43 replies to this topic

[mariner]

Looking at the 2012 race calendar in the UK it's clear that Historic is almost as popular as modern racing. There are four big Historic events and many smaller ones, all seem to get good crowds compared to modern " clubbies". So people seem to like old cars as much as the new ones (F1 excluded).

At the same time the english habit of designing and building your own car seems to have largely vanished and many of the top professional series are now spec chassis or de facto spec. E.g. Indy car, GP2 and F3. Even DTM which has had vast budgets over the years is now using a spec chassis (i.e. carbon tub) shared by Audi, BMW and MB, none of whom are exactly poor in money or technology. Like wise the UK BTCC salons have spec parts.

The point is that the activity of designing and building seems on the wane and the "old days " when there was lots of design activity and diversity seems to be popular so people seem to like the cars from design your own days but don’t do it anymore .

I raise the question because I am now a very ordinary but proud member of the 750 motor club. As many may know its alumni from the 1950's through 1970's went on to design about a dozen F1 constructors champion cars, at least three Indy 500 winners and several Le Mans winning cars so doing amateur building seemed to have been helpful.

The 750 MC still has builders but they are mostly over 60 now, few new ones. I don’t think the issue is money. You can build a good 750 formula car for £10K and it is within 2-3 seconds a lap of a BTCC car around some circuits because it only weighs 380kg.

I have wondered if the reason is that younger people (under 30 in my book) are more into software than hardware these days. However in the 750 formula, to take an example, data logging is free so any guy/girl who loves to keep their head in a laptop could still make a big design contribution to a team and develop a real skill fro a professional career.

So am I right in perceiving that designing or modifying your own car is a fading skill, and if so Why?

I have ideas but wonder what other people think. Its not just speculation because people like the 750 MC really want to see new, young blood but nobody quite knows what’s “wrong”

[Magoo]

Great post, thanks.

Yes, building one's own race cars is a dying pastime. Here in the USA it is mainly confined to the lowest rungs of SCCA club racing, off-road, dirt late models, sportsman drag racing... you know, the backwaters of motorsport. Or, why I love the backwaters of motorsport.

I think it simply comes down to $$$ vs. competitiveness. The odds of beating storebought race cars are really, really bad. You will likely spend lots more money only to go slower.

[Bloggsworth]

They get out their Playstations, X-Boxes and Wii gizmos, sit in fromt of a screen for hours, and think that they are living - They will get to our age and realise that they did nothing concrete with their, shortened, lives. They will then tweet all the friends they've never actually met and tell them about it...

Edited by Bloggsworth, 10 June 2012 - 16:38.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think you overestimate what most people get up to. For them concrete is what their workplace is made from.

[kikiturbo2]

as a self employed amateur car builde and a father of two, I can tell you that I have very little time and free money on my hands these days..

[bigleagueslider]

To the best of my knowledge the last F1 car that was built and raced by a somewhat "amateur" team (ie. funded with private money) was Lord Hesketh's 308 in 1974. Performance wise however, it was definitely no amateur effort.



slider

[Canuck]

I blame technology. The heyday of the garagista was not that long after the era of ATDC IVO cam timing, which is to say "we" still had vast amounts to learn about the proverbial low-hanging fruit. One didn't necessarily need Rockefeller as a benefactor to make real, substantial discoveries and developments. A group of (comparatively) modest means and lots of talent could compete at the highest levels because everyone was on a giant leering curve.

Today we know the low hanging fruit and most everything that pays dividends in any form. Some, IE aerodynamics, now require large cash investments to produce meaningful results which ultimately makes it more cost effective to buy a completed product that has the benefits of this cash-intensive research in it. All of our experience and knowledge converge on the same solution (within the context of a given set of regulations) leaving the only winning "developments" to those with the pockets deep enough to finesse them out - a continuous cycle of higher costs/lower (performance) returns.

Which is all a verbose way of saying what Magoo said - your chances are remote.

[bigleagueslider]

I blame technology. The heyday of the garagista was not that long after the era of ATDC IVO cam timing, which is to say "we" still had vast amounts to learn about the proverbial low-hanging fruit. One didn't necessarily need Rockefeller as a benefactor to make real, substantial discoveries and developments. A group of (comparatively) modest means and lots of talent could compete at the highest levels because everyone was on a giant leering curve.

