Review of RF085

[Russ Noble]

Jim,

Let me explain it this way. With a reverse "A" arm the toe in is fixed and controlled by a solid attachment at one point ie the inner pivot. If the wheel moves backwards and forwards in plan view it scribes an arc about that centre pivot. If it moves forward you get toein if it moves back you get toeout. When you go to twin paralell lower links although the points on the upright remain the same the toein is controlled by an additional pivot point on the chassis. So in plan view you have a paralellogram instead of a triangle to locate the upright and so get no change in the wheel alignment as it is displaced fore and aft. A picture's probably worth a thousand words, but unfortunately I don't have one.

Cheers

[Pete.]

Thanks guys I now understand. (I think)
Ross a great idea to share your knowledge in the chassis Forum. That would
would be of great benefit to all of us I'm sure.

[Ross Nicol]

I've posted the setup procedure already Pete check the chassis forum. I've kept it to a 'what to do and the goal' . Russ has the luxury of putting his chassis mounting points where he wants to, whereas we are faced with a major job to move them, especially with all the panelling done. When I bump steered the rear suspension on my car, 7 degrees of caster gave zero toe change (with vertical wheel movement), and that's the goal to aim for. Good Idea for you to check your setup. It's nice to know that when I have an 'off'
track excursion that it's not due to basic suspension setup.Usually my own silly fault.

Ross

[roaldin]

Here's a couple of pic's of RF085 car in it's first official event. It was used as a course car, and driven quite slowly but hey it's got a number on it.
I was busy in another car so the GT was driven by a friend.

Tim.

[Ron Earp]

Hi Tim,

Didn't your car have the DOHC 4.6L motor? If so, how did it meet your performance expectations in the RF? And, what weight (if you've weighed it) did your car come in at?

Ron

[roaldin]

I think I've been confused with another Tim.
I have an aluminium small block in mine.

Tim.

[CliffBeer]

Tim, if your RF isn't getting you the track performance you need (with reasonable effort) you might consider selling your car and getting a more developed car such as a CAV or Superformance.

The CAVs are highly developed cars both for road and track use. The later CAV monos are especially good. The engineers at CAV included some with extensive racing experience. Even my early CAV mono is a great track car.

I haven't driven a Superformance gt40 but they should be great on the track as well.

[roaldin]

My car is much improved now. Suspension is working pretty well, we've clawed back some of the missing engine performance and the steering is nearing what I would call acceptable. All in all the car should be reasonably quick.
The biggest problem I have is the motivation to compete with it. I have another car that is giving me great success in the competitions I enter. Without the kind of development agreement I had with the original RF there is no real reason for me to waste money, time and effort on further developing the car for events that I can already do in another one.

FWIW: as a base car I think the RF is good, it's just that they were mostly set up for street use and (I think) what was needed in terms of setup for quick lap-times wasn't fully understood by all at the company.

As for other cars, I have sent a message to Fran at RCR about a car but I have had no response.

Tim.

[Fran Hall RCR]

Tim,
my apologies

I just read your post and have to say that I have never received an emails from you.....but this is not the first time that my filters have dropped mail.

If you send me phone number to (((( gt40fran (at) wideopewest.com ))) I will gladly call and see if there is anything we can do for you.

regards

Fran

[roaldin]

Thank's Fran,

I should have tried again.
You should have an email now.

Someone remind me, why is email so much better than "snail mail"...

Tim.

[Ron Earp]

Originally Posted by roaldin

I think I've been confused with another Tim.
I have an aluminium small block in mine.

Tim.

Hey Tim,

Not sure what I was thinking! I don't think there are any other RF Tim's out there, so, I just got confused on engine type. Not like your Avatar wouldn't clue me in.......

Ron

[JackW]

Hi Ron

you are getting confused with Tim Mckay whose car is at the painters.

