Buddy Ahlers wrote:
I'd be shocked if F1, a place where they use all kinds of crazy hi-tech
metals to achieve a million rpm out of those little motors, had a limit to
how much money could be spent on a car. Please tell me if I'm wrong. I hate
to be wrong. ;-)
Well, you're wrong, but right at the same time...
F1 actually restricted, in a round-about way, maximum cost and exotic
material usage a few years back. Some of the top teams were using
Beryllium/Aluminum MMC alloy for brake calipers. Beyond the poisonous dust,
Be/Al alloys are at least 10x the cost of more normal Al alloys. Because F1
is "the pinnacle, where cost is no object", the parts were outlawed based on
stiffness rather than cost. There is a new clause that states something
like "the brake calipers Young's modulus (stiffness) must be <XX (where XX
is normal Al alloys)". Rumour has it that both McLaren and Ferrari are
using Be alloys for pistons and maybe connecting rods in their current
engines, but Ross Brawn didn't return my call!
On the issue itself:
I have had VERY little SCCA experience so far (first active season), but the
cost issue seems completely impossible to regulate. Who's to say that an
expensive car can't run? Who's to say that a cheap car can't run? If your
car passes safety, it can run.
The 3.8RSR may have not been in compliance with the rules somewhere
else(weight, engine allowance?), but actual vehicle cost is very difficult
to compare (is the RSR 250k or 125k? It's for sale now for 125.) Cost
regulation leads directly to having to bring an itemized list, with
accompanying receipts, to every race to document the cost of the car you
run. Do we really want that? The obvious cheat then is "Oh, that part only
cost $20 in 1970, so it's OK..." or "That engine was free, a friend gave it
to me..." HUGE can of worms.
Kevin Hoff
CCR Webmaster http://www.ccrsolo2.org/
Cirque Networks, Inc. CIO http://www.cirque-networks.com/
|