Formula Atlantic Registry

[Bob Corliss]

Sorry to hear about your power plant, I am just waiting for the same thing to happen to my RT41, Keep us posted
hopefully new upgrades with bring the old group out again
Dee
RT 41
RT 5

Thanks Dee. I am confident the solution will be effective from a cost and performance point of view. Bob

[Bob Corliss]

Hi Bill, learned of this yesterday, ironically when standing next to your car in Sonoma. I have reached out to SCCA and am waiting to hear back. However, I still am on the path to get the 200+ real FA chassis back on track. To do that we need motors and to do that we need all owners that are interested to become part of the FA Registry so that the drivers can be part of the solution. It may seem a bit overwhelming but numbers don't lie......the Swift 14 conversion with the Mazda motor is too expensive and has had limited if any real success, and it requires aftermarket engineering for the rest of the car. As I was reminded by the engineers at Swift, the 14 was developed with an unlimited budget. Hard to imagine it can be improved upon without the same access to capital.
F3 is another story altogether. There are approximately 8 F3 cars that have been sold. Honda is highly motivated to make this work and the SCCA needs more FA cars. This too shall pass. I was at Road Atlanta a couple of weeks ago and watched the F3 race and they are competitive but not faster than the 14 or the 16 on that track.
Again, all of us that own Ralt and Swift cars need to work together to create our own marketplace.....if we do that successfully we will not have to be concerned with "other developments". So please advocate joining on the Registry on my post on this site. Once we reach more critical mass I will create a separate mailing for all that well chronicle all developments.
Final point, once we get settled on the TRD 1600 and the Cosworth 2300 motors, we can also focus on further development and I have no doubt there will not be an answer that is more cost effective or competitive.
Thanks for spending time on this.
Bob

[Bob Corliss]

All,

The above response was sent to Bill Gillespie, Swift 16 owner, re the rule changes in SCCA...

[jchracer]

Interested:

Joel Haas
1988 Swift DB4 Toyota, Serial Number 02188

[Bob Corliss]

Thanks Joel.

Interested:

Joel Haas
1988 Swift DB4 Toyota, Serial Number 02188

[Tony Opheim]

Sorry for the delay, Bob, but count me in. I'm pretty certain I have a 96' RT41 but the serial number in the attached image seems to be in a different format from other Ralts. Specifically, I understand Dee had a not-good conversation with the prior owner over who has car #26. Dee's serial number (#1026) looks "right" while mine looks, well, not right. Can anyone shed any light on what I have?

[Bob Corliss]

Thanks Tony. Can't help with the Serial Number issue but maybe this Registry can be helpful for this type of thing as well. I will be at the track on Sunday and will look you up....where are you in the paddock? I will be based in one of the garages with Mirl Swan. See you soon .
Bob

Sorry for the delay, Bob, but count me in. I'm pretty certain I have a 96' RT41 but the serial number in the attached image seems to be in a different format from other Ralts. Specifically, I understand Dee had a not-good conversation with the prior owner over who has car #26. Dee's serial number (#1026) looks "right" while mine looks, well, not right. Can anyone shed any light on what I have?

[Tony Opheim]

Bob,
I’m in m19 right behind the main grandstand - pretty much in the middle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob Corliss]

should be there by 1115.

Bob,
I’m in m19 right behind the main grandstand - pretty much in the middle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob Corliss]

Great to meet you and share the story.....and good job on track. You and Rankin had a very good race. Let's keep the discussion going re a Swift 16....you were able to experience the difference first hand, but I highly recommend testing both the 14 and the 16.
Bob

should be there by 1115.

[Joules5]

Great to meet you and share the story.....and good job on track. You and Rankin had a very good race. Let's keep the discussion going re a Swift 16....you were able to experience the difference first hand, but I highly recommend testing both the 14 and the 16.
Bob

I'd be interested in following that discussion, going to upgrade but still not set on which way to go, notwithstanding cost differential between the two.

[red_z]

As a Pro Mazda driver, I'm hoping this effort can support a separate classification of sorts between PFM & FA at least for Majors and run-offs consideration. There's simply too wide a gap between a 'true FA' like the Swift and the Star Mazda to ever make the PFM competitive under the general FA rules.

Dave Zavelson
PFM 04-569

[bill gillespie]

As a Pro Mazda driver, I'm hoping this effort can support a separate classification of sorts between PFM & FA at least for Majors and run-offs consideration. There's simply too wide a gap between a 'true FA' like the Swift and the Star Mazda to ever make the PFM competitive under the general FA rules.

Dave Zavelson
PFM 04-569

Dave ,
I like the idea of an FA1 and FA2 class, similar to P1/P2, FE/FE2, and SRF/SRF3.

