You Probably Don't Really Want To Buy And Race A Rush SR

All subscribers welcome

Several of you have asked me lately about the Rush SR single-seat trackday car. I’ve also seen dozens of posts on various other forums, a disturbing number of which read like, “I have no track experience beyond sim racing, but I’m going to buy and race a Rush.” What follows is my public and expressed opinion on the matter, which is worth what you’re paying to read it.

None of what follows below is meant to be a personal attack on Rush owners and racers. If you already have a Rush and you adore it: fantastic! I’m not here to harsh your buzz. I’m speaking to the people who are still considering a purchase. For the record, I have no personal or professional relationship with Rush Auto Works (RAW) and do not stand to personally benefit from the purchase, or non-purchase, of a Rush SR. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Now for the one-paragraph sum-up, on which I’ll expand in detail afterwards:

There’s a lot to like about the Rush SR — but when it’s compared to the industry-standard spec racers, it has significant potential drawbacks ranging from safety to expected lifespan in use. By purchasing a Rush SR, you’re locking yourself into a very small ecosystem and missing out on some of the sport’s best opportunities. While the initial purchase cost is extremely attractive, there are better ways to spend your money. ESPECIALLY if you have no prior racing experience.

Alright, let’s get into some detail.

What’s great about the Rush SR

Some of you are quite excited about the Rush — and I can see why. With a total built-for-racing cost of about $45,000, and lap times that are often significantly better than other “affordable” options, it’s a heck of a bargain. There’s some very good photography out there that, shall we say, catches the SR’s best side and makes it look like a little prototype race car. Perhaps the most admirable part of the Rush sales experience is the absolute transparency the company maintains regarding pricing and equipment. Those of us who have shopped and bought multiple “oddball” cars know how rare that is. Last but not least, the Rush is made in the United States, which is personally important to me.

All of this sounds pretty great… so why wouldn’t you buy a Rush?

Problem Zero: safety

There’s already been one fatality in a Rush SR, apparently caused by the entry of debris into the cockpit at speed during a NASA race. RAW responded quickly with the “trident”, which addresses the issue at the cost of a considerable loss in visibility:

By contrast, Spec Racer Ford went forty years without a fatality — and the one recorded death to this date, which happened last year, was a 70-year-old man who was engaged in an impromptu race against his son during a private track rental. Was this just a statistical anomaly? After all, Radicals and other open-cockpit racers have been known to kill people — Radicals almost particularly, to my dismay — so what’s different about the Rush? Two aspects come to mind almost immediately.

The first aspect is the car’s size. The Rush is 130.9 inches long and 59 inches wide, weighing under a thousand pounds in some configurations. The Spec Racer Ford (SRF) is almost a foot longer, half a foot wider, and 400 pounds heavier. A Radical SR3 is a foot wider and 2.5 feet longer. The first time I drove up to the back of a Rush SR in my Radical SR8, I was horrified. Not only was there a massive disparity in speed between our two cars, the Rush looked toy-like on the track.

Rush touts the SR’s miniscule proportions, claiming that you can fit more of them into a garage. While that sounds great, there’s a significant drawback, and it comes in the form of available crush space around the driver. There’s also the fact that the Rush is hard for drivers of sports cars and sedans to see on track. For SRFs and Radicals, which (mostly) run against other small cars, that’s not an issue, but:

The second aspect is the size of the cars around you. The Rush SR is extremely NASA-focused; an ApexSpeed reader reported having a conversation with RAW where they seemed unaware of any safety requirements other than those for NASA. I cannot stress enough that any vehicle designed solely, or primarily, for NASA competition should be avoided at all costs. NASA has an abysmal record of “supporting” its single-make classes; has anyone heard from Spec Focus or Spec Neon lately? What’s the outlook for Spec Z? If you bought an original NASA NP-01 at a total cost of $70k or more… how’s that going? Everybody remember how at one point Spec 944 was being run by a dude who somehow got in the business of making and selling the only legal replacement pistons with extra compression, or something ridiculous like that?