Today we know the low hanging fruit and most everything that pays dividends in any form. Some, IE aerodynamics, now require large cash investments to produce meaningful results which ultimately makes it more cost effective to buy a completed product that has the benefits of this cash-intensive research in it. All of our experience and knowledge converge on the same solution (within the context of a given set of regulations) leaving the only winning "developments" to those with the pockets deep enough to finesse them out - a continuous cycle of higher costs/lower (performance) returns.

Which is all a verbose way of saying what Magoo said - your chances are remote.

Canuck-

I would argue that recently the pendulum has swung the other way with regards to technology in F1 design. There are now super-sophisticated simulation tools that allow anyone to digitally design and test suspensions, chassis structures, aerodynamics, or engines concepts.

The new age of the digital "garagista" is now upon us. All it takes is a well educated and highly motivated individual with a Dell workstation.

[Greg Locock]

The list of things we can't accurately model is rather longer than the list of things we can usefully model in my opinion. Sure, in engine design and aero useful trends can be identified by modelling, but ultimately the physical testing is where the race winning margin gets fine tuned. The exception is structures (FEA) which these days are a done deal.

[BRG]

To the best of my knowledge the last F1 car that was built and raced by a somewhat "amateur" team (ie. funded with private money) was Lord Hesketh's 308 in 1974.

Hardly. There were efforts like Lec, McGuire, Merzario, Kauhsen, Rebaque, Boro and several others after Hesketh in the garagiste kit-car era, plus others later on such as Coloni, Eurobrun and others.

Not to mention teams like Andrea Moda and Life which re-defined the term 'amateur'

[Bloggsworth]

Canuck-

I would argue that recently the pendulum has swung the other way with regards to technology in F1 design. There are now super-sophisticated simulation tools that allow anyone to digitally design and test suspensions, chassis structures, aerodynamics, or engines concepts.

The new age of the digital "garagista" is now upon us. All it takes is a well educated and highly motivated individual with a Dell workstation.

If you have the $250,000 to buy the best software...

[desmo]

SOTA design software costs 250000 USD for a single user license? No wonder the Chinese use illegal cracked software, and I don't blame them.

[Deepak]

Nice thread.

I'm from India and recently got discussing with a racing engineering enthusiast on doing some chassis/suspension work for a road car.
The first priority on his mind was which software to buy. Maybe in 70's & 80's the mindset would have been to first do some hand sketches and get a prototype ASAP.
Tinkering and evaluating first using a software package is cost and time saved but less fun.

[mariner]

Maybe Deepak has highlighted one problem already - people start by looking at software , not at objectives or architecture or fabrication approach etc.

I'll be outragous and say fixing the suspension analysis may be the least important thing you do to design a home car. The actual linkage type ( double wishbone, strut , de dion etc) is a preference thing and most of the software tools are to decide three things , RC location , spring rates and damper rates. the first can be handled by a few extra bolt holes and the other two can be decided later ( and probably changed the minute you do a track test.)

I don't actually think this is the main reason that " home building" has declined but maybe it s because no young engineers or would be designers actually have any grasp of how you go about actually designing and ( heaven forbid) making a car !!

I think I'm just kidding

[Ben]

One of the things that constantly does my head in when judging at Formula Student is the first thing most teams want to tell you is the list of software they used...

There is also a blind faith in "modelling", for things that it just isn't appropriate for. I include tyres in that.

Ben

[Lukin]

Excusing the fact I couldn't build anything to save my life if I wanted to, I've never really had the desire to build my own racecar or general design. I'd rather spend my time going racing.

I get more enjoyement out of qualifying, racing, strategy, getting the best out of the team/driver combination on a given weekend or given year. I like the R&D side of things but don't mind series with reasonably tight regulations. Give me a car, driver, team and good racing series and I will have a ball!

For me, the motorsport 'ideal' would be V8 Supercar closeness with Le Mans GT technology/regulations and varied races (250 km sprint races with one driver ranging through to the long distance stuff), racing every two weeks with professional drivers and awesome racetracks. Easy huh?

