Make it a "Claimer" Motor?
One way you could keep costs of the engines down would be to make the motors "claimers" You'd have to make an adequate comparison sheet to offset year of manufacture and make of motor, but you can have the other guys motor for $XX if you give him the one in your car. This assumes that the older the motor, the more miles it has been run. The amount of time and money invested in development of the motor becomes less of an issue, because nobody wants to give up something they've poured big bucks into in order to squeeze out a few more hp to gain a power advantage. If the avaiablity of crated engine supply/choices is sufficient, this would also help to curb costs and even the hp. I'm not saying this is the way to go, but just another way that some forms of motor racing have implemented to curb engine expense/costs. I always thought this would be a great way to curb engine costs in FV.
As for weight, I like the F1k=1000cc=1000 lbs. If the older FC cars that were homologated as motorcycle cars want to run at the old wieght, great, but if you convert a DB6 or something else, you gotta get to 1000lbs.
What are we talking about?
I thought we were advocating restricting the engines to about 150 hp. If so my proposal about brakes still stands.
If we are talking about 180 hp engines, then the FC rules are inadiquate. European F3 rules are more appropriate.
Speaking of Apples and Oranges...
Richard,
Meaning no disrespect to either you or Steve - both of you have clearly been around the block a time or two and have seen what there is to see - but trying to compare a 1.6g DSR to top FF and FC entries is pretty misleading. I drove a 2004 flat-bottom DSR (making the comparison apples to apples), and regularly operated in the 2.5g regime you quoted for top FC efforts. I have no idea what circumstances surround your 1.6g experience with DSR, but I humbly submit that it wasn't a "top" effort, in my experience.
Having been around all of these tracks on the West Coast more than a few times, I can tell you that Laguna is very heavily reliant on downforce where the FA can and should walk away from a DSR. Very hard to make equivalent comparisons at a track like that, if you ask me. Sears Point, on the other hand, is a track where a DSR can realistically keep up quite easily with the FA's. Even reasonably quick journeymen can keep up within a couple of seconds of top FA times there. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Buttonwillow not being known as a high load track since the g loadings are not significantly different from Sears Point, however I suspect that "reputation" is influenced by the fact that BW has much longer straightaways and doesn't connect the corners together in a flowing fashion as Sears Point does, rather than the actual quality of the track.
I have some thoughts on some of the other technical points as well, which I'll put into an OT posting, but this "conversation" is getting ridiculous. You both damn well need a timeout! Dad, I know you've got some strong feelings on what direction this class should take, however perhaps a more diplomatic tack will get you closer? Richard, it's probably best not to accuse somebody of being condescending after insinuating that you're the party in the argument with "actual technical expertise" and that maybe your opponents knowledge is "a bit suspect". I'm probably going to get flak for this paragraph, but so be it - take your best shot, somebody had to slap you two. Let's get back on track and figure out a solution to the problem(s).
If I can put my horribly un-PC hat on for a moment:
Arguing on the internet is a lot like running in the Special Olympics... even if you win, you're still retarded.
Cheers,
Rennie
(more to say on the technical aspects in a bit)