We need to pump up the entries for this great class - here is a link to the current numbers. We have nine Major's races remaining!!
https://www.crbscca.com/public/runof...ffsTracking.php
Printable View
We need to pump up the entries for this great class - here is a link to the current numbers. We have nine Major's races remaining!!
https://www.crbscca.com/public/runof...ffsTracking.php
Link missing the final 'p'
https://www.crbscca.com/public/runof...fsTracking.php
In my opinion if SCCA would have put F1000 in FC with a restrictor plate there would be more cars, a lot of the F1000 were FC at one time. building motors for FA is expensive, as a 45 years SCCA member i have seen crazy decision made with little input from the owner's and drivers being considered. IMHOQuote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
how in the world are AS, F5, F6, P1, P2, T1, and GT3 still viable? Makes those P1/P2 vs CSR/DSR/S2 decisions look brilliant doesn't it...
If FC is to be viable it needs new cars manufactured, not adding the remnants of other classes under equivalency.
The road to indy going off in its own direction and keeping cars for several years before dumping them when a new chassis/motor is announced and expecting them to be incorporated into club classes is not really a future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
I agree but also just not that simple. There have been many that have tried to come up with a new and cost effective car to get a lot of entries but have had very little success. A decade ago was the World Speed 2.0 car that sort of flopped. Moses Smith is creating the 'next' Formula Mazda but TBD if it will be successful. The only formula car class that has really seen a spike in recent years is FE2 and it took people a pretty noticeable investment to get to that point. People were willing to spend the money so what made that successful and not others? If I were a constructor I would worry about taking the time and money to develop or build a new or updated FC car and worry it would never sell at the price it needs to sell to make me whole.
One impediment to the future of FC is the engine situation.
Currently, all the engine options for FC are engines that are out of production and are no longer being supported by the original manufacturers. Because of rules changes, the most powerful engine today is the Pinto, something that has not been produced for many decades. The Zetec is out of production and no factory support.
Fix this issue and FC will have a better future.
One problem that all formula cars have is the cost of the drive train components. The cost of a new car today is close to 100% of a person's income who is making a medium income today, $70,000. I full up FC is probably close to $90,000 or more. That makes racing very expensive for the average enthusiast. When FF first came to prominence in the 1970"s it was 50% of medium income. FC is only slightly more expensive than FF.
What has SCCA Enterprises spent to get FE2 to the place it is today? That car is in direct competition with FC but it is funded by SCCA.
MZR, still a no brainer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
What exactly does this mean?? Are you saying if we have 63 cars run in the next 9 races we will not be in danger of being relegated to a regional only class? How likely is being relegated to Regional status if we don't meet that number?
I get that there has not been a lot of cars running this year for various reasons, myself being one of them but it would be better to have the whole story. It seems every year we go through this fear of being on SCCA's chopping block. How likely is that to happen?
The other thing is FA has the same number as us and they have 3 other car classes that were merged into FA. How likely are they to be chopped.
Brian
FC would be so lucky to get relegated to regional status. F1000 wasn't afforded that option and was killed off by the CRB without an opportunity to bring the numbers up. For some strange reason, P1 IS getting that opportunity. Weird...Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT1
Is there a link to the event participation data? For the last few years?Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
Just below the table on this page is the yearly participation data back to 2013.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
https://www.scca.com/pages/majors-participation-2
I can't disagree with that, but when we look at the history of the club aspect of medium-performance formula cars we also can't neglect the influence of "pro" (or ladder series) starting with FSV. I'm trying to put together a cogent thought or two here, so bear with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by andyllc
FSV was helped in its beginning by a number of FV producers that made the first generation of cars as well as some FF manufacturers, and as they became more modern, the carry-over from F3 designs. There was a similar cross-pollenization between FF and FF2000 of course. But regardless of technology, what you had in both of these series was a significant number of "pro" teams sending their monied kids up the ladder combined with a large contingent of decently funded amateurs that could produce a large grid at virtually every venue. When was the last time that occurred? 2005? I remember a dual-class system in place for some of the road to indy events a very long time ago, and then it was gone.
Even FF and FV got big boosts as the places to gain experience before jumping into a FSV, and after the demise of that class, a lot of the FFs were just FC designs without wings (or was it the other way around....?). But you can argue the decline in FV started with ridiculous engine costs in the mid 80s with no rules interventions, followed by the introduction of the F440 and variants that diluted the numbers in FV. What would have happened to FV in the 80s if a transition to a highly controlled 1600 and disk brakes had occurred?
FF's decline started with the introduction of SRF at the same time as the Swift rendered a lot of cars functionally obsolete for the front of the grid, but the die hards and a vintage resurgence have kept it viable. Was the Honda experiment successful? Maybe from the aspect of keeping a significant number of cars on the grid, but not a lot of new production as a result of the change. And here we are again 15 years later, at the whims of engine manufacturer support.
Now some dubious decisions essentially killed FA (and I have to give props to the SCCA in one of the few good attempts in trying to keep the club aspect alive in the face of unsustainable engine costs) and there have been no new ones built since the last 016 in what, 2008? Dead as a doornail though, and other attempts like ProMazda really hurt more than helped.
The same fate exists in FC, with only a handful of cars built since '05, with the exception of the first set of DP08 hand-me-downs. Did we really need to wait 20 years for approval of the long rod kit (or for that matter, this specific custom kit)? Or for the aluminum head to be a not particularly attractive option? Crap like decreasing the minimum weight while the driver demographic gets older and heavier? Despite being 225, I had spent thousands to get my car to the point where I needed a gallon to make weight. Now with the spec tires and the weight change I'm something like 40 over. is 185 in my future? Not without Ozempic.
It seems that on the pro side of things the folks that run these series don't want to be saddled with SCCA rules processes and other procedures, so they do their own thing. SCCA wants the exposure and desire to keep out competition, do they provide the sanction and officials. Then they try to shoehorn the cars into club. It seemed to work for a while in the FSV series and the early F2000 series, but now it doesn't.
World speed might have been a good idea if it was an updated body and aero package for the older cars, but as a different car? What's the point? Even F1000. As a community we participated in taking a bunch of older cars out of FC, gave folks with a lot of money the opportunity to buy newly constructed cars instead of FCs, and in general, appears to have not been the unqualified success that the folks that started it thought it would be. So look at FM, Pro FM, World Speed, FB, and FR and FE numbers and realize that those would more than likely have been FC numbers had the proponents of those (many of whom wanted to make their own fortunes) not been successful in creating new classes.
We can as a community, try to get the SCCA FC numbers up, but the club doesn't care, in fact, one could draw the conclusion that the club has tried for years to kill the class. If Wright's series had not been included in the numbers it would have been dead long ago. This has reached the "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" point.
If one concludes that the club has tried for years to kill FC, why did they accept FRP participation in the Runoffs? Does not compute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
FE2 is funded by FE2 owners. Trust me, I know based on my invoices from my CSR. The CSR's earn their money from their customers. Now back to discussing the OP's FC request....Quote:
Originally Posted by S Lathrop
[QUOTE=Rick Kirchner;654246 If Wright's series had not been included in the numbers it would have been dead long ago. This has reached the "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" point.[/QUOTE]
FRP cars do not count toward the club car counts so the series really isn't helping this situation.
Also I dont think the club is intentionally trying to kill FC. But what they are wanting to do is roll it into FX or some other combo open wheel class so they can combine a bunch of cars all into one group. This would be similar to what vintage does to some extent. The more cars means more revenue.
Brian
Brian -Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT1
I posted this so we can all be cognizant of FC's health status and work towards improvement. I too have been burdened with some technical glitches that caused me to withdraw from June Sprints and likely lose the rest of the season and Runoffs. That being said, we really do need to work the social media, phones, and every other tool available to drive entries. I was surprised, but that approach does work.
If the class falls off we have only ourselves to blame. We have added the USF-2000/MZR car which I have been told will bring multiple new cars to the grid. Additionally, there were adjustments made to the run groups to split out the wings and things classes at a couple of the larger HST events which helped to improve the quality of track time immensely. We still need to focus on attracting entries to select events and better coordinating with FRP to achieve good crossover. If we don't see a bump up in entries in the classes that we have split out there will be pressure to yield back that run group for other classes.
If you will look at GCR 3.7.4.C it should answer your questions about the minimum numbers. That section of the GCR addresses the 4.0 rule that is used to determine what classes receive an "automatic invitation" to Runoffs. Just because a class doesn't hit the 4.0 figure doesn't mean that it will not be invited to Runoffs; it just isn't automatic. I do not foresee FC losing an invitation for 2024 even if it doesn't meet the 4.0 minimum so long as the Runoffs entries are reasonable. The return to Road America in 2024 will likely give a boost to entries across the board; carrying that into 2025 will be the question.
Rick -
This is simply untrue. As Brian points out, FRP entries have never been included in the count. We have made an allowance for entries in FRP events to count towards the participation requirements for Runoffs. Further, the CRB and the FSRAC have worked tirelessly to improve the open wheel classes which certainly includes FC. Spec tires that have reset track records and save us hundreds of dollars per set, improved run groups, the ability to count FRP entries towards Runoffs participation requirements, and the allowance of successor parts in a timely fashion to avoid shortages are but a few of the steps we have taken to help FC. Numbers do need to improve in FC and a number of other classes, but I think you have mischaracterized the health of FC in your comments.Quote:
We can as a community, try to get the SCCA FC numbers up, but the club doesn't care, in fact, one could draw the conclusion that the club has tried for years to kill the class. If Wright's series had not been included in the numbers it would have been dead long ago. This has reached the "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" point.
The FSRAC and CRB are certainly open to any great suggestions to improve the class and participation as well as new blood on our advisory committees.
Thank you for your interest and passion for the class and SCCA!
John
Actually, vintage, other than SVRA, is just the opposite. A lot of places have 3 different FSV classes for instance. VARA used to have FC1 and FC2. Right now FF has VFF, CF, and PCF.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT1
IMHO, SVRA is clueless about classing formula cars. FC for instance runs in F9, and because it's a 2L, is classed with F2 cars. It seems like they class cars by the way the look, not the way they perform.
You and Peter seem to disagree on the Wright thing. I thought their numbers went into SCCA car counts. Perhaps I was wrong on that. Pacific F2000 was a stand alone organization, running where they could get track time, until the Runoffs came to Laguna Seca, then so many guys wanted a shot that they went back under the SCCA.
FRP counts for driver qualification for runoffs but not for car counts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
SCCA has helped us by adding an additional run group to some of the HST events.
Those who missed the VIR and June Sprints events this year really missed a fantastic opportunity - it was FC, FX, and FA only. Some of the best track time I've had at SCCA events in a long time.
Even with the runoffs leaving VIR next year I promised the race director would I would strongly consider returning to that event (900 mile tow one way) if they kept the run groups the same in 2024.
I suggest everyone start planning on at least VIR and the June Sprints HST event next year as I have some confidence those events will have the big bore open wheel group split into 2 groups. It's the best we're going to get.
At the end of the day it's up to each of us to call our FC race friends and let them know our plans and offer to help them make the events.
One of the events I always push is the June Sprints. Its a great event that is well run and is considered a big show in the scheme of things. This year we were on target to have close to 12 drivers attend. If we could have gotten the LTD guys and a few others from Michigan to go we could have had close to 17. Circumstances prevented that this year (myself having engine troubles at the event) but as a group we need to pool our races and then promote them on social or APEX or whatever to get other drivers to go.
I get that we are all busy but if you only run 3 times a year, wouldn't you rather run with car counts in double digits. Why go to some event that only draws 1 other FC. So if this year is a bust, then make 2024 a priority and plan those events that the majority of FC cars are going to show up at.
Brian
IMHO the main reason (if you forget aging drivers and all the other stuff that people claim to be the roots of everything evil) is very simple: Stupid unnecessary cost. Some of that is inevitable, but come on, $200 rain lights, $260 lights on your dash to tell you when there is a yellow. A number of years ago Transponders probably were the straw that broke the camels back for at least a few people (I personally know one). But at least they served a decent purpose.
There are very few of us that will continue to race no matter what the powers that be put us through, but that number is getting smaller.
No significant quantity of new cars built in 15 years. Nearly 20 years to get to the long rod kit but only when done through the buddy system when commercially available kits were out there. That's just two data points that never seem to get addressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
FC is where FF was 15 years ago. Whether it grows in participation by bringing cars out of the garage is a question I doubt will be answered by anyone mired in the SCCA way of doing things. FF certainly didn't. Why do I say that? Well, just look at the data over the past 35 years and realize that the only classes that have benefited from the SCCA rule-making process is SRF and FE. Gee, wonder why?
Yeah, tires help. The spec hoosiers are a lot more driveable than the American Racers and about 30% cheaper than the Avons.
It is ironic that people who are not racing are encouraging others to grow the car count. ;)
:)
So....based on this year's FRP entries, it looks like there are typically 8 - 10 FC cars per event that could be running in SCCA if FRP weren't around.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
The current universe of people who want to race mid-level performance wings and things is rather limited. Unfortunately, it seems that this universe is fractured by similar performance classes and competing series that dilute our ranks.
There are then perhaps two solutions to this issue:
1- Increase the size of the formula car universe, and work to attract new drivers into FC in particular (multiple methods can be employed here, but would probably take years to yield fruit).
2- Concentrate our ranks at SCCA events (putting more of our eggs in one basket is probably the easiest short term fix).
Just my $.02
Paul
I have to agree with problem child,we have been having this discussion for years and it is quite simple.If you have an Fc car bring it out and race. I personally do about 6-8 events a year between Scca & FRP and the car counts are better than 3 years ago.It does seem that it’s the people who aren’t racing always have the best ideas how to fix it.
Try this,stop making excuses and come back and race your car,Please
Thanks
Tim Minorfc88
In 2010 I started seriously running FRP in FC (F2000) because SCCA club races were becoming a mess. Up to 8 classes in a group meant I spent most of my track time avoiding cars from different classes often by drivers with poor awareness of their surroundings. In 2010 I got involved in a wreck not of my own doing and decided that these "races" were becoming dangerous if one wanted to drive at the limit and no longer enjoyable. That's what convinced me to go to FRP.Quote:
Originally Posted by douglap1
That is what is still keeping me from wanting to run SCCA club races.
Dave, in the NE conf this year there has been about 8 FC cars at every event this year except 1 which conflicted with an FRP event. The racing has been good at just about every event. Surprisingly the SCCA in the NE has been ,making, I think, a real effort to support open wheel racing. The usual grouping at most events in FC/FA/FE2/P1/P2. The P1 and P2 cars present the usual problems for an open wheel car in that they have limited visibility and seem to attract, not always, but some lower level drivers in high powered cars with poor visibility - but there have been only 1 or 2 cars per event so its just not a mega-problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
The FC FE2 problem is worse and always present, but there seems to be an effort to not screw each others races up. At NJMP this weekend they did a split start after a quick request at the drivers meeting (8 FC cars and 8 FE2). This worked well as only the fastest FE2 cars caught the FC cars and it seemed to all run smooth. I think the NE SCCA did a nice job with this and it was a simple and good real time decision.
The racing has been good and many of the drivers run the FRP series too.
I have a few suggestions to get car counts up.
1) The great lakes series should make an effort to run all of their events at Majors events in the Northern and Northeast conferences to help build FC SCCA numbers.
2) The FRP and SCCA Majors events should never overlap, and a two week break would always be nice.
3) The VIR and Summit Point events should not be back to back – we should always have 1 or 2 weekends free between Majors events within any conference.
4) Make certain we continue to support and boost the Pinto for both longevity and performance as there are lots of Pinto cars sitting in garages - we have to overcome the perception that you must have a Zetec to win.
5) Make the SCCA do split starts for FC and FE2 whenever needed without a bunch of hassle.
6) The grouping of FC/FA/FE2/P1/P2 when there are less than 20 cars on track (with a FC/FE2 split start) seems to work OK and a FC/FE2 and FA/P1/P2 or FC/FA and FE2/P1/P2 grouping when there are more than 25 cars total (FC should start in front of FE2 for a split start). Its not perfect but all of these classes need a group to race in and so we should proactively suggest groupings.
7) Get the word out about how good a racing value FC is. It offers the best performance per dollar of any class. And the costs to get in are very manageable.
8) A few divisions have pretty good FC turnouts at the Majors and a couple of conferences have near zero turnout. If a class has healthy turnouts in multiple conferences, then the poor showings from a few conferences should not lead to a class getting killed. I wonder how car counts would change if we only used the top four conferences to compute averages.
Hello All
Just a suggestion that we had a few years ago that SCCA denied, there are FB's sitting in garages not being used in FA due to cost,
most of them were FC's at one time, FB used STOCK GSXR 1000 motors that make 165-hp, the newer motor makes 200-hp, instead of putting them in FA and spending $15k to SAVE FA, why not put them in FC with restrictors that are cheap to balance the HP with FC and save FC in the future. SCCA trying to save FA is crazy money! Balance all the FA's for HP and let them do their own thing, then dump all the older pro cars in with FA, Putting FB's with restrictors in FC makes more since then FB in FA and would increase car count for FC. IMHO
Dave
Doesn't help club car counts but appears to make happy FC racers. I don't think all FRP racers end up in the runoffs, just like not all HST/Majors racers do the runiffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT1
Maybe. It's hard to say. Some FRP drivers don't run SCCA.Quote:
Originally Posted by douglap1
Would be nice but most all race schedules are predictable based on the previous years. Getting the weekends at the tracks is an issue - frankly some clubs are giving up weekends to TDOs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Silver
Since SCCA allowed FRP participation as a path to the runoffs, it's time to finish the job and count the participation.
If it's part of the path, it should be part of the count. :checkered:
Just some comments from an 'outsider' ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Silver
Split starts (definition- TWO PACE CARS) often add to the complication between similar classes that make the same laptimes in different ways... Split GRIDS get the job done -- generally ONE GREEN, but depending on the field count, sometimes TWO separate ... still only ONE PACE CAR .. and it really doesn't matter WHICH class goes first. SCCA always says the FASTEST *CAR*/class goes first.... a split GRID keeps all 'like classes' together for the start and after that it's 'have at it'. Unfortunately, too often, a PROBLEM on lap one basically DELETES the start separation and it's mayhem after that.... but the premise is still valid. We do NOT need to have more than 1 class of car vying desperately for the lead into T1/L1. "WE".. (i.e. YOU GUYS - FC and FE2) need to work that out. Yes, I'm on the outside but MOST of the incidents I've seen between the 2 classes have been during the 1st or maybe 2nd lap.
WHY would you think that FC always should be first? (just curious on that one). WHICHEVER class (single car) has the fastest lap (often, FE2 in most recent events I have seen), is 'faster'. and he takes the entire class with him. In the REALLY MIXED (all wings).... either FC or FE2 should LEAD THE PACK to the start (all cars in class) and the OTHER should TAIL the group.. with all cars in class. That way all (at least MOST) 'negotiating between FC and FE2' should happen on the GRID (at very low speed :D) instead of the 1st lap.
FV has been HAPPY to start LAST - AS A GROUP CLASS instead of being involved in the power struggle between classes at the start - regardless of laptimes. It has worked LIGHT YEARS BETTER than any other efforts leading to COMPLETED RACES without car/car contact between classes.
In the rare case of high car counts in FA ... or ANY class really, I still think it's best that all CLASS CARS SHOULD BE TOGETHER leaving the grid... with the occasional car(s) being able to 'opt out' and start last (behind ALL CLASSES) if he/she should choose to do so. SO FAR... grid position doesn't count for points, but your position relative to your 'class'mates DOES count. This is the best way (IMHO) to keep it as 'fair to everyone' as possible while mitigating the potentially disastrous consequences of mixed groups as much as possible.
At least it should be worth thinking about.
Steve, FV80
I took a look at the schedule and unfortunately all the SCCA majors events within a day's tow for me (western conference) are over already for 2023. Looking at the results it seems like the Thunderhill event had 8 FC entries though. Found the streams too.
Fri: https://www.youtube.com/live/UozlJE7...=share&t=20907
Sat: https://www.youtube.com/live/hTJU4fR...=share&t=21898
Sun: https://www.youtube.com/live/a9sQrkR...e=share&t=8430
Not a huge grid but not bad, especially considering it was a rain weekend. If some ICSCC guys from the PNW want to make the tow down next year it could be a pretty big FC event.
Actually last weekend may have been a split grid, I dont remember seeing 2 pace cars, but I was looking in front of me. Either way either is fine with me - and I agree maybe a split grid is easier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Davis
The reason FC should go in front of FE2 is the problem as I always hear it and have experienced is that faster FC cars struggle to get past more powerful slower driven FE2 cars. The fast FE2 cars have no problem going past an FC car - they have at least 20 more hp. The problem is always similar lap time FC/FE2 cars or an FC that is 1 second a lap faster can struggle to get past the more powerful FE2 cars as they motor by on the straight or go past in turn 1 on a start but immediately hold up the FC cars in the corners.
Last weekend the fastest times were from an FC so there was no argument, but the SCCA did ask us who should go first - the drivers said FC and no one argued. Again a well driven FE2 car that is 1 second faster than an FC car has no problem driving by on the straight.
Being at the tail end of our FC group I can tell you I do not like "split starts". Our group always starts AFTER every other class.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Davis
It's great the first few laps because it's "only FCs" running, BUT...
They do not use a 2nd pace car yet they give is a separate green flag. (Majors and HST)
The front of our group drags us WAAAAY back to give themselves more open track. By the time they reach the slower cars in the lead pack they are spread out and easy to pass.
Then after the start and the field spreads out, the P1s are generally on our tail somewhere between lap 2 and 3 because they were already 3/4 around the course when our green flew.
When we don't split I can get 4-5 laps in before driving my mirrors !
I'd be fine with split grid but I know our group won't want that.
Don't get me started on grid/group size and "difficulty" (read never happens here) of moving classes in groups.