt the omission of the fourth wheel would have saved the builder a significant amount of money - especially when one coniders the time and money needed to repair oft overturned 500-3 cars, even if the driver wasn't injured. Using a live rear axle (aka the then-emerging go-carts), perhaps with the whole engine/axle combo being articulated like on a Tecno F4, or simple swing axles, would not have cost much more than using the hind quarter of a donor motorcycle - which doesn't even seem to be the case in the Violet.
If one really wanted to keep the cost of 500cc F3 down, it could have been done by strict homologation of donor engines, for instance by banning such as double-knocker Nortons and favouring cheaper, perhaps even larger than 500cc engines, madatory use of donor running gear parts, control tyres, pump fuel etc. - but even that would probably eventually have evolved like Formula Junior did. Such is the price of competition!
Much as Morgans, FMSs and other trikes may have to commend them, I still find that even the cheapest racing car should have 4 wheels...