[carlt]

. A group of (comparatively) modest means and lots of talent could compete at the highest levels because everyone was on a giant leering curve.

yeh - bring back the 60's -the more leering the better

[Canuck]

Damn you autocorrect! Ah well, what's bit of leering between fiends.

[Lee Nicolle]

Geez!! What the hell has software got to do with building a racecar! Commonsense and experience is what is needed.
Maybe that is why amatuers seldom build them these days.
Plus the number of 'spec' controlled classes making very few places to race them.
Even on dirt now it is primarily 'storebought' chassis assembled to the owners individual needs and budget.Or by the owner to their individual needs and budget.
Their is more development in tin top based cars these days. Club categorys where people can experiment.

[CSquared]

Geez!! What the hell has software got to do with building a racecar! Commonsense and experience is what is needed.

That's not a serious question, is it? Software is just a tool. If someone said, "We're going to design and build a racecar. First things we need are drafting supplies, wrenches, and a welder," you would have had no issue with that.

[Kelpiecross]

That's not a serious question, is it? Software is just a tool. If someone said, "We're going to design and build a racecar. First things we need are drafting supplies, wrenches, and a welder," you would have had no issue with that.

No.

[Lee Nicolle]

That's not a serious question, is it? Software is just a tool. If someone said, "We're going to design and build a racecar. First things we need are drafting supplies, wrenches, and a welder," you would have had no issue with that.

I know of a lot of low volume racecar builders who use a computer for emails and researching parts advailability.And a draft board is what they managed to dodge in the 1970s.
Off road, circuit racing and speedway, and succesfull cars.

[brakedisc]

I have been building race cars for fun for 30 years. FF1600, FF2000, S2000 mainly but also a road legal 7 type car.

There is no doubt the art is dying out and I feel there are a few factors contributing to this.

Kids want things instantly. The thought of actually spending a year building a car in a cold garage is not an option.

The education system is letting them down. Very few school hours are spent teaching them general design principals or allowing them to make something.

The higher education system is dream land with colleges offering race engineering courses that lead to employment. Generally run by non car builders.

Formula student. It was only last year did I understand what it was all about despite being aware of it for years. I still think it has rubbish rules and leads to crap designs with no link to real racing.

Rule book. Not sure how it is elsewhere but here in UK there are far too many rules. My last car saw the rule book changed (after 33 years)to outlaw the car.

Lack of suitable facilities. Only sprint and hill climb venues offer a chance to test because of cost.

I have 4 kids and none of them have shown anything other than a passing interest in what I do. If I am honest I do not blame them, amateur car building is a terrible addiction.

[NeilR]

a year to build a car??...if only that were true.
I have two in build and finding the time is the issue - I can buy in help, I cannot buy time to work on them.

[brakedisc]

My record from a clean sheet of paper to a running track ready car is 6 weeks. There were 4 of us involved but all had full time jobs. Car was a FF2000.

[Magoo]

Damn you autocorrect! Ah well, what's bit of leering between fiends.

eh?

[mariner]

I basicaly agree with brakedisc on this.

In the 1950's and early 60's there was actually not much to do in the UK. No multi channel TV or cyber interaction so you had to live out your dreams in the physical world around you. Getting some wheels and keeping them running was also a rite of passage etc. so the basic skills were commonplace.

Also it may sound strange but I think young people grow up later now. I'm not sure if my first car was much good but we had built it and done a degree by the age of 23. To be fair work was much more 9 to 5 then so more car time each day. Today the internet seems to make work blend seamlessly into personal time for my kids at work.

I also think some of the probelm is , frankly, lazy race organisers. Its so easy to just let somebody do a spec. series package and deliver the race grid pre-packaged instead of working at finding something that will appeal to the competitors and the crowds. John Webb of Brands Hatch was a genius at coming up with new races ( Formula Ford, Sports 2000, Thundersprts, USAC cars etc). He also knew how to sell the club racing. That reached its height with the Radio Caroline meetings , 50,000 spectators for a glorified club meeting ( probably over done but a LOT of people there).

Finally the media coverage of motor racing now equals F1 , thats it , stop,. Check a UK news website sports page . It says "F1" not " motor sport". One big Oz paper website did have " motorsport" but 75% of 30 articles were F1.