[Bob Wright]

That's a very good way to handle it. BTW, FRP will be willing to run that exact kind of thing if we can get 5 or more PFMs to commit to join our series. We've tried to open this up before with zero results.

In club, the FA class has become a dumping ground for every OWR car they don't know what else to do with. Maybe the concept of FA1 and FA2 can solve some of that.

[bill gillespie]

That's a very good way to handle it. BTW, FRP will be willing to run that exact kind of thing if we can get 5 or more PFMs to commit to join our series. We've tried to open this up before with zero results.

In club, the FA class has become a dumping ground for every OWR car they don't know what else to do with. Maybe the concept of FA1 and FA2 can solve some of that.

Hey Bob,

I believe it’s worth some serious thought and discussion.....way too much history in FA to let it die.....and while you’re at it, how about a Super Master class for those of us 70+....lol !

regards,
Bill

[Dee]

I am up for the 70+ class!!!!!
Dee
Penske rt5
Ralt Rt 41

[problemchild]

Since you guys are creating your own sub-classes ...... how about 70+ cars. Maybe some of the historic car owners would like to take advantage of the organization and track time. If we are going to fill out the grid with cars that are not right on the pace, what could be finer than 70s & 80s Marchs, Chevrons, Ralts, and Swifts?

[Stan Clayton]

Sorry for the delay, Bob, but count me in. I'm pretty certain I have a 96' RT41 but the serial number in the attached image seems to be in a different format from other Ralts. Specifically, I understand Dee had a not-good conversation with the prior owner over who has car #26. Dee's serial number (#1026) looks "right" while mine looks, well, not right. Can anyone shed any light on what I have?

I only noticed this thread tonight. I wish I'd seen it before the Runoffs so I could have met more Ralt folks. Tony very graciously invited me to look over his RT41 Sunday afternoon. If you haven't seen it, the car is a stunning example of the marque. I don't have an explanation for the different plaque, but mine looks like this:

[Heel-and-toe]

I like the idea of an FA1 and FA2 class, similar to P1/P2, FE/FE2, and SRF/SRF3.

That's a very good way to handle it.

SRF3 and FE2 were created to replace SRF and FE, not to supplement them. SRF ceased to exist as a Majors class after the 2017 season, and per the rules FE will cease to exist as a Majors class after the 2019 season. And the equivalent of P1/P2 already exists: FA/FB.

[bill gillespie]

SRF3 and FE2 were created to replace SRF and FE, not to supplement them. SRF ceased to exist as a Majors class after the 2017 season, and per the rules FE will cease to exist as a Majors class after the 2019 season. And the equivalent of P1/P2 already exists: FA/FB.

FA & FB are markedly different, except for speed and open wheels...

[Heel-and-toe]

FA & FB are markedly different, except for speed and open wheels...

Yes, and the cars in P1 and P2 are also markedly different, except for speed and closed wheels. P1 is based around modified engines and tunnels (like FA), while P2 is based primarily around stock engines and flat bottoms (like FB).

[Stan Clayton]

FA & FB are markedly different, except for speed and open wheels...

Nonetheless, the two classes could be readily combined if they don't get their participation up. 7 entries each at the Runoffs is pathetic IMO, and if there isn't a healthy turnout next year all bets are off. FA already has PFM, F3, F4, FS2.0 and other semi-orphaned cars in the class, and can make room for FBs just as easily.

[problemchild]

FA and FB run together in the same group at 100% of SCCA events, so by combining, you are not changing anything happening on track. You are changing the stats that SCCA uses for their political and strategic planning, and of course, the distribution of $4 trophies. Promoters of portions of that group can still hold their own championships and offer their own prizes, whether FB, PFM, F4 F3 or other. Whether you call it Formula Libre or FA, being part of a combined class may be preferable to a "pure" class with no where to race.

[Bob Corliss]

Great conversation on both fronts re PFM and adding older FA classes. Both ideas are doable and if there is enough participation on the Formula Atlantic Registry, there will be enough cars to attract all the track time needed. Solving the motor problem will go a long way to getting these cars back on track. On PFM specifically, there are 120+ of these cars that need a home. And FRP in the FA Class with separate points is the right idea. Again, I encourage the PFM owners to sign on to the FA Registry so that we can work together to make both of these things happen.

Since you guys are creating your own sub-classes ...... how about 70+ cars. Maybe some of the historic car owners would like to take advantage of the organization and track time. If we are going to fill out the grid with cars that are not right on the pace, what could be finer than 70s & 80s Marchs, Chevrons, Ralts, and Swifts?

[Bob Corliss]

Stan, thanks for signing up. Sorry we did not connect at Runoffs,but agree re Tony’s car.

