Printable View
Just saw this over on the UK FV site. Introduced for '09 competition by AHS. Looks to have '97 VD bodywork and rear pullrod zero roll. The UK cars have a longer wheelbase rule, so I've sent AHS an email to find out if the car could be brought over.
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/434/dsci0008ka.jpg
That car is beautiful! :cool:
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...1&d=1275501950
Check out the latest Australian 1600 CC Formula Vee - the Borland Sabre 02. It won on debut at Sandown in Victoria at the state round.
http://www.juniorracing.com.au/press..._1005_0510.pdf
Rob
Bill:
Our FST rules allow from 81.5" up to 85.5" wheelbase and a max overall length of 140".
I know that some early FF has 88" wb (Elden...) and were considered twitchy and tended to oversteer if driven with vigor. When the longer wb FF came into being, the OS problem became less of a factor.
Are the European and Aussie FST cars still within our rules for WB and OA length? Wouldn't they have a performance advantage over a conversion FV chassis or the Evo chassis or the Nash chassis?
This is more of a question concerning rules creep rather than anything else. The FST rules are very tight in order to keep the cars closely competitive, improve parts longevity, and make for the class to be more driver oriented.
If these (longer) chassis are a definite advantage, then people will have to go out and buy them in order to get to the top of the podium.
Is there any consensus among FST participants regarding whether or not the longer chassis will be enough faster to become a 'required' item?
Rick,
Great questions that you've asked.
Here is the current status:
USA and New Zealand rules are 81.5" to 85.5" (2" over current US FV)
Australia is 87.5" maximum (4" over current US FV)
UK and Ireland is unlimited, no length rule (many UK cars are close to 90")
We established our wheelbase number before dry sump became compliant. I think if we had known back then what we know now, the wheelbase would have been a touch longer to allow for dry sump tanks.
In regards to the performance issue, the UK GAC 01 is a longer wheelbase car, but a few years ago, they built a short wheelbase GAC 03 that was 85.5" (with hopes of entering the US market). The GAC 03 has been very successful in the UK winning the '08 UK championship.
I think if the rule was ever changed, it would make little difference (if any) to bring the wheelbase maximum up to 88" and it would open up the market to more manufactures from other countries.
I don't think lengthening would be required to be competitive. The biggest thing it would help on is more room in the engine compartment without comprimising for larger drivers. At this point, we have made everything fit in the Evolution and would not likely make any changes if the wheelbase rule was made longer.
Bill,
Sorry to correct you, but if I remember correctly the Short wheel base car was the GAC02, two space frames were made, but only one made ever made to the track, and wasn’t that successful. I think most of the parts were used to create another GAC03.
The GAC03 has the trick totally inboard dampers, but the same wheelbase as the original GAC01 which (I think) is 91”.
Guy.
Guy,
Thank you for the correction, I've got my model numbers goofed up. I looked back at the GAC website homepage and they have listed Paul Smith as finishing second in the '08 championship in a GAC 02 www.vwracing.net so maybe it's not too bad? Then again, it could be the 02 modified to 01 or 03 specs.
Um, you’ve got me thinking now.
The original was GAC01, mine was chassis #2.
Paul Smith’s car was the first car with inboard front dampers, but the same wheelbase as the others and as you point out that is a GAC02.
The GAC03 as inboard dampers front and rear, I drove one at Silverstone in 07.
So I now think that the short wheelbase car, which was driven by Jamie Conyers never had a designation.[/SIZE]