I really wonder if most young would be constructors even know there are regular club meetings any more the coverage is so low. I think some better comunication by the motorsports industry is badly needed at least in the Uk to get any hope of new blood. Otherwise there will be a huge gap between Karts for 12 year olds and GP2 / F1 because the car building talent pool will dry up.

The UK may have several 300 person F1 teams but that world does not , I think, equip you to build racecars commercially.

Edited by mariner, 12 June 2012 - 19:52.

[Grumbles]

It's not uncommon for the current generation to have had zero exposure to anything mechanical. We have young guys start at work who have never seen a grease gun for example. Not a criticism, just how it is. Modern cars just keep on going as a general rule, without much more than fuel and tyres. Us older guys on the other hand probably had a lot more exposure to mechanical work - I remember "helping" my dad maintain the family car, and then when we had our own cars (or bikes) they needed pretty constant attention. You'd be changing the points and plugs, greasing and servicing, adjusting the brakes and so on. So we had the opportunity to build up an interest in this sort of thing.
I don't think the current generation are any better or worse at it, they just haven't the exposure to it.

[NeilR]

whilst I think there is a kernal of truth in all of the ideas suggested so far, there is the matter of competition: there are simply far more things available now that can be tried with minimal effort and expendature.
Of course there is also sex to distract the 'young', you old blokes were probably just working out your frustrations on a race car, which is why they got built in 6 weeks...
But the expense is substantial. A friend races a 2lt sports sedan in club racing. A weekend will cost $2,000 - entry is around $4-500, then tyres $500 ($2000 a set that last 4 weekends), fuel at $2lt, transport (tow car) and accomodation for him and helper, pit charges etc

[Grumbles]

Of course there is also sex to distract the 'young', you old blokes were probably just working out your frustrations on a race car, which is why they got built in 6 weeks...

And all the time we were building we were imagining how our cars would be so exciting and our driving so awe-inspiring that young women would be throwing themselves at us, filled with uncontrollable lust...

The reality of course, turned out to be just a little different.

[bigleagueslider]

If you have the $250,000 to buy the best software...

Bloggsworth,

While I accept the premise of your comment about the cost of high-end engineering softwares, I might disagree about the actual cost for F1 teams. Every team gets their software and computer hardware provided as part of a sponsorship agreement. But if you had to actually buy a seat license for CATIA, FLUENT, ADAMS, FiberSIM, ANSYS, NASTRAN/PATRAN, etc., even the most expensive license for one of these applications could be purchased for less than $50K. You could also put together the necessary hardware to run them on for less than $10K. On the other hand, your $250K budget would not even cover 6 months of salary for a decent F1 chief engineer.

As some noted, it is also true that even the best software has limitations when it comes to the fidelity of its modelling and results. But the real value of digital modelling, simulation and analysis softwares does not lie in their quantitative results, instead it lies in their qualitative results. In other words, the best use of analysis softwares is to rapidly compare one design configuration against another. Do the changes make things better or worse for the prescribed set of input conditions?

Even with its limitations, digital simulation is much faster and cheaper than build and test cycles. But in the end, computers and software are indeed just dumb tools. No better or no worse than the person using them.

slider

[brakedisc]

And all the time we were building we were imagining how our cars would be so exciting and our driving so awe-inspiring that young women would be throwing themselves at us, filled with uncontrollable lust...

The reality of course, turned out to be just a little different.

Speak for yourself.

[Lee Nicolle]

I basicaly agree with brakedisc on this.

In the 1950's and early 60's there was actually not much to do in the UK. No multi channel TV or cyber interaction so you had to live out your dreams in the physical world around you. Getting some wheels and keeping them running was also a rite of passage etc. so the basic skills were commonplace.

Also it may sound strange but I think young people grow up later now. I'm not sure if my first car was much good but we had built it and done a degree by the age of 23. To be fair work was much more 9 to 5 then so more car time each day. Today the internet seems to make work blend seamlessly into personal time for my kids at work.

I also think some of the probelm is , frankly, lazy race organisers. Its so easy to just let somebody do a spec. series package and deliver the race grid pre-packaged instead of working at finding something that will appeal to the competitors and the crowds. John Webb of Brands Hatch was a genius at coming up with new races ( Formula Ford, Sports 2000, Thundersprts, USAC cars etc). He also knew how to sell the club racing. That reached its height with the Radio Caroline meetings , 50,000 spectators for a glorified club meeting ( probably over done but a LOT of people there).

Finally the media coverage of motor racing now equals F1 , thats it , stop,. Check a UK news website sports page . It says "F1" not " motor sport". One big Oz paper website did have " motorsport" but 75% of 30 articles were F1.

I really wonder if most young would be constructors even know there are regular club meetings any more the coverage is so low. I think some better comunication by the motorsports industry is badly needed at least in the Uk to get any hope of new blood. Otherwise there will be a huge gap between Karts for 12 year olds and GP2 / F1 because the car building talent pool will dry up.

The UK may have several 300 person F1 teams but that world does not , I think, equip you to build racecars commercially.

95% of the motorsport news comes from media releases by the teams, and sometimes promoters.Easier these days with the internet. But in the old days the motoring reporter[s] would actually go seek stories from promoters. Even the so called motorsport magazines seldom cover State level meetings these days
Our national broadcaster, the ABC often forgets that F1 exists. Usually when Mark does well they may mention it. 20 sec clip. V8 Thupercars seldom get a mention. Biggest mention local motorsport has gotten recently was a fatality. So all the WRONG reasons.
The commercials often are not much better, Even the ones covering the events. Often more interested in this weeks king hit footballer or inventing which coach is going to be sacked.Or Dancing with the Stars. The media do go seek those stories.
In that scenario WTF would you want to go build a purpose built racecar.
Surprisingly Drags are doing a little better, thogh seldom get any media either.

[mariner]

this is a blatant plug for the 750 motor club but if you explore the various classes in the link below you will see:-

- there is a wide variety of build your own classes available.

- A decent number of races

- technical regualtions that are not too restrictive

http://www.750mc.co.uk/racing.php

Your chance to fire up those laptop models and be the new Gordon Murray!

[NeilR]

95% of the motorsport news comes from media releases by the teams, and sometimes promoters.Easier these days with the internet. But in the old days the motoring reporter[s] would actually go seek stories from promoters. Even the so called motorsport magazines seldom cover State level meetings these days

As a publisher of a motorsport magazine my response is simply this: Bollocks.
Race Magazine covers nothing but club to national stuff.
Covering race meetings - cannot do it in a quarterly magazine, the internet has taken on that role. BTW why would you go to a promoter? You get spin, not a story.

[mariner]

At the risk of flogging my own dead horse I will make three suggestions that MIGHT encourage more amateur building. There are probably enough classes fro amateurs in the 750 club but that is strictly UK and an international amateur formula would be nice (per formula SAE).

Firstly, no visible sponsorship classes. Not a new idea but the cars can’t carry any advertising except the std. supplier contingency stickers to qualify fro racer discounts. The point being that anybody with a company's sponsor can pay net of tax giving them a 25 - 35% cost advantage. Also sponsorship drives teams to be technically conservative so as not to have disasters on reliability.

Secondly, a "power pack and hub carrier” formula. The cars run std FWD powerpacks , dry sumping and tilting allowed and must also use the hub carriers from a production car. The world is now full of quite powerful FWD powerpacks e.g. the latest Vauxhall/Opel Astra has 295 bhp and 6 speeds. That ought to be enough to give good, fast racing with few chassis / aero rules and such powerpacks are available world wide now. Also they can be silenced and catt'ed to look "green” By stipulating production hubs you still can have most sorts of suspension and brake layout but the cost of custom uprights ( and the risks of using second hand ones ) is eliminated.

Basically no other rules apart from roll bar etc. and either no or very low minimum weight to encourage innovation. I would even let people choose open wheel or enclosed bodywork by preference.

Thirdly a “efficiency" formula. No rules except a fixed and small fuel allocation per race. The organisers supply ready filled safety cell tanks to each car pre race. The engine size, tyre size etc is completely free. The idea is to encourage looking at the whole car design and architecture from scratch. Gives both innovators and digital modellers a chance.

I would keep the fuel allowance very small both to avoid very expensive big engines and tyre wear and because I think that eh future for amateurs may well lie in ultra light, ultra efficient designs which do not exist in professional racing.

