Front Engine Class 10?

[<Cody Agee>]

I read rules in SCORE and didn't see anything preventing it? I know it probably wouldn't work well but has anyone ever thought about it?

[zjohnson]

yes, and would love to try it. Have some ideas, gonna need a lot of $$$.

[Stimpy]

A truggy class 10? HHMMM...Kooky!

[<Cody Agee>]

I think the downfall of this would be that front engine cars tend to be heavier but being different isn't necessarily bad

[<Cody Agee>]

A truggy class 10? HHMMM...Kooky!


If I ran a 10 then I would make it rear engine, it's proven. But it's just an idea that no one has tried and it's not against the rules

[C.J. Hutchins]

I think the biggest issue, is horsepower. You are dealing with a very limited motor and you need to get as much hp to the ground as possible. The drivetrain might rob hp.

[bajaxp]

I think the biggest issue, is horsepower. You are dealing with a very limited motor and you need to get as much hp to the ground as possible. The drivetrain might rob hp.

I agree! You guys are the experts on CL10, but I do wish SCORE would open up the rules a bit to let in bigger liquid cooled engines. Keep the 4 cylinder rule, but let them be bigger. I think a Class 10 truggy would be cool, but it definately would weigh more than a transaxle set up...and 1650cc - 1800cc engine would struggle to tug this weight around competitively.

The other idea that came to mind was a tandum buggy set up like an F14 (eg Mav and Goose). I asked my buddies if they had ever seen this and they said that there was one back in the nineties. When I asked more about this they said, 'I'm not sitting on my co-dogs junk for 500 miles.' Case closed

[jjordan]

I believe there use to be a 1/2 dozen tandems from time to time running around. Seems like a good setup, but not very cool for the co-driver.



www.chupacabraracinggear.com

[ACME]

There used to be a few 10 (12) and 16 tandams during the HDRA/LaRana era. I spoke to a co-dog that rode in one and said he'd get sick every race and sitting on the T Housing beat him to death. Brad Inch had Kent Lothringer build him a very narrow 2/16 where the co driver sat at an angle next to/behind the driver. Brad's a wizard at thinking out of the box and Kent agreed that pushing less air etc and the weight advantage made sense. I know a co-dog that puked in that one as well. As far as bigger motors, why change the rules again? If you want to build a truggy why not a 1 car and buy an LS7 for a lot less than a built bigger 4cyl or Nascar style V6? IMHO: The one thing we don't need is any more classes or rule changes...

[Ramsey_ElWardani]

Turbo/Supercharge it...

NEVER MIND.

[robertharman]

Do a little research on race dez and you will find this thread from about a year ago.Their is actually a guy in Australia who has a front eng. 10 car.F Y I

[Scooterinvegas]

If you took the body off a Mini-Metal, wouldn't you have a front engine class 10? I'm NOT familiar with cl10 rules, so don't beat up on me too bad if I'm WAY off base..

[Fly'n Ryan]

I think it would look like a trophylite with the body off...

[C.J. Hutchins]

If you took the body off a Mini-Metal, wouldn't you have a front engine class 10? I'm NOT familiar with cl10 rules, so don't beat up on me too bad if I'm WAY off base..

I know with snore rules the mini-metals can have up to 2.2 liter ecotech. that motor does not fit within the class 10 rules.

[gawdodirt]

There are some sound ideas here. The deal about weight not mattering isn't one of them. It really matters.

It does make some sense to research and update the the rules perhaps. There aren't any currently sold "production" 1600 engines are there? So, with the future in mind, maybe a revision of the CC limit is in order. NOt to mention that maybe a 2.0L limit with a compression cap would drive the price of racing this class back down alot.

It's a very competitive class right now. But only if you've got a fresh Honda or Toy. A larger engine with say a 10:1 cap might be similar in hp, but a whole lot cheaper and more plentiful.

GD

[1wayne]

Why mess with class 10 the is for limited engines. If you want a front engine car then buy TT, TL or a truggy. We don't need another class!

