What car to buy????
Discussion
I am looking to begin sprints and hills in my local area and decided to sell my pride and joy to do so. With so mant cars on the market which ones do i look for i want to compete against my boss at work he drives a radical sr3 so it has to be sports libre. I have budgeted about £10000 give or take so it looks like a used car any opinions are welcomed. Thanks Dave
You're in the wrong forum; there ain't no kit car that will realistically compete against a Radical for a £10K budget, unless you are a brilliant driver and your boss is a numpty!
There's stuff like the bike engined Sevens, and mid-engined BEC's like the MK GTR and T5 Mission that would stand some chance, but Radicals tend to be built to a higher spec with fewer compromises.
I'd suggest that you need to be looking at either a Mallock type Clubmans car, or an OMS or similar bike engined sports racer.
This link might be helpful.
There's stuff like the bike engined Sevens, and mid-engined BEC's like the MK GTR and T5 Mission that would stand some chance, but Radicals tend to be built to a higher spec with fewer compromises.
I'd suggest that you need to be looking at either a Mallock type Clubmans car, or an OMS or similar bike engined sports racer.
This link might be helpful.
Road Going Bike engined cars or somesuch, run by the 750MC 
www.750mc.co.uk/racing/formulae/rgb.htm
www.750mc.co.uk/Racing/regulations/pdf/2005%20Regs%20-%20RGB.pdf
www.750mc.co.uk/racing/formulae/rgb.htm
www.750mc.co.uk/Racing/regulations/pdf/2005%20Regs%20-%20RGB.pdf
jon ison said:
The two Radicals that enterd the 750mc RGB series arn,t wıpıng the floor, there doing ok but not winnıng everythıng.
To be fair though Jon, the SR4s in RGB arent going to be anywhere near the spec as SR3s you'll find on hillclimbs and sprints, RGB regs force them to run with no significant aero and having to run 50mm rideheight dont they? If you put an SR3 in there in normal racing trim with wings and normal rideheight Im pretty sure it would wipe the floor with anything in RGB. The RGB does however show that there's nothing hugely special about the Radical design under the skin, and most of the laptime is gained from aero etc as much as anything else.
A Clubmans car as mentioned above is a good call, a Mallock with a X Flow in it can weigh barely over 400kgs so think what it could be like with a 60kg bike engine in there
>> Edited by Locoblade on Friday 7th October 19:28
Locoblade said:
The two Radicals that enterd the 750mc RGB series arn,t wıpıng the floor, there doing ok but not winnıng everythıng.
To be fair though Jon, the SR4s in RGB arent going to be anywhere near the spec as SR3s you'll find on hillclimbs and sprints, RGB regs force them to run with no significant aero and having to run 50mm rideheight dont they? If you put an SR3 in there in normal racing trim with wings and normal rideheight Im pretty sure it would wipe the floor with anything in RGB. The RGB does however show that there's nothing hugely special about the Radical design under the skin, and most of the laptime is gained from aero etc as much as anything else.
A Clubmans car as mentioned above is a good call, a Mallock with a X Flow in it can weigh barely over 400kgs so think what it could be like with a 60kg bike engine in there
>> Edited by Locoblade on Friday 7th October 19:28
errrrrrrr am i missing summat ??
The two radicals are running same spec as the RGB and not winning because the cars are missing the aero and ride height advantage, with that they would wipe the floor ???
ok give the RGB cars same ride heights and aero package = it back up would it not ?
I think what I was trying to say is that the Radical has a well developed aero package that you can take advantage of if its allowed to by the regs. If you slammed a Pheonix to the floor and put a rear wing on the back, it wouldnt be as quick as an SR3 because its never been properly developed for that, and would cost a lot of money to develop the aero on it to make it competitive, so not be within the £10k budget.
Therefore if looking for a car thats going to be as quick as an SR3 as it will be found in hillclimb trim, you really need to look for cars that already have developed aero and can compete with an SR3 in that spec already.
Therefore if looking for a car thats going to be as quick as an SR3 as it will be found in hillclimb trim, you really need to look for cars that already have developed aero and can compete with an SR3 in that spec already.
there are one or two cars competing RGB that have a good aero package.....
Gennisis (different rear floor for RGB)
T5 mission (ride height and floor)
ADR (ride height and floor)
Not knocking Radicals there top notch cars and will always be up there but dont discount the rest as non starters thats all.