Anyway my two cents worth

[desmo]

Love both ideas, mariner. They seem well thought out.

[GrpB]

Secondly, a "power pack and hub carrier” formula. The cars run std FWD powerpacks , dry sumping and tilting allowed and must also use the hub carriers from a production car. The world is now full of quite powerful FWD powerpacks e.g. the latest Vauxhall/Opel Astra has 295 bhp and 6 speeds. That ought to be enough to give good, fast racing with few chassis / aero rules and such powerpacks are available world wide now. Also they can be silenced and catt'ed to look "green” By stipulating production hubs you still can have most sorts of suspension and brake layout but the cost of custom uprights ( and the risks of using second hand ones ) is eliminated.

Here in the US that is the description of a Spec Racer Ford, a sealed, production configuration (Escort) transverse FWD powertrain, hub to hub in a steel tube sports racer chassis. The same formula with multiple allowed hub to hub powertrains (and a much sexier body) would be straightforward to develop as both rolling chassis + build from scratch compatible ruleset. But without serious OEM support (contingency and purse) based on the hub to hub powertrain brand, there would be no incentive for a sanctioning body to create, develop, market, and support a ‘class from scratch’ - FOR WHICH NO CARS YET EXIST. And no OEM will do this because they sell whole cars, not powertrains. Golf carts made with subsidized B-car powertrains is more realistic than sports/open wheelers powered by the same, because well, you gotta cater to the appropriate interests.

Which is a shame, because an off-the-shelf FWD powertrain in a dedicated chassis (hell, even with struts in the rear for ease of adaptability), wingless with hard tires should be faster, safer, easier to service, cheaper to run/maintain, and just plain more fun to drive than most anything else for the same financial outlay at the amateur level. Like Spec Miata except lighter by 700 lbs and mid engined. Shoot, everytime I think about this it makes me want to build it just for the sake of it. But I’m not sure you’d even be allowed to run it at a trackday alongside the full size cars, so eventually you’d have a very neat and very useless shop ornament, sitting in some corner on dry rotted tires. It is a shame that racing is so business oriented, very little package space left for passion. Perhaps that is why there are so damned many choppers running around. Builders have to do something with their time, after all.

[brakedisc]

Some good ideas from Mariner but not keen on the finance limitations. I spend too much time building my cars to go out to "work" to find the extra funding required to race. Sponsorship is a must for most amateur builders.

The 750 motor club have always done a great job and the "college" class is to be applauded. If there was not as much travelling involved I would love to get involved.

[Ross Stonefeld]

How exactly are we paying for race cars without sponsors?

[mariner]

I'll be straight to the point - if you rely on sponsorship to race you are not an amateur you are a professional. It is really that simple.

I really cannot understand why anybody should expect somebody else to pay for their pleasure of racing, it is actually both daft and insulting to sponsors.

I thinkt the reality of amateur " sponsorship" is that much of it is actually the racers private business being used to fund the racing ( which if ti the guys' onwn business is fine), or some friend or relative being kind.

Trade sponsors aside ( for which I made an exception) if it real sponsorship then it's a 100% commercial relationship so the driver/builder is also acting inside a commercial relationship so they canot be " amateur " any more.

[Charles E Taylor]

From the original post.

So am I right in perceiving that designing or modifying your own car is a fading skill, and if so Why?


I have ideas but wonder what other people think. Its not just speculation because people like the 750 MC really want to see new, young blood but nobody quite knows what’s “wrong”

7,742 of them might be doing This or something similar!


This is remarkable, as it represents the output of just one manufacturer over about 20 years.


People still want to do interesting things, maybe the moral is "not to restrict their creativity too much".


Charlie

[brakedisc]

"I'll be straight to the point - if you rely on sponsorship to race you are not an amateur you are a professional. It is really that simple."

Is it?

Cambridge dictionary definition of a professional ......... someone who does a job that people usually do as a hobby. Building race cars is my hobby and until I retired, I did other things to feed myself.

How do you finance your car building?

[mariner]

Any racing or building I have done has been funded by my own money. No disrespect at all to anybody who gets sponsorship ( in fact well done to them ) but I do think you have to accept using your/dad's/mum's/friend's money is the default for amateur builders.