Furthermore, NASA is not a racing club like the SCCA or even the marque organizations. It’s a for-profit business with regional franchises. That’s why all the race cars are squeezed into two groups at many NASA races, compared to the SCCA which runs between six and eight regional groups per race. As a Rush SR owner, you stand an excellent chance of being surrounded by cars that outweigh you by a factor of three to one — or greater. Most of these cars can’t brake as well as you can, nor can they turn as well as you might. But they sure as hell can catch you in a straight line. Gosh, hope they’re not directly behind you when they lock up going into that next corner!

Don’t get me wrong. There’s always going to be risk in racing. But there is a difference between reasonable risk and unreasonable risk. The problem with racing a Rush SR in NASA is that you might think you’re signing up for the former, only to receive the latter on race day when you have Mustangs and Corvettes around you at the start of the race.

Earlier this year, I ran my Radical SR8 with my NASA region. I’ve been racing for two decades, and I have a higher risk tolerance than most novice competitors — but I was still dismayed when a low-skilled driver in a lapped-traffic NASA “Spec Iron” car turned in on me and shattered what turned out to be a rather expensive nose. (We’ll talk about Rush replacement costs later, by the way.) Had I been in a Rush rather than a Radical, that Mustang and I would have had a much more “up close and personal” meeting. Likely one where I’d have had a chance to see how good the “Trident” cage is against intrusion from the side. That’s not something I’d want to happen to any competitor in our hobby.

Alright, enough doom and gloom. Let’s change the topic to something more interesting: actual racing! Unfortunately for us, that leads directly to

Problem One: Competitive viability over time

Don’t want to race with NASA? I don’t blame you. Here’s some good news. GRIDLIFE also runs the Rush SR, and to their credit they have a separate race at many events. With that said — do you want to spend $45,000 betting on the fact that GRIDLIFE will continue to host your race series? Do you want to travel around the country just to get a safe race class?

Let’s say that GRIDLIFE, which is a young series with no history of commitment to any particular idea, decides to cancel the Rush series. That leaves you with NASA and whatever events you can dig up elsewhere. In the final analysis, you’re going to have to race the car with SCCA, because they are the only durable organization with a demonstrated history of continuous support for single-seat cars.

There’s just one problem: by the standards of SCCA, the Rush SR is painfully slow. Especially when considered in the context of the class in which it would likely race: SCCA Prototype 2, where it is… 10-20 seconds a lap off the pace of the best cars. Even regional cars that aren’t optimized to the rules, like my old Radical PR6 with its junkyard Suzuki engine, are much faster. I’m seven seconds a lap ahead of the best Rush times ever posted at Mid-Ohio. On used tires that I buy for $100. Using a 15-year-old carburetor. You get the idea.

The worst part about racing your Rush SR with SCCA will be… watching the SRF3 class. To which we’ll return, shortly — but right now there’s another issue, which is

Problem Two: Parts, running costs, motorcycle engines

Let me tell you the worst thing about running a 4-cylinder Radical: the stupid motorcycle drivetrain, complete with its dry-sump Radical-specific plumbing, chain drive, and wacky Quaife differential. The Rush SR is even worse, because it uses a wet sump engine from a Suzuki GSX-S, which never sold well in the United States after its 2017 introduction. As much as I despise the Hayabusa engine in my Radical, at least there are a lot of crashed Busas out there. I’m also free to use a different engine and still stay within SCCA P2 rules. By contrast, I can’t see easily getting the GSX-S engine anywhere but from Rush — which you’d have to do anyway if you want to run in a Rush-sanctioned series.

From what I can see, there are a lot of unique-to-Rush parts in these cars, as well. In the event that RAW closes up shop, these cars would quickly become hodgepodge paperweights. While that’s true for any car, including brand-new Hondas, let’s face it: very few race-car manufacturers have been financially stable, or continually present, for any length of time in the past.