I

I only noticed this thread tonight. I wish I'd seen it before the Runoffs so I could have met more Ralt folks. Tony very graciously invited me to look over his RT41 Sunday afternoon. If you haven't seen it, the car is a stunning example of the marque. I don't have an explanation for the different plaque, but mine looks like this:

[Bob Corliss]

Some news for all of you that have taken the time to be part of the FA Registry:

1. Significant progress has been made on the design/development of the TRD 4AGE motor, the 1.6 liter motor that we are all waiting for.
2. The progress includes digital design of the tooling, head, and ports.
3. I will send photos to you privately if interested. Please make sure I have your email.
4. Next steps include prototype, dyno testing and track test.
5. Once satisfied, Production is next and I would like to get as many advance orders as possible to keep costs down. Remember, there are more than 200 cars that can use this motor. Letting me know early will be helpful for everyone.
6. Timing is expected to be in Q1 2019.

In the meantime, please continue to let your friends know who are not on this thread to get registered and let Santa know all you want for Christmas is a motor that works!

Thanks and Merry Christmas to everyone.

Bob Corliss
Swift 14a

[Joules5]

Bob,

A I prepare to send my engine out for overhaul (still has that hole in the block!) the thought occurred to me, over and above the formation of the registry have you reached out to the likes of Loyning, Hasselgren, Elite etc. who regularly rebuild these motors for us?

Julian

[Bob Corliss]

Julian,

I am working with Hasselgren and other parties to develop the parts for the motor. Once completed everyone will have access to the Parts. At this juncture we are focusing on the cylinder head for the 1.6L TRD motor. Next will be the block for same. Then on to the 2.3L Cosworth.

Bob

Bob,

A I prepare to send my engine out for overhaul (still has that hole in the block!) the thought occurred to me, over and above the formation of a the registry have you reached out to the likes of Loyning, Hasselgren, Elite etc. who regularly rebuild these motors for us?

Julian

[Seventh-Gear]

Swift 008 #021 & Swift 008 #054.

[Bob Corliss]

Thanks for getting involved. Friday meeting to review 1.6 liter motor status and expect to bring those that are on the FA Registry up to speed.

Swift 008 #021 & Swift 008 #054.

[jstowe]

I remember contributing to a long thread discussion about this very same topic some time ago. At the time, while it was still legal, we wanted to develop a new cylinder head for the 4AGE Toyota engine, similar to one we had developed for the BDA 1600. At that time, SCCA held that any head that could bolt to a legal F/A block would be allowed. We notified the community of our intentions, and after some back-and-forth, someone forced the issue on how powerful the modified BDA with our head was. It made 289 hp using a 86 x 69 bore and stroke...A short time later, SCCA ruled that non-original heads were no longer legal. I tried to get this changed back to no avail.

Because so many of these F/A chassis were designed around the Toyota 4AGE, I have done some exploration of the design issues regarding these engines. A straight copy of the 4AGE cyl head is not a good idea... It needs larger springs and buckets to get a truly good and reliable valve-train for starters, and the design compromises made for production cost control limit its reliability and power. The right approach would be to design a head that fits in the same packaging envelope, but fixes all the problems. The 4AGE has a short rod ratio to go with its 81 x 77 bore and stroke, so the goal should be to not get power by running super-high revs, but rather, design the head to produce the highest BMEP possible. These days, 17 bar is a good figure for peak torque, and 16 bar at peak power. Ideally, to get good reliability, and a good long time between rebuilds, a full-skirt piston with three rings, with a shift point around 9500-10,000 rpm would do the trick. A good purpose-designed cylinder head could make 16 bar at 9500, which would yield 270 hp, but this is not going to happen with the standard head, no matter how much you work it. Casting the head out of A357 T-6, would make it over-heat proof, with improved longevity.

Increasing the bore to 83mm, and shortening the stroke to 74 mm would improve things tremendously, but I am given to understand that this is not possible with the standard block. Too bad: the shorter stroke, increased journal overlap, and improved rod ratio would allow the engine to spin faster without sacrificing reliability...plus, there would be more valve area available.

Of course, none of the above improvements are legal with the SCCA...

I have my own foundry, and could produce a superior replacement head for the 4AGE, (I have a list of satisfied customers for this kind of work), but I can't do that unless I know there is a market for it. If there was, I would tool up at my cost.

[Bob Corliss]

Thanks for the valuable input. We are working with a noted engineer and engine builder to address power and reliability....we are about 95% complete with a digital version, and very open to technical input to get this right.
The market has changed and the belief is that this solution will get these cars back on track. SCCA and others that run the cars have been supportive of our efforts.
Let me know if you would like more details to help with your generous offer to tool up....the market is ready for a solution. Thanks again.

Bob

I remember contributing to a long thread discussion about this very same topic some time ago. At the time, while it was still legal, we wanted to develop a new cylinder head for the 4AGE Toyota engine, similar to one we had developed for the BDA 1600. At that time, SCCA held that any head that could bolt to a legal F/A block would be allowed. We notified the community of our intentions, and after some back-and-forth, someone forced the issue on how powerful the modified BDA with our head was. It made 289 hp using a 86 x 69 bore and stroke...A short time later, SCCA ruled that non-original heads were no longer legal. I tried to get this changed back to no avail.

Because so many of these F/A chassis were designed around the Toyota 4AGE, I have done some exploration of the design issues regarding these engines. A straight copy of the 4AGE cyl head is not a good idea... It needs larger springs and buckets to get a truly good and reliable valve-train for starters, and the design compromises made for production cost control limit its reliability and power. The right approach would be to design a head that fits in the same packaging envelope, but fixes all the problems. The 4AGE has a short rod ratio to go with its 81 x 77 bore and stroke, so the goal should be to not get power by running super-high revs, but rather, design the head to produce the highest BMEP possible. These days, 17 bar is a good figure for peak torque, and 16 bar at peak power. Ideally, to get good reliability, and a good long time between rebuilds, a full-skirt piston with three rings, with a shift point around 9500-10,000 rpm would do the trick. A good purpose-designed cylinder head could make 16 bar at 9500, which would yield 270 hp, but this is not going to happen with the standard head, no matter how much you work it. Casting the head out of A357 T-6, would make it over-heat proof, with improved longevity.

Increasing the bore to 83mm, and shortening the stroke to 74 mm would improve things tremendously, but I am given to understand that this is not possible with the standard block. Too bad: the shorter stroke, increased journal overlap, and improved rod ratio would allow the engine to spin faster without sacrificing reliability...plus, there would be more valve area available.

Of course, none of the above improvements are legal with the SCCA...

I have my own foundry, and could produce a superior replacement head for the 4AGE, (I have a list of satisfied customers for this kind of work), but I can't do that unless I know there is a market for it. If there was, I would tool up at my cost.

[mlafontaine]

Bob
I totally agree wit you

In Québec we just RESTART this great serie and we are now 10 drivers running SWIFT db4/008a/014/016.



For 50th Grand Prix de Trois Rivieres 2019, we would like to invite all FA owners to join us for this UNIQUE race weekend. By now, we are 21 drivers registered but we need more cars.

JOIN US:

GP3R 2019
August 9/10/11 2019
Registration fees: 2500$
Contact: Marcel Lafontaine (marcel@f1600canada.com) cell 819

[Bob Corliss]

Thank you Marcel. Very excited about Trois Rivieres, but we have many drivers that have a scheduling conflict. We should stay in touch see how we can help and get this going again.....I have heard that the event is the best!

Bob

PS Please send me your contact details.

Bob
I totally agree wit you

In Québec we just RESTART this great serie and we are now 10 drivers running SWIFT db4/008a/014/016.



For 50th Grand Prix de Trois Rivieres 2019, we would like to invite all FA owners to join us for this UNIQUE race weekend. By now, we are 21 drivers registered but we need more cars.

JOIN US:

GP3R 2019
August 9/10/11 2019
Registration fees: 2500$
Contact: Marcel Lafontaine (marcel@f1600canada.com) cell 819

[raltfa41]

• Swift 016 #33
• Ralt RT-41 #14

Impressed by what our frères du Nord have pulled together............
Unreasonable and unnecessary Costs are the reason I haven't raced in two years.

Andy Schaufelberger

[glenn brandon]

Mr. Corliss,

I would like to be added to your registry. Please let me knowhow to get you my contact info. I am new to forums and am not familiar how to use them. Thank you.

Glenn Brandon

Ontario Canada

[Bob Corliss]

• Swift 016 #33
• Ralt RT-41 #14

Impressed by what our frères du Nord have pulled together............
Unreasonable and unnecessary Costs are the reason I haven't raced in two years.

Andy Schaufelberger

Andy, thanks for sending your comments and your car info. Hope to see you on track again soon. The motor project should help with the RT41. Bob

[Bob Corliss]

Mr. Corliss,

I would like to be added to your registry. Please let me knowhow to get you my contact info. I am new to forums and am not familiar how to use them. Thank you.

Glenn Brandon

Ontario Canada

Thanks for registering. Will advise re the 1.6 liter motor project.
Bob Corliss

[wmunsey]

Hi Bob,

• 1998 Swift 008 #017

Weldon Munsey

[Bob Corliss]

Hi Bob,

• 1998 Swift 008 #017

Weldon Munsey

Thanks for joining Weldon.