CHeers

Jack

[Ross Nicol]

Originally Posted by roaldin

FWIW: as a base car I think the RF is good, it's just that they were mostly set up for street use and (I think) what was needed in terms of setup for quick lap-times wasn't fully understood by all at the company.
Tim.

I would suggest that statement is accurate Tim. Sometimes Will and I would look at each other and shake our heads over statements made by Robert L and agree that ' he just doesn't get it '. Will was probably the only employee who knew what was required for fast laps as he previously worked for Larry Perkins V8 Supercar team. Pretty unbelievable, but they only did static suspension/ wheel alignment. I've been racing the RF for 3 years with mixed results but the biggest problem is being a pioneer, I have no other setup information to work from (unlike Porsche) and the development is slow. Maybe this is what your alluding to when you say your getting results from another car.
Ross

[Ron Earp]

Originally Posted by ross nicol

I've been racing the RF for 3 years with mixed results but the biggest problem is being a pioneer, I have no other setup information to work from (unlike Porsche) and the development is slow. Maybe this is what your alluding to when you say your getting results from another car.
Ross

Hey Ross,

I don't know of any other GT40 replicas, of any make, racing competitively wheel to wheel. The only one I've heard of was a space frame Baily Edwards replica racing in South Africa, but know nothing about it or the owners. I don't know anyone who would be a go to source for helpful information with direct experience.

I feel your pain as we're doing the same with a couple of our oddball SCCA cars. When you are doing the development and can't call BimmerWorld, SpeedSource, BSI Racing, etc. (US racing outfits that support certain makes of cars) and simply order new springs, shocks, re-designed pieces etc. It makes the process extremely time consuming and expensive. But, you'll be the man with knowledge should anyone else choose to go down this road, if that is any comfort! Stick in there!

Ron

[Mark Worthington]

I've been sitting on the sidelines reading this thread. I'm sorry but of late there are some ridiculous statements in here, some of which portray the RF car in a manner which is not deserved. Now, to be sure, there are a few things about the RF design that are goofy, such as the slow steering, the marginally OK (for a GT40) PBR brakes, and the factory transaxle mounting. And yes, the RF design is primarily for street use, as evidenced by the best-in-class air conditioning system and the presence of polyurethane bushings at one end of each of the suspension links.

I will guarantee you that every GT40 replica built will require suspension tuning before it can really come alive on a race track. Do some reading about the development of the GTD chassis. I find it peculiar that anyone would recommend an RCR for track work, yet, as none have been completed and tested to date. Yes, they will be built and they will eventually make good track cars, but not without teething pains, tuning, and development. And the suggestion to sell an RF and buy a SPF or CAV instead is just preposterous. There aren't any SPFs in the hands of owners from which to make an informed judgement, and the early CAVs have a number of known problems which have been fixed through development.

Development. That's what Ross is doing when he's racing his RF. There are also a number of RFs that have successfully hit the track. I recall Hershal's experience letting Bob Bondurant drive his RF, with extremely positive feedback on its handling characteristics, with the steering slowness being the only reservation that Bondurant expressed after his extended track session.

As for a "review" of an RF, I suggest that someone who has a lot of experience building and driving a lot of different types of GT40 replicas could give a more comprehensive and even-handed review. I'd like to hear what Frank Catt or Paul Thompson has to say when they drive an RF, because those guys have wrenched on and driven a lot of GT40s. They will also tell you that no two GTDs are the same, because each has been set up differently, and achieved a different level of development for its intended use.

Guys, the RF is/was a damn good car, and the more I read build threads where the builder has to stop and shop for or fabricate a part, the more I appreciate the fact that I have an RF. Mine will be primarily a street car but tuning the suspension for good all-around performance will be one of the pleasures of ownership.