[<Cody Agee>]

The entire concept is just deriving from being different from the crowd since most run Alumicraft or Kreger's (which are good cars:D). I enjoy putting ideas out that aren't normally used. Obviously no one wants to run a front engine because of the driveline power robbing issue but what about a course like San Felipe? There aren't necessarily lots of turns and once your up to speed your up to speed. From there let that 30+ inches of wheel travel do the rest. On tighter courses (500 or say Caliente) it wouldn't be as effective. And to bring up another point are you allowed to run different chassis for different races? I know it's expensive but for the hotel owners out there it could make a team really competitive. I say someone ought to throw in a 4cyl in a truggy, put it on a diet, and see where it is with the other 10's. Why not?

[The Doctor]

Why even have 10 cars? A real motor dosen't cost a whole lot more.Beam cars rock!!!

[<Cody Agee>]

to be competitive you have to spend that kind of money on a Honda/Toyota. Or of course you can use the proven 1915/2000cc

[TutTech]

Looking at it today this is not much but back in 99 I built a front engine 10 car.
Here it is in the works, back bumper not on it and tires were for rolling around garage etc.
Fire wall etc all came later. This pic is a work in progress shot I just happend to find.
Pic of a 35mm pic as I did not even have a digital back then.
This was going to be built for MDR not Score etc.


http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL169/1054762/6342359/200538808.jpg


The problem I had was brakeing spindles back then.
By moving the motor and more weight to the front I broke spindles.
Tie rods and racks held for what little I used them but they were over size for the smaller
lighter front a arm cars of today but had to be bigger for my front engine car.

I also had to add another bar under my front a-arms as a truss to keep them from bending etc.
As I went bigger to support the extra weight of the motor up front the weight itself became more and more of a problem and well the buggies could just out run me.
But yes I had over 24 inches of useable wheel travel back then.
But I started going over weight by reinforceing and adding stuff and more weight ment more brakeing etc. The front was just to bulky big and heavy to hold up
and so it just became a toy for Glamis and I moved on.

Anyways I am sure more people are thinking on it and what not but a buggy rear engine is just so perfectly set up for class 10 with the limited motor.
Especially VW motor.
But I am with you if I could have made it work I would still be out there racing it right now.
But at the time Spindles were hard to come by and parts were not sitting in a glass case at Kartek
to just go pick up and buy.
If I did it again I have learned a lot of the past 9 years of building cars and could do it much
better but still dont know if that would mean anything compared to a good rear engine
10 car thats been proven and improved upon. So who knows. Cool idea though.

Anyways just a heads up that yes people have not only thought about it but tride it.

Again that pic is nearly 10 years old and I did not know much at all back then, actually first race car
I ever tride building.
Had to add a lot to it and I dont have a finished shot at the moment.

Sorry but just wanted to show some proof to my info not just making it up.

Thanks.

[<Cody Agee>]

Looking at it today this is not much but back in 99 I built a front engine 10 car.
Here it is in the works, back bumper not on it and tires were for rolling around garage etc.
Fire wall etc all came later. This pic is a work in progress shot I just happend to find.
Pic of a 35mm pic as I did not even have a digital back then.
This was going to be built for MDR not Score etc.


http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL169/1054762/6342359/200538808.jpg


The problem I had was brakeing spindles back then.
By moving the motor and more weight to the front I broke spindles.
Tie rods and racks held for what little I used them but they were over size for the smaller
lighter front a arm cars of today but had to be bigger for my front engine car.

I also had to add another bar under my front a-arms as a truss to keep them from bending etc.
As I went bigger to support the extra weight of the motor up front the weight itself became more and more of a problem and well the buggies could just out run me.
But yes I had over 24 inches of useable wheel travel back then.
But I started going over weight by reinforceing and adding stuff and more weight ment more brakeing etc. The front was just to bulky big and heavy to hold up
and so it just became a toy for Glamis and I moved on.

Anyways I am sure more people are thinking on it and what not but a buggy rear engine is just so perfectly set up for class 10 with the limited motor.
Especially VW motor.
But I am with you if I could have made it work I would still be out there racing it right now.
But at the time Spindles were hard to come by and parts were not sitting in a glass case at Kartek
to just go pick up and buy.
If I did it again I have learned a lot of the past 9 years of building cars and could do it much
better but still dont know if that would mean anything compared to a good rear engine
10 car thats been proven and improved upon. So who knows. Cool idea though.

Anyways just a heads up that yes people have not only thought about it but tride it.