I know what it’s like to own orphan cars from minor manufacturers, having commissioned a Superformance S1 23 years ago. Even though Superformance never went out of business, they lost their interest in supporting the S1 right away. Happily for me I sold it at just a 50% loss. Care to guess what your Rush SR will be worth if RAW goes bankrupt?

The Rush is claimed to have low running costs and easy maintenance. What I’ve seen during the few NASA-hosted Rush races I’ve attended has not supported that assertion. Maintenance appears to be considerably more than a SRF, closer to what I have with my Radicals. I do admire the Rush philosophy of having a lot of shippable body panels rather than complete nose and tail sections. Of course, if a Mustang hits you, chances are you’ll need all the panels, and some of the tubes as well.

So we’ve covered safety and competitive future, neither of which look particularly promising. Let’s talk about the intangibles.

Problem Three: It’s Goofy

In isolation, the Rush SR looks like a prototype. Next to actual sports racers, like the Elan DP02 and Praga shown here, it looks like a LEGO clown car.

Radicals aren’t handsome either, but the Rush in the background makes my rather porky and upright SR8 look like an LMP2 in comparison:

You can claim that looks don’t matter, but if looks really didn’t matter you’d be in an SRF, so be honest with yourself. Do you want to spend the next decade of your life in something that strongly, strongly resembles the Tomorrowland Speedway car?

At least the SRF looks like a 917/30 — well, it looks like someone ate a mushroom then described their dimmest memories of the 917/30 over a Seventies-era international phone line to someone who didn’t speak the same language and also thought all the dimensions were centimeters instead of inches, but you get the point.

I will readily admit that the Rush comes off like less of a toy if the driver is under six feet and/or 200 pounds, but the same is also true of the Tomorrowland Speedway car, which assumes GTP proportions when driven by children, as intended in the era before “Disney adults”.

Let’s conclude this article by looking at some better options.

Better Option Zero: SRF and SRF3

At many racetracks, the Rush SR and SCCA Enterprises SRF3 turn almost identical laptimes, with the older SRF2 a couple of seconds behind. Compared to the Rush, the Spec Racer Ford offers:

• Higher cost of entry for a brand-new one (assembled kits run close to $90k)

• Lower cost of entry for a good used one — we just took delivery of a decent SRF2 for $15,000, and good SRF3s can be found in the $30-40k range.

• Far larger “installed base”, with 974 SRFs sold and 577 converted to Gen3 spec against Rush’s published claims of 250-ish Rush SRs sold.

• Regional fields of 15-20 cars or more; you’ll need to follow Gridlife to get that kind of participation in your Rush.

• Local support at most races from SCCA “CSRs”, who in my experience are very good at getting a broken car running again.

• Easier servicing, with cheaper parts that are easier to get.

• A 40-year documented history of service, support, and competition.

• Exclusive race groups at most SCCA events.

• Hundreds of chances to race in substantial fields every year.

• A remarkable safety record.

• The fact that it’s a car, built out of car parts, not a bike/car hybrid.

• Not one, but three thriving communities: the National SRF3 scene, the Gen2 tour and regional series for the SRF2 cars, and the newly-revitalized Sports Renault race groups for people who want to turn better-than-Spec-Miata laps in a car they can buy for $6,000 and run on steel wheels.

• The chance to enjoy a lifetime of competition with the SCCA, a member-operated club that serves those members first and foremost, instead of a future where you are perpetually milked for cash by franchise operators, fly-by-night hustlers, and pop-up sanctions that don’t last as long as a set of SRF tires.

The only scenario I see where a Rush SR makes more sense than an SRF is the very narrow one of: “Middle-aged dude who feels young when he attends Gridlife events and who would really rather not find out how he stacks up against the SRF National drivers.” If that’s you — great! If not, look at an SRF. But it’s not the only better mousetrap.

Better Option One: Spec MX-5

With a real-world build cost of about $50,000, built cars for sale in the $40k range, and donor cars at $10k, Spec MX-5 is price-equivalent to Rush SR, while offering the following:

• Full Mazda support that will likely last for a decade or more to come.

• Parts prices that reflect Mazda’s subsidy of the sport, rather than RAW’s need to earn from it, which is why an actual Japanese RAYS 17” wheel for a Spec MX-5 costs just a little more than the 13” Rush Auto Works replacement wheel.

• Also, your local AutoZone will have a lot of the parts. My long-suffering spouse has finished more than a couple of races because we were only a few miles from an O’Reilly that had the required part.

• Lap times that lag by 2-3 seconds at most courses.

• This is a subjective claim, but: the caliber of drivers is far higher in SMX5, which is an official driver development series for Mazda. If you want to see how you stack up against a 16-year-old karting champion with a future in IMSA GTP, this is your chance.

• Larger fields at national and divisional events

• Greater safety from all impacts and cockpit intrusions.

• The chance to bump draft and race a bit more aggressively, if you prefer.

• Excellent preparation for Global MX-5 Cup in the ND-generation car, which is a class and caliber of racing above anything you’ll ever see in a Rush.

• A car with a guaranteed future in SCCA above and beyond SMX5.

• Significant resale value that is unlikely to drop any time soon; have you priced a decent NB-generation Spec Miata lately?

Better Idea Two: SCCA Radical Classes, In an SR1

The SCCA has approved a pair of regional classes for the existing Radical SR1 and SR3 cars out there, with 1340cc and 1500cc engines. Better still, it looks like the SR1 won’t have to run the treaded Hankook tire that is used in the Radical Cup to put some clear air between the SR1 and the SR3.

The above SR1 is for sale at Primal for $45,999. I assure you that it’s nontrivially more capable than a Rush SR; someone ran one around Barber, on the treaded tires, 4 seconds a lap better than the best-ever Rush time there. Put it on Hoosiers and see what it does.

Or maybe you’d rather have a full-boat SR3, like this one for $55k:

Compared to the Rush SR, these club-level Radicals offer:

• Higher cost of parts and operation — but in many cases it’s not that much worse.

• Significantly better pace; the best SR3 lap I’ve seen at Mid-Ohio is 12 seconds ahead of the best Rush lap. To put it in perspective, that’s also the difference between a Rush SR and a Toyota Yaris in Gridlife “Sundae Cup”.

• More dealers than Rush has, and some of them are even good.

• A history of survivability in cross-class incidents.

• The ability to take a passenger, or switch sides, or go center seat.

• While it doesn’t look exactly like a Stohr or Atlantic-conversion sports racer, it’s also not a pumpkin seed clown car.

• You’ll still have to explain it to your neighbors, but not to their kids.

• At least a temporary home in these SCCA classes, plus the assurance that you can run in the Prototype classes if the regional Radical offerings don’t work out.

Better Idea Three: Go Race A Real Race Car

This Formula Continental sold for $16,000 on Bring-A-Trailer. It has performance of which the Rush SR cannot dream, especially in fast corners. At Mid-Ohio you’d lap the Rush in the first ten minutes of competition. While the running costs, effort, and required skill are all considerably greater than you’d need for a Rush, ask yourself: How am I going to feel when I’m driving my Rush to grid and I see one of these go the other way? This is doubly true for drivers who can fit well in a Formula car. All your life you wanted to race something fast, right?

End of Rant

If you decide to buy a Rush SR after reading all of my deranged musings above — I’m really happy for you, and I hope that racing wheel-to-wheel brings you as much happiness as it’s brought me. Please feel free to keep me posted on your experience, so I can become better-informed and provide more valuable advice and information to the next generation of potential racers.

As for me and my house… well, we now have an SRF in the barn with the Radicals and the various doorslammer race cars. I think it’s a better choice, a better investment, and a better time. Thanks for reading.