Gennisis (different rear floor for RGB)
T5 mission (ride height and floor)
ADR (ride height and floor)
Not knocking Radicals there top notch cars and will always be up there but dont discount the rest as non starters thats all.
we're talking about hillclimbing here, though, Jon - completely different discipline with different priorities to a circuit car.
Aero is less important for hillclimbs and sprints because the speeds are lower and the tracks are sufficiently bumpy to upset a lot of the 'ground effect' from things like splitters and diffusers.
Suspension and torque:weight is what counts.
The Radical is good for a BEC because the suspension linkage makes the most of moderate quality dampers by increasing the wheel movement:damper stroke ratios by means of their patented linkage (Niklink, or whatever they call it?), but it's still very heavy by hillclimb/sprint standards and you really need quite a big-bore engine for it to have the torque to be competitive.
And before we get into the whole torque vs. power debate all over again, remember that the top level hillclimbers use ex-Formula 1 Judd engines modified to give about 200bhp less than F1 tune, but much better torque spread.
That's why bike engines sports libre cars haven't really caught on in hillclimbing (or if they have, the most effective ones have forced induction). A Mallock with a decent car engine is still a pretty formidable tool on the hills.
Aero is less important for hillclimbs and sprints because the speeds are lower and the tracks are sufficiently bumpy to upset a lot of the 'ground effect' from things like splitters and diffusers.
Suspension and torque:weight is what counts.
The Radical is good for a BEC because the suspension linkage makes the most of moderate quality dampers by increasing the wheel movement:damper stroke ratios by means of their patented linkage (Niklink, or whatever they call it?), but it's still very heavy by hillclimb/sprint standards and you really need quite a big-bore engine for it to have the torque to be competitive.
And before we get into the whole torque vs. power debate all over again, remember that the top level hillclimbers use ex-Formula 1 Judd engines modified to give about 200bhp less than F1 tune, but much better torque spread.
That's why bike engines sports libre cars haven't really caught on in hillclimbing (or if they have, the most effective ones have forced induction). A Mallock with a decent car engine is still a pretty formidable tool on the hills.
Well the best i can come up with is a company called Kamala Car's they are based at snetterton race circuit
there owner Mark keen is a real motorsport nut he is desperate to see his cars race and do well im sure he could do you a good deal if you ask him
a normal car weight is 700-800kilo's
3 engine options durotec 4cyl +6cyl and the cosworth lump
his cars power to weight are around 500bhp with cosworth power
oh ye and they look really different to anything out there.
he may even give you some form of factory support?
ask for a guy called Mr Storey he runs marks motorsport technical? never hurts to ask doe's it?
my advise to you would be too stay away from bike power just because of engine rebuild costs bike engine were not ment to drag 700kilo around?
www.kamalacars.com
i think the workshop no is 01953888836 he has just move to snetterton race circuit
hope this gives you some more options?
there owner Mark keen is a real motorsport nut he is desperate to see his cars race and do well im sure he could do you a good deal if you ask him
a normal car weight is 700-800kilo's
3 engine options durotec 4cyl +6cyl and the cosworth lump
his cars power to weight are around 500bhp with cosworth power
oh ye and they look really different to anything out there.
he may even give you some form of factory support?
ask for a guy called Mr Storey he runs marks motorsport technical? never hurts to ask doe's it?
my advise to you would be too stay away from bike power just because of engine rebuild costs bike engine were not ment to drag 700kilo around?
www.kamalacars.com
i think the workshop no is 01953888836 he has just move to snetterton race circuit
hope this gives you some more options?
Sam_68 said:
And before we get into the whole torque vs. power debate all over again, remember that the top level hillclimbers use ex-Formula 1 Judd engines modified to give about 200bhp less than F1 tune, but much better torque spread.
That's why bike engines sports libre cars haven't really caught on in hillclimbing (or if they have, the most effective ones have forced induction). A Mallock with a decent car engine is still a pretty formidable tool on the hills.
I wouldnt mind betting that the real reason the Judds are detuned is because they cant afford to run them in full tune!
I don't really follow hillclimbing so dont know of the current "in-favour" engines etc, but I disagree with "torque:weight is what counts", engine torque / weight ratio cannot be a good indicator of performance (otherwise my diesel tintop would be about twice as quick as a petrol equivalent). As has been said countless times, torque at the wheels is what counts, and you can get that with a high revving, low torque, low geared engine just as easily as a lower revving, higher torque engine, thats what the gearbox is for. Agreed you dont want a peaky engine that only produces power at the very top end, you want a large useable rev range, but it doesnt necessarily need to be an engine with high specific torque output.