[roaldin]

I'll try and do this on a point basis. I'm not sure how much is aimed at me but where I think it's possible I'll take it as if it is :-

Mark: I've been sitting on the sidelines reading this thread. I'm sorry but of late there are some ridiculous statements in here, some of which portray the RF car in a manner which is not deserved. Now, to be sure, there are a few things about the RF design that are goofy, such as the slow steering, the marginally OK (for a GT40) PBR brakes, and the factory transaxle mounting. And yes, the RF design is primarily for street use, as evidenced by the best-in-class air conditioning system and the presence of polyurethane bushings at one end of each of the suspension links.

Tim: I did not intend to portray RF cars in any particular manner. I told it as I saw it with regard to mine. I think I went to some lengths to dissociate my car from other RFs. I was asked a while ago to do a review (By Ron if memory serves me correctly, in the "A Roaring Forties with all the options" thread) and held off for various reasons, one of which was the development agreement I had with RF.
FYI my car has AP-Racing brakes. If you're really interested have a look at the above mentioned thread.

Mark: I will guarantee you that every GT40 replica built will require suspension tuning before it can really come alive on a race track.

Tim: As they say here in Aus' "No sh!t Sherlock" . I think I made it abundantly clear that this was expected from the beginning. I don't believe that any of my comments could lead to a reasonable person believing that I thought otherwise.

Mark: Do some reading about the development of the GTD chassis. I find it peculiar that anyone would recommend an RCR for track work, yet, as none have been completed and tested to date. Yes, they will be built and they will eventually make good track cars, but not without teething pains, tuning, and development. And the suggestion to sell an RF and buy a SPF or CAV instead is just preposterous. There aren't any SPFs in the hands of owners from which to make an informed judgement, and the early CAVs have a number of known problems which have been fixed through development.

Tim: I may have missed a post here somewhere but if you're referring to my comment that I'd contacted Fran, it was not a recommendation and it was about a totally different car - a 917 in fact.
As for development - Maybe you are talking about other posts but if that's aimed at mine than I think you have completely missed the point of my discussion. The whole thing was based on the fact that Robert and I agreed that the car was to be developed between us, future development was something that was WELL understood.

Mark: Development. That's what Ross is doing when he's racing his RF. There are also a number of RFs that have successfully hit the track. I recall Hershal's experience letting Bob Bondurant drive his RF, with extremely positive feedback on its handling characteristics, with the steering slowness being the only reservation that Bondurant expressed after his extended track session.

As for a "review" of an RF, I suggest that someone who has a lot of experience building and driving a lot of different types of GT40 replicas could give a more comprehensive and even-handed review. I'd like to hear what Frank Catt or Paul Thompson has to say when they drive an RF, because those guys have wrenched on and driven a lot of GT40s. They will also tell you that no two GTDs are the same, because each has been set up differently, and achieved a different level of development for its intended use.

Tim: Once again, it is a review of MY car, RF085, not of any other RF. I hope that I made it VERY clear in my posts that I think the car is bl()()dy good. All I said was that due to the change in RF ownership etc and the fact that the development agreement became defunct, MY car's role has changed.
You may notice that I defended RF cars when the CAV etc post was made, although I suspect that you'd prefer not to notice that.
I maintain that the car is excellent and build quality is fantastic!
I have NO doubt that the car can be made good for track work.

Mark: Guys, the RF is/was a damn good car, and the more I read build threads where the builder has to stop and shop for or fabricate a part, the more I appreciate the fact that I have an RF. Mine will be primarily a street car but tuning the suspension for good all-around performance will be one of the pleasures of ownership.

Tim: Good on you, I look forward to your review of your car.

Tim.

[roaldin]

Mark,

If your comments really were aimed at my posts I'd ask you to reread them, particularly the original review.

See also - A Roaring Forties with all the Options ! .

Tim.

[roaldin]

BTW my car is a keeper.

Here's a pic' of it at a recent show. The trophy is for "Best engineered".

I am very proud of this car. I had quite a lot to do with it's "development" and specification.
I have always maintained my appreciation to those at RF who did such a spectacular job. It is a hard thing to do that in an environment where so many feel burned by what's happened since.

Tim.