Again that pic is nearly 10 years old and I did not know much at all back then, actually first race car
I ever tride building.
Had to add a lot to it and I dont have a finished shot at the moment.

Sorry but just wanted to show some proof to my info not just making it up.

Thanks.



so someone has tried it!!! I knew that the weight would cause an issue but with modern parts I suppose things might still be different?

[TutTech]

Yes with enough cash and modern parts being on the shelf like a nice 2" hollow spindle which I did not have.
But see again your getting into adding so much beefier parts and weighing more and more.

The weight does not justify the gain when you have to stay with a limited motor.
Thats my opinion. Not worth it with a limited motor to add that much weight etc. not to mention gearing, driveline
rear end etc.
Thats a lot more weight atleast 400 pounds I would guess over your compatition?
Thats a ton of weight with a limited motor.

Anyways who knows I am in no way saying it cant be done as I did it.
But I dont think just by doing this your going to go win races.
Thats my opinion.

[El Chinero]

TutTech has it correct: more weight up front you then chase the steering, the arms, the pivots, the suspenders ... all for naught. Then what sort of transmission?
Add the 9-inch and the thing would be a tank and not run at all like Hardesty's light nimble Type IV.

[TMorford]

The truggy 10 car was discussed a little while ago in the Shop section. I think it was down4glamis that started the thread.

[EUGENIO_979]

TutTech has it correct: more weight up front you then chase the steering, the arms, the pivots, the suspenders ... all for naught. Then what sort of transmission?
Add the 9-inch and the thing would be a tank and not run at all like Hardesty's light nimble Type IV.

With the RIGHT driver it might happen! But the D-line would take toooo much from the concept. Over and Out $$:cool: Class 10= Class 10 keep it REAL.

[<Cody Agee>]

With the RIGHT driver it might happen! Class 10= Class 10 keep it REAL. Thats the way to stay positive!!!!!

[TLR fab]

I think its totally feasable idea. The cl 1 truggys we build at TLR are only 3600 lbs, and could easily shed 500 to 1000 lbs, maybe more. Also a manual trans takes much less power to turn, could make a big difference.

[Martin]

How much power loss is in a manual trans. and drive shaft compared to a transaxle with CVs is there a differance?

[cmkausch]

this was something that Rick Scalzo came up with in 1993... the Idea came from the SCALZO / RACECO Truggy... we discussed it then and still to this day.. gravity is still 9.8 meters/sec or 32 ft/sec (last time I checked) , if you do the weight calculations, your chassis has to increase by about 50%... now granted the vehicle would have a much better polar moment of inertia (go over the bumpies better)... Now Zacs comment is correct, all it would take is $$$.. but dont waist your $$$ on a 10 car... Stick with the rear or mid engine 10 car (up to drivers preference)... MOST of the current 10 cars are HUGE x LARGE.... If you are going to build a 10 car, keep in mind that the thing that goes Vroom Vroom is very small

[gawdodirt]

TutTech has it correct: more weight up front you then chase the steering, the arms, the pivots, the suspenders ... all for naught. Then what sort of transmission?
Add the 9-inch and the thing would be a tank and not run at all like Hardesty's light nimble Type IV.

How's life IN the box?

Who says it has to have the 9"? It could be front engine with a rear trans for extremely well balanced and a huge polar moment. Maybe the best of both worlds?

Think Late model Corvette. Front engine only, wouldn't need the huge spindles, and it would still have balance with trans and CV's. And it would be better suspended with IRS.

Go figger. SAME components, different layout. Same weight better handling?

Never mind!

MY idea!!

GD

[deleted]

Our TROPHYLITE trucks are 2500 lbs. The Ecotech engine and the trans weigh a lot.

We could take a Honda or Toyota 4 cylinder with a GFORCE or Tremec transmission and make a rocket ship.

The Toyota/GFORCE combo would take up a lot less space than the Ecotech/T350 Combo.

If anybody wants one built, I am game!!!

[<Cody Agee>]

Our TROPHYLITE trucks are 2500 lbs. The Ecotech engine and the trans weigh a lot.

We could take a Honda or Toyota 4 cylinder with a GFORCE or Tremec transmission and make a rocket ship.

The Toyota/GFORCE combo would take up a lot less space than the Ecotech/T350 Combo.

If anybody wants one built, I am game!!!

just how much lighter do you think it will get? and would that include bigger tires etc. since it would be more desert designed?

[deleted]

just how much lighter do you think it will get? and would that include bigger tires etc. since it would be more desert designed?

does anybody know what a Jimco Class 10 weighs? I think it is around 1900 lbs.

I dont think we could get close to 1900 but I think a good 300 lbs could be shaved in the following

Wheel Size
Tire Size
Body
Engine
Transmission

[TutTech]

When doing this I did not think American I went Japanese etc. back then.
The rear end is a mixture of axle and axel tubes from Samurai's which are larger axels than jeeps even and the center pumpkin was Geo tracker which is again bigger than jeep etc. and had a limited slip for it. But weighed in well under
and ford etc. or even a toyota. So that unsprung weight was great. I could pick up and walk around with the complete
brake to brake rear end even before disc brakes pretty easily.

The rear brakes and hubs are the same as Ford f150's from back then so disc brakes were able to be found easily and
wheels tires etc. all Ford bolt pattern so super nice.
Motor was 1600 cc Suzuki Swift motor through a small suzuki small 4 speed and then a simple driveline to the rear end was
made up and balanced etc. Light weight and simple. Easy on parts to find back then and use. Never had a problem with the tranny etc. Lost a clutch once improved it and never lost it again.

In the couple years of playing with it I did manage to brake a yoke and thats it.
But I started pushing 27+ inches etc. out of it.
The front was up to nearly 24 inches of wheel travel and it could run through almost anything.
Its power to weight was still pretty good. No exacts as I dont remember anymore.

A sway bar would be a plus and could have been added if I kept running it.
But over all it did good it just was not quick.
Up to speed it was slower than my 12 car but handled things nicely.
As a driver goes I am an under dog and do very well driving and manage to keep all of my cars up in the
top 3 as far as end of the year points go.
I can keep a car unstuck, free moving and not breaking it or limited breakage hows that?
I can pretty much keep motoring all day.
But when the lap times come in atleast in the local Barstow deserts etc. it was just not quick enough to start and
stop and do as well as I had hoped.
Smaller simpler, quicker, lighter cars even if not maybe faster over the rough could get back up to speed or up over the sand
hill in one of our races in Lucerne I tested at way quicker than I could so the amount of time they kept putting on me was just to much for me to win with it. In my opinion back then anyways.

(Of course this is all testing and I actually never did race it just pre ran it and tested with it with my friends in their buggies
etc. and lap times from races and courses I pre ran and tested on after people raced and I compared info and what not.)

In the end I could simply jump into my old 12 car and blow the lap times off this car.
So to me that was just not good enough and so I never ended up racing it.



Again I have done it, built a front engine 10 car per specs and it can totally be done but think outside the box as thats what this idea is.
Go with other parts pieces etc.

Its awesome to look at and ride in your back sure did not get soar with that wheel travel moving up and down
back there so nice.

In this old photo I had to beef it up a lot more when I tested it to when I finally thought I was ready to go racing in it.
I dont seem to have a photo right now If I find one I will post.


Its a cool idea and as others have said search around and I am sure you will find many more who have tride it but I dont see anyone wanting to spend a ton of money on it??
Maybe someone will one day and maybe we will see it running... not sure about winning just yet but maybe?
With the parts, pieces etc. from today to back when I did mine I am sure I can do it way better and be even more capable so go for it.
Its a cool idea and I like it.

:)

Oh look you guys posted while I did.
So see with new ideas and parts available I would love to see what you build go for it!
Now to just get someone to take you up on the offer
;)
Good luck as I know I would love to see it done and not just work but win.
Now thats the challange.
:)

[gawdodirt]

Can the 9" idea. Yeah it's strong, but how many 10's are breakng a good transaxle?

Stay with the IRS for handling.

Remember , you're looking for "better than today's stuff." A 9" would be a step back.

You could shave 500 #'s by going to a transaxle. Now you're at 2000, and competitive.

GD

[deleted]

Can the 9" idea. Yeah it's strong, but how many 10's are breakng a good transaxle?

Stay with the IRS for handling.

Remember , you're looking for "better than today's stuff." A 9" would be a step back.

You could shave 500 #'s by going to a transaxle. Now you're at 2000, and competitive.

GD

a 9" or some form of a 9" or 10" wins almost every race now. I believe this thing called the "shark" and field of Trophy Trucks have overalled a majority of the races with this so called "step back" in technology, with enough money and r&D somebody could probably build a bullet proof light weight smaller version of 9", I think you might see a competitive fixed rear end class 10 car or maybe class 10 truggy that could work. Whose to say it wouldnt work, a notable manufacture is yet to try it.

Either way, I am kinda biased on trucks, there is just something about throwing a truck in a corner with a spool rear end. I have never been much for "1 tire fire".

[bajaxp]

I don't understand the '1 tire fire' comment, but the purpose of a class 10 truggy would be (in my estimation) to gain rear wheel travel and be able to drive out of the 3' whoops. With a front engine rear transaxle set up...it would be the same, but heavier. The 12 car I drive in (when asked) handles great. The real limiting factor in the whoops is travel eg CL1 vs TT.

[<Cody Agee>]

a 9" or some form of a 9" or 10" wins almost every race now. I believe this thing called the "shark" and field of Trophy Trucks have overalled a majority of the races with this so called "step back" in technology, with enough money and r&D somebody could probably build a bullet proof light weight smaller version of 9", I think you might see a competitive fixed rear end class 10 car or maybe class 10 truggy that could work. Whose to say it wouldnt work, a notable manufacture is yet to try it.

Either way, I am kinda biased on trucks, there is just something about throwing a truck in a corner with a spool rear end. I have never been much for "1 tire fire".


perfectly right, there is no point of going front engine without a spooled rear end

[pjc]

does anybody know what a Jimco Class 10 weighs? I think it is around 1900 lbs.


Soaking wet the last weigh bill said we are over 2500lbs (I plan to weight the car again soon) but we have extra stuff like redundant fire suppression, the big Kenwood radio, Big King shocks, Mende S5 and the 300lb Honda motor, etc. The frame also passed the SCORE inspection without modification which most "old rules, Jimco C10" could not. I would think that the Kreger cars are about the same weight as well. Lots of big parts on those cars too.

The car works extremely well in the rough, rolling through and out of the big stuff effortlessly, like a class 1 car. Power wise, ya really have to keep the throttle pinned and ya have to row the gears to get it to accelerate but, once on and in pipe, it really hauls the mail all the way up and over 100MPH.

The one component that seems heavy if the 33" BFG's. They are super durable but "lighter" would be a big bonus.

The history of the car says the combo is successful.

[pjc]

Can the 9" idea. Yeah it's strong, but how many 10's are breakng a good transaxle?

The very, very high RPM of the Honda motors tends to wear the R&P fast on the Mendes. That's about it. We also run 934 CV's.

[deleted]

I don't understand the '1 tire fire' comment, but the purpose of a class 10 truggy would be (in my estimation) to gain rear wheel travel and be able to drive out of the 3' whoops. With a front engine rear transaxle set up...it would be the same, but heavier. The 12 car I drive in (when asked) handles great. The real limiting factor in the whoops is travel eg CL1 vs TT.

I am referring to not having the locked differential that a spool rear end gives you.

[gawdodirt]

a 9" or some form of a 9" or 10" wins almost every race now. I believe this thing called the "shark" and field of Trophy Trucks have overalled a majority of the races with this so called "step back" in technology, with enough money and r&D somebody could probably build a bullet proof light weight smaller version of 9", I think you might see a competitive fixed rear end class 10 car or maybe class 10 truggy that could work. Whose to say it wouldnt work, a notable manufacture is yet to try it.

Either way, I am kinda biased on trucks, there is just something about throwing a truck in a corner with a spool rear end. I have never been much for "1 tire fire".


Ok,
It's not called a "fixed rear end." It's a "solid rear axle." And comparing the limited power of a 10 class engine to an 800 hp TT is well, just plain ludicrous.

I know what you guys built and it is basically a version of what this topic is all about. Now, how does that compare to current Class 10's? Honestly, straight up I think you'd have your hat handed to you quickly. And you have more HP than a class 10. Right? Not really competitive. That's what I mean by a step back. IRS is the right idea for unsprung weight.
I'm sure that 'notable' manufacturers HAVE looked at it. That's the reason for the current development of a better CV system and better transaxles. Not lightweight solid rear ends.
GD

[deleted]

Ok,
It's not called a "fixed rear end." It's a "solid rear axle." And comparing the limited power of a 10 class engine to an 800 hp TT is well, just plain ludicrous.

I know what you guys built and it is basically a version of what this topic is all about. Now, how does that compare to current Class 10's? Honestly, straight up I think you'd have your hat handed to you quickly. And you have more HP than a class 10. Right? Not really competitive. That's what I mean by a step back. IRS is the right idea for unsprung weight.
I'm sure that 'notable' manufacturers HAVE looked at it. That's the reason for the current development of a better CV system and better transaxles. Not lightweight solid rear ends.
GD

Sorry my terminology wasn’t right, let me appease you, "solid rear axle".


this was nothing but an idea and a conversation, nobody said anybody was building anything, people were just giving opinions, your opinions is that CV joint and IRS is better, mine is different.

Some people are partial to a "solid rear axle", I am not a big fan of cv's at all. If you can make it work with a "solid rear axle," your going to get a lot better ride and a lot less of a handful to drive, I have driven and rode in some very nice buggies, I am yet to find one that will pound ditches better than a decent working truck. All the current development on CV systems is yet to amaze me, I know that Kartek has done more on this that anybody but at the end of the day you still have a CV Joint with limited wheel travel.

I think Kenny Major has set the bar with Honda Engines. I am pretty sure a $25,000 Kenny Major Honda engine would out power our $4000 ecotechs by quite a bit(I could be wrong). I do know that a Major Honda out revs an ecotech by almost 5000RPM. I would also venture out and say that the Honda weighs less than the Ecotech by quite a bit.

As far as being competitive, I think with some development and some light weight parts it could be done. In certain races the vehicle might get it hat handed to it, in others, it might not. Either way, its good RDC content and gives people something interesting to read..

Mods, i think it needs to be moved to the shop forum.

[partybarge_pilot]

I would also venture out and say that the Honda weighs less than the Ecotech by quite a bit.

Full skirt iron block on the Honda, not light..... Might even wiegh more than the Ecotech.

[deleted]

Full skirt iron block on the Honda, not light..... Might even wiegh more than the Ecotech.

really.. i thought a lot of the jap motors were aluminum? are the toyota's aluminum?

[michael_loomis]

ok guys.. you want outside the box?

TURBO DIESEL CL10 Truggy!

[deleted]

ok guys.. you want outside the box?

TURBO DIESEL CL10 Truggy!

now thats a good idea... I dont know a lot about smaller diesel engines but I know Audi has some great ones they have been working on for a while.

an engine like that would be a great pikes peak motor.

[OldGreen]

The VDub TDs are all aluminum and super light too. . .easy to tune. . .what a cool idea.

[Chris Tobin]

ok guys.. you want outside the box?

TURBO DIESEL CL10 Truggy!


now thats a good idea... I dont know a lot about smaller diesel engines but I know Audi has some great ones they have been working on for a while.

an engine like that would be a great pikes peak motor.


The VDub TDs are all aluminum and super light too. . .easy to tune. . .what a cool idea.

Build it and I will feature it in DIESEL BUILDER magazine in a heartbeat!!!!!:D

I love the idea and think a small light turbodiesel would be a great engine combo for a lightweight car... The problem is that with the current rules it would have to race in TT, SF or Class 8...

[GunnSlinger]

Build it and I will feature it in DIESEL BUILDER magazine in a heartbeat!!!!!:D

I love the idea and think a small light turbodiesel would be a great engine combo for a lightweight car... The problem is that with the current rules it would have to race in TT, SF or Class 8...

what do you think matt??.... a turbodiesel in a TL??? :) your the rule maker (builder/designer)... mabey thats a potential way to have some backing from some diesel companies (Banks,Bullydog..) :) .. you would have to sell it to a very rich person tho, HAVE YOU SEEN THE PRICE OF DIESEL???haha but anyways it's a good idea in my eyes... just my .02... (<-----prob doesn't count for anything, but at least its out there)

[partybarge_pilot]

you would have to sell it to a very rich person tho, HAVE YOU SEEN THE PRICE OF DIESEL???haha


Have you seen the price of race gas? :D