Locoblade said:
I wouldnt mind betting that the real reason the Judds are detuned is because they cant afford to run them in full tune!
I don't really follow hillclimbing so dont know of the current "in-favour" engines etc, but I disagree with "torque:weight is what counts", engine torque / weight ratio cannot be a good indicator of performance (otherwise my diesel tintop would be about twice as quick as a petrol equivalent). As has been said countless times, torque at the wheels is what counts, and you can get that with a high revving, low torque, low geared engine just as easily as a lower revving, higher torque engine, thats what the gearbox is for. Agreed you dont want a peaky engine that only produces power at the very top end, you want a large useable rev range, but it doesnt necessarily need to be an engine with high specific torque output.
Nothing to do with cost of running the engine, I assure you.
I agree absolutely that torque at the wheels is what counts, and for road or circuit use it is easy to multiply the torque of a high revving/low torque engine using gearing (if you don't mind an engine that is screaming its nuts off all the time!).
On sprints and hillclimbs, though, torque is particularly important because the corner sequences are so tight and 'technical' that you want to minimise the number of gearchanges, both because they cost time in themselves, and because the abrupt changes in torque at the wheels caused by gearchanging unsettle the car - plenty of spins are caused on hillclimbs simply by gearchanges at the wrong moment when a car is right at the ragged edge of it's grip envelope.
The top single seaters don't even necessarily run with a standard H-pattern. The sequence of ratios can be changed to match the corners on the course so that, for instance, you can set up the box so that 4th is where you would expect to find 3rd, or whatever.
I agree also that you want a large useable rev range, but remember that shorter gearing means that you are effectively dividing the engines rev range. To explain, a brief calculation using extreme examples:
30mph change in road speed on a car geared for 15mph/1000rpm (typical top gear for a BEC) = 2000rpm change in engine revs.
30mph change in road speed on a car geared for 30mph/1000rpm (typical top gear for a big capacity petrol car, or a turbodiesel) = 1000rpm change in engine revs.
....so you effectively need twice the rev range (...twice the powerband!) to achieve the same change in speed. When you are trying to accelerate out of an ultra-tight corner with a sequence of further corners of varying tightness ahead of you, this becomes important!
Bike engines are very competitive in lightweight single seaters on hillclimbs (and I stress the word lightweight - more than 270 kilos would be considered cumbersome), but they've not shown similar dominance with Sports Libre and, even with a single seater, it will still normally be a car engine that sets FTD on any major event.
Completely irrelevant to the topic of hillclimbing and sprinting (except, perhaps, to muse on the potential of a turbodiesel hillclimber), but
your diesel tin-top probably would be nearly twice as quick as its petrol equivalent if it used the same gearing, and if the tyres could transmit the torque to the road. I bought my g/f a 130bhp TD Seat Ibiza a couple of months ago, and the top gear acceleration at motorway speeds is really quite impressive, despite the gearing being over 30mph/1000rpm
. Gear it to a typical petrol top gear ratio of, say 23mph/1000rpm and it would fly! Top speed would take a tumble though (due to the diesels lower rev limit) and fuel economy - a major sales factor with diesels - would suffer too. We are drifting way off topic, though - the question was what car is suitable for Sports Libre hillclimbing against a Radical?
I'd suggest that the Kamala is waytoo heavy, regardless of power output. Power/Torque can overcome the extra weight in terms of acceleration, but a heavy car is still at a huge disadvantage on braking and cornering. The Radical would almost certainly murder even a 500bhp/ton Kamala, I'm afraid.
>> Edited by Sam_68 on Sunday 9th October 11:27
The bike engined argument comes down to cost - a bike engine gives you a very cheap, low weight starting point compared to the same money spent on a car engined car. The low weight, excellent gearing and good power gives an immediate advantage.
If you spend more money then you can make a car engined car very fast, but it's all money. BEC's are a nice cheap entry point that will make you competitive against almost any similarly priced car engined car.
If you spend more money then you can make a car engined car very fast, but it's all money. BEC's are a nice cheap entry point that will make you competitive against almost any similarly priced car engined car.
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff