FV Track width change approval

The CRB has made a terrible decision in it's latest clarification of the FV track width rules. If you do not want to increase the front track width of your FV, I highly suggest voicing your opinion to the CRB.

The maximum track width that is listed in the GCR was there for those choosing to use a 4.5" wheel. It was put in place at a time when the 4" wheels were unavailable. It allowed the use of the wider wheel without exceeding the previous maximum track width. There was no way to legally achieve the maximum track width without using the wider wheel.

The CRB has now regrettably allowed the disc brake kits to be made wider to reach the maximum track width with the standard wheel. They are now also allowing spacers for those who wish to stick with drums.

I believe this is a horrible decision and serves no purpose. Again, I highly suggest those opposed to this clarification submit a letter immediately expressing your opinion.

No purpose?

For several years, we have heard people complain that the track rule prevented the use of "off the shelf" disc brake parts and required using manufactured custom disc brake components. Does this new change allow for the use of much cheaper disc brake components? If so, it would appear to be a major cost savings for competitors. If this is not the case, then someone should propose another option that would allow the use of more affordable brake components. In typical SCCA style, the whole concept and process, is insane, but fixing it now, is better than letting it continue at obscene cost. Of course, leaving it as-is (as in for 55 years) would have been preferable.

BTW, I buy custom wheel spacers for $20 each. If someone did a run of FV spacers, then $50/car would seem a reasonable projected cost for drum users to increase their track.

With all due respect this was caused by the disc brake rule being written but not fully thought out. Had the track been addressed in original disc brake rule then we wouldn't even be talking about this.

This is a situation where an opportunity presented itself to have the track width optamised and people took advantage. You cant go back now and undo that when people have taken the time to develop and produce parts that are perfectly legal by the GCR. The cat is out of the bag per say and we're past this.

The other concern is that if this were to be changed it would effectively make a monopoly for one of the disc brake kits as the others wouldn't be legal. To me that's a conflict of interest.

The right thing to do is to allow the drums spacers so all is equal. As Greg said this will allow people to use the heavier Chinese kits if they so please as that extra inch helps tremendously.

One of the disc manufacturers didn't catch the opportunity and itll probably be harder to update their kit, that shouldn't come at the expense of all others though.

Brian

!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by problemchild

No purpose?

For several years, we have heard people complain that the track rule prevented the use of "off the shelf" disc brake parts and required using manufactured custom disc brake components. Does this new change allow for the use of much cheaper disc brake components? If so, it would appear to be a major cost savings for competitors. If this is not the case, then someone should propose another option that would allow the use of more affordable brake components. In typical SCCA style, the whole concept and process, is insane, but fixing it now, is better than letting it continue at obscene cost. Of course, leaving it as-is (as in for 55 years) would have been preferable.

BTW, I buy custom wheel spacers for $20 each. If someone did a run of FV spacers, then $50/car would seem a reasonable projected cost for drum users to increase their track.

---

The track width was not changed enough to allow any after market kits to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Farnham

With all due respect this was caused by the disc brake rule being written but not fully thought out. Had the track been addressed in original disc brake rule then we wouldn't even be talking about this.

This is a situation where an opportunity presented itself to have the track width optamised and people took advantage. You cant go back now and undo that when people have taken the time to develop and produce parts that are perfectly legal by the GCR. The cat is out of the bag per say and we're past this.

The other concern is that if this were to be changed it would effectively make a monopoly for one of the disc brake kits as the others wouldn't be legal. To me that's a conflict of interest.

The right thing to do is to allow the drums spacers so all is equal. As Greg said this will allow people to use the heavier Chinese kits if they so please as that extra inch helps tremendously.

One of the disc manufacturers didn't catch the opportunity and itll probably be harder to update their kit, that shouldn't come at the expense of all others though.



Brian

---

Funny how no one had an issue with making wheel fairings illegal after the fact.

The intent of the allowance of disc brakes was to avoid any performance advantage. This change completely eliminates that concept and was completely disregarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Speed Sport Engineering

The intent of the allowance of disc brakes was to avoid any performance advantage. This change completely eliminates that concept and was completely disregarded.

---

I agree with trying to not allow performance advantages.
However, could you explain how this is an advantage now that SCCA allows more width? I have been working under the assumption that narrow is better aero, so anything wider is a disadvantage. When all the 4" vs. 4.5" wheel talk came up with the disc brake kits, I was a bit confused, since literally every VW wheel I have is the narrow one.

edit: to clarify- I do know that FF has wide track kits, but F1 went narrower in the late 90s. I guess my question is, what is the preferred thinking for FV in 2019?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Speed Sport Engineering

The track width was not changed enough to allow any off the market kits to work.

---

They may not work off the shelf but can be modified to.

The illegal fairings was before my time but I read about it. Unfortunate how it turned out given the investment you made but two wrongs dont make a right.

The intent was to allow the discs without an advantage and with allowing the spacers for the drums that still holds true.

ProblemChild mentioned spacers can be purchased for ~$50 for those of us with drums who choose to maximize our track. Is $50 really catastrophic when it also allows the class to move forward a tick? I don't think it is. I have the Veeline book that documents hundreds of changes to the class since its inception. :beer:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Farnham

The illegal fairings was before my time but I read about it. Unfortunate how it turned out given the investment you made but two wrongs dont make a right.

The intent was to allow the discs without an advantage and with allowing the spacers for the drums that still holds true.

---

Couple thoughts from the peanut gallery:


"Wheel fairings" weren't wrong, IMO, if they were legal before the GCR was changed. They were just something that was undesired by the class/powers that be, so the rule was changed. Not necessarily wrong either, but it sure does suck. I don't like changing rules in the middle of the game.


The disc brake option would have never been approved if it was perceived to be an advantage over a properly tuned drum set up. The track had to remain the same or the perception would have been they were an advantage (I believe they are, even at the same track width). The Varacins went through the time, trouble and expense to engineer a kit that would work within the ruleset. Now, the goal posts are moved again, so that much more affordable options can be explored and there can be more crossover between series.

I think that's better for the class as a whole, but certainly removes the incentive (again) for folks to move the class forward in performance/technology----but perhaps that's the entire point. :thumbsup::thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

Couple thoughts from the peanut gallery:


"Wheel fairings" weren't wrong, IMO, if they were legal before the GCR was changed. They were just something that was undesired by the class/powers that be, so the rule was changed. Not necessarily wrong either, but it sure does suck. I don't like changing rules in the middle of the game.

---

I agree, the wrong was in regards to how the rule was changed and they were made illegal when per the GCR they should have been fine.


The issue here is the rule that was written was done so poorly. When I heard about the discs one of my first thoughts was to increase the track as building them wider without a spacer satisfied the rule (something you couldn't do with drums).

So the question is who or what committee wrote the rule and how did they miss on this? You cant blame those that exploited the rule but those who wrote the rule that could be exploited.

Exactly what is the proposed change? I do not see it in Fastrack.

Brian

https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...id=84898&stc=1

https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...id=84899&stc=1

A quick search finds that back in 1967 the front track max was 51.4 I assume this was with 4" wheels

The current GCR (April) says 52.5" (no spacers allowed)

I will have to go back and look through my GCRs but this was probably when aforementioned wheels (4.5) were brought in.

So if you ran 4" wheels you would be under it, if you ran 4.5 you would be at it.

If the Comp Board is now saying the max is 52.5 - with or without spacers - that could make things complicated......

Could I run 4.5 on the LH side at Lime Rock.....:D

So what is the exact wording of what they are proposing?

ChrisZ

I see if got posted above me...

When a rule change is disguised as an E&O correction. . . .

Love me some SCCA.

I think this is sounding like fallout from a short-sighted & vague rule change.
I realize it had to start somewhere, but it wasn't hard to see issues that were going to come up almost immediately.

That being said, I again say that maybe allowing a bit of extra width is not a bad thing to start with.

So the use of spacers is the only change?

Then a disc system optimised to 52.5 using 4.0 wheels and no spacers would preclude the optional use of 4.5 wheels.

Where as a disc system optimised for 4.5 wheels could use 4.0 wheels and a space to get the max track.

Is this correct logic?

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

When a rule change is disguised as an E&O correction. . . .

---

Where and when?

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

So the use of spacers is the only change?

Then a disc system optimised to 52.5 using 4.0 wheels and no spacers would preclude the optional use of 4.5 wheels.

Where as a disc system optimised for 4.5 wheels could use 4.0 wheels and a space to get the max track.

Is this correct logic?

Brian

---

It would depend on what makes it into the May GCR.

The E&O rule correction does not allow the use of spacers, it removed the words saying they weren't allowed. This might imply that their intent was to allow them, however If It Doesn't Say You Can, You Can't and they very well may have been attempting to remove rules prohibiting modifications where such wording isn't required.

The response to Varacin's letter suggests that they want to permit the use of spacers, but nothing in the current rules, or the proposed E&O correction states that is the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

Where and when?

Brian

---

When what was illegal yesterday, is legal today without going through customary procedures to change rules.

Errors and Omissions should be reserved for just what the clause states; ERRORS and OMISSIONS. Typos and rules that were in a previous GCR edition that were mistakenly omitted from the current edition.


After somebody goes through the trouble of engineering and manufacturing a kit to meet current track width rules, and then the track width rule is changed, that's not an error and omission, that's a rule change. Perhaps the rules-writers erred in their thinking of what should be proposed, but changing what was proposed and approved to something they didn't foresee is a rule change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

After somebody goes through the trouble of engineering and manufacturing a kit to meet current track width rules, and then the track width rule is changed, that's not an error and omission, that's a rule change. Perhaps the rules-writers erred in their thinking of what should be proposed, but changing what was proposed and approved to something they didn't foresee is a rule change.

---

The thing is that the track rule wasnt changed, the discs rules were written and no one accounted for the increased track for the 4.5" wheels that happened some years ago

Changing the track rule so that only 4.5" wheels could be used to achieve max track would be a rule change. What SCCA is doing is they realize that the rule for the discs wasn't written well and in an effort to make the drums on a level playing field have removed the language for "no spacers".

More or less the rule was misinterpreted by one of the builders and their kit wasnt optimized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Farnham

The thing is that the track rule wasnt changed, the discs rules were written and no one accounted for the increased track for the 4.5" wheels that happened some years ago

Changing the track rule so that only 4.5" wheels could be used to achieve max track would be a rule change. What SCCA is doing is they realize that the rule for the discs wasn't written well and in an effort to make the drums on a level playing field have removed the language for "no spacers".

More or less the rule was misinterpreted by one of the builders and their kit wasnt optimized.

---

Brian,

Nothing was misinterpreted. Before the allowance of spacers and disc brakes, there was no legal way to get to the maximum track width without the wider wheels. The disc brakes were approved with the understanding there would be no performance advantage and no dimensional differences from the drums. That was the basis of the approval. By allowing them to run at the maximum width and changing the rules so drums can match it, that is in effect, a rules change.

If there was a legal way to run 4" wheels at the maximum track width prior to the discs, or if the disc approval wasn't based on dimensionally identical components, this wouldn't be an issue.

Anyone building a disc kit was well aware that discs were allowed with the understanding they were to be dimensionally identical to the drums. If someone chose to push the limits and neglect this, then that was a risk that should be on them and in no way should the rules be altered to accommodate.

The point of this post is to make those who are not following aware that there is a proposal on the table to now have a legal way to widen the front track of thier vee. If you do not support this change, you have a small window to express this to the crb.

Thank you,

Michael

Up to this time there has been no interest in the possible use of spacers to increase the track of 4.0 wheel users. Why is that?

What was the reason for the no spacers rule? Why the reduce track for the 4.0's when compared to the 4.5's? Was there a perceived performance reason?

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Speed Sport Engineering

Brian,

Nothing was misinterpreted. Before the allowance of spacers and disc brakes, there was no legal way to get to the maximum track width without the wider wheels. The disc brakes were approved with the understanding there would be no performance advantage and no dimensional differences from the drums. That was the basis of the approval. By allowing them to run at the maximum width and changing the rules so drums can match it, that is in effect, a rules change.

If there was a legal way to run 4" wheels at the maximum track width prior to the discs, or if the disc approval wasn't based on dimensionally identical components, this wouldn't be an issue.

Anyone building a disc kit was well aware that discs were allowed with the understanding they were to be dimensionally identical to the drums. If someone chose to push the limits and neglect this, then that was a risk that should be on them and in no way should the rules be altered to accommodate.

The point of this post is to make those who are not following aware that there is a proposal on the table to now have a legal way to widen the front track of thier vee. If you do not support this change, you have a small window to express this to the crb.

Thank you,

Michael

---

I feel the misinterpretation is that the disc brake rule outlined that the track be the same as the drums. This wasnt the case as the GCR just specified what the max track could be, not how one could get there.

"FV 1. #22456 (Formula/Sports Racing Committee) Disc Brakes in FV - Member Survey At the recommendation of the FV ad hoc committee, the CRB recommends the option of disc brakes in FV. Add the following:
9.1.1.4.D. Front and/or rear brake drums and backing plate assemblies may be replaced with a disc brake conversion assembly as an option. The front spindle/steering knuckle, rear axle, axle tube, bearing housing and bearing retainer/seal assembly must remain per GCR part 9.1.1. A spacer plate or a portion of the rear caliper support may be fitted beneath the bearing retainer to replace the backing plate dimension. Any ferrous alloy, unvented rotor may be used, but must have a maximum diameter of 11.75 in. and a minimum thickness of 0.20 in. The otherwise smooth rotor may have a maximum of three pad cleaning grooves per side. Any ferrous or aluminum alloy caliper and caliper support may be used. The caliper must have no more than four pistons and weigh a minimum of 1.65 lbs. Brake pads are free. Any hub assembly may be used as long as it can be fitted with part 9.1.1. wheels. "

I dont see anywhere in the disc brake rule that states that dimensionally identical components must be used.

No current rule is being altered to allow the other brake kits, they are legal by the GCR. In shooting this proposal down it would do nothing more than put the drums at a disadvantage.

The cat is out of the bag, those who wrote the rule missed what door they opened. I dont see why many would be against this unless you purchased a narrow track brake kit. Those with drums could easily add spacers and it would allow for more creativity with using off the shelf kits.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B Farnham

I dont see anywhere in the disc brake rule that states that dimensionally identical components must be used.

---

That is because this was the stated premise that was presented to competitors to get their approval of the brake system change. It does not have to be part of the written rule. Those who stay with drum brakes expect nothing to change on their part. That is what they think was approved.

Al Varacins did not miss an opportunity. He was precluded from doing anything that would change existing drum brake setups by the proposal presented to FV competitor.

I repeat my question, why were wheel spacers restricted/banned when 4.5" wheel were approved for use? You just do not add such a restriction without a reason. Relative to track width, it put 4" wheel users at a disadvantage, yet there has never been a push to correct this.
I do not think we have all the facts.

Brian

Brian,

I have yet to find the details (I think it happened in 2006)

There was a shortage of NEW 4" wheels (I do not think there is a real shortage of used wheels but that is another question)

So 4.5 wheels were approved.

They have 1/2" more offset so that must be why the track was widened to 52.5"

Cons

They weigh more
They add more tire area so more drag.

This must have been assumed to cancel out the increased track width.

The rule should have been written:
4 " wheel = 51.4" track max
4.5" wheel = 52.5" track max

and we would not be having this discussion.

The no spacers was to keep people from moving 4" wheels to the 52.5" measurement. (I understand people are getting tricky with "adjusting" other suspension parts to get the extra track - again - if the rule had been written as above, that would not be legal either.)

So before the CRB gives out an "clarification" someone should explain that understanding the rule is important before clarifying it.

ChrisZ

I see another "manfold" "wheel cover" "carb jet" situation coming up where we retroactively fix something.

Yes, agree with your assessment of the issue.

That last thing the class needs is a performance preferred 4" wide wheel that can only be found in junk yards/used and must be refurbished. Does not sound very user friendly.

Write the CRB to maintain the .5" (or is it 1"?) difference in track width between 4" and 4.5" wide wheels.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

Write the CRB to maintain the .5" (or is it 1"?) difference in track width between 4" and 4.5" wide wheels.

---

IF the offset of two wheels are the same, the track width doesn't change. A 1" wide wheel and a 12" wide wheel each of zero offset, for example, produce the same track width.

Is the mounting surface of the 4" and 4.5" wheel offset the same amount from the center line of the wheel?

If the backspacing is the same then the 4.5" wide wheels will result in a .5" wider track width when used as a pair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FVRacer21

Brian,

They have 1/2" more offset so that must be why the track was widened to 52.5"

---

But if that's true, they would have widened the rear track by the same amount...no?

I don't understand why the track was increased in the front by 1.1" and the rear by 0.875" over the years. If using the 4.5" wheel increased the track width by some amount, it would do so on both the front and rear equally. To me, it appears the track was increased for some other reason and wheel widths are not clearly the only reason.
Has anyone ever measured these wheels? The offset may be the same as stock for all we know. VW never made a 4.5" wide, wide 5 bolt pattern wheel, so the offset is determined by whomever made those aftermarket wheels.

I would think anybody that decided to make a disc brake system would have looked at the GCR, saw the max track width stated there, 52.5" front and 50.75" rear, and build within that specification. There are quite a few that have done this already. The Varicins and Advantage Motorsports are not the only ones to develop a package.

The GCR says nothing about different track widths for different wheels and never did.

It may have been a mistake on the part of the committee to not see the possible discrepancy and that's unfortunate. But there were 100 other FV owners that would make the same mistake.

Andy,

was as trying to find that out before you caught it but you beat me. :D

ChrisZ

The 'backspacing' of both wheels is the same. The change in width always goes to the outside. That is why I 'think' the track only increases .5". I have about three different makes of 4.5's and they are all the same. A manufacture would not to risk component interference by moving inward with the rim.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajpastore

It may have been a mistake on the part of the committee to not see the possible discrepancy and that's unfortunate.

---

You are absolutely right. A mistake was made but you are focusing on just a handful (at this time) of competitors using disc brakes when you should be focusing on the issue that affects all FV competitors: Replacement Wheels. The 4.5 wheels were a replacement for 4.0 that are out of production. Sure there are 4's in the junk yards, but is that the class you are trying to promote. A class where the most competitive wheel has to be obtained from a junk yard and then refurbish. If they become the wheel to have what happens to prices and availability? This is why the 4.5's were given a track advantage. 4.5's are 2 lb. heavier and have 9" sq more aero frontal area (1.05 hp drag @ 100 mph for all 4 wheels). Those are some concrete negatives with the track increase being the only positive. At the heart of this is the 'perception' that you can be competitive with the only wheel that can be still purchased new.

So some disc brake purchaser are going to incur some expense ( my 'estimate' not more than a 20% cost increase) if the track differential is maintained between the 4.0's and 4.5's.

Beats the bad PR from the perception that best wheel is not easily available to everyone.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

The offset of both wheels is the same. The change in width always goes to the outside.

---

That's not how offset works. You are confusing backspacing and offset, they don't mean the same thing.

If the change in width always goes to the outside then the backspacing remains constant and the offset changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

You are absolutely right. A mistake was made but you are focusing on just a handful (at this time) of competitors using disc brakes when you should be focusing on the issue that affects all FV competitors: Replacement Wheels. The 4.5 wheels were a replacement for 4.0 that are out of production. Sure there are 4's in the junk yards, but is that the class you are trying to promote. A class where the most competitive wheel has to be obtained from a junk yard and then refurbish. If they become the wheel to have what happens to prices and availability? This is why the 4.5's were given a track advantage. 4.5's are 2 lb. heavier and have 9" sq more aero frontal area (1.05 hp drag @ 100 mph for all 4 wheels). Those are some concrete negatives with the track increase being the only positive. At the heart of this is the 'perception' that you can be competitive with the only wheel that can be still purchased new.

So some disc brake purchaser are going to incur some expense ( my 'estimate' not more than a 20% cost increase) if the track differential is maintained between the 4.0's and 4.5's.

Beats the bad PR from the perception that best wheel is not easily available to everyone.

Brian

---

4" wheels are easy to find, check the samba and you'll find a bunch. I'd bet that 95% of people out there are not running a 4.5" wheel and if some are then great! They're already at max track so no need to worry about spacers.

I find it very ironic that we're talking about rules interpretation and what's for the good of the class. Who thought that the brake kits would end up being $3k plus? That wasnt how this was rolled out originally. Yes the costs savings will make up for that in the long run but you cant argue for the good of the class without stopping to consider that.

So how do you make the disc brake kits cheaper? Easy increase track so its not so hard to fit everything inside the wheel. Keeping the track rule as is allows people to adapt existing kits to fit at a much reduced cost.

So I think allowing spacers that are very inexpensive for the drums is what is best in this situation. Otherwise you'll have to buy your kit from one supplier who will then have a monopoly on the whole class.

Plus what do you do for the 15-20 people with discs that would now be out of compliance?

1) If they are so easy to find then why were 4.5's approved over ten years ago. What a better image than a class that runs on junkyard wheels. Used wheels off Samba sounds very appealing.

2) You keep making this about the disc brakes when it is really about maintaining the 'perceived' advantage of the 4.5's over the 4.0's. If anything, based on the data I listed the 4.0" should be handicapped even more that just the track adjustment.

3) So you are proposing that all the drum users have the opportunity to invest in spacers. Unfortunately it is going to take longer threaded lug bolts or a conversion to studs to make a safe conversion. Not the cheapest thing to do considering the drum users were promised that they would not have to change anything to maintain competitiveness.

4) So just how much cheaper are these new kits? I think you can not substantiate your claim of a cost savings. The Scaler kit indicated pricing very close to Varacins. Did they drop their price? I think not.

5) I am willing to bet that there are fewer than 5 people that currently have a one of the 'wide' track systems. I know for a fact that the Varacins have sold 15 kits. Varacins does not have OR DESIRE a monopoly of the FV disc brake business. He got involved because no one seemed to be picking up the ball last year. Disc brakes was something important to the Varacins, so they were not going to wait around.

Brian

1. When I was selling wheels no one wanted anything other than the slotted original vw wheels, the 4.5 wheels were made an option so people could buy new wheels if they didn't want to search for the originals.

2. That must have been a quick trip to the wind tunnel to determine the drag on the wider wheels. Must have been pretty high tech with a rolling floor and everything (you cant just use surface area for something that moves). Also when you stretch a tire dont you think that the overall profile would change?

3. Huh? Now you're over complicating it, go look at a drum kit and rethink how you can widen the track without all that silliness.

4. Go look at the Chinese kits and the other ones on the market, they wont be as light as a drum or one of the kits made for FV but they work. Without that extra inch all of those cannot be modified to work.

5. It was interesting how the rule was rushed out so quickly that only one manufacturer had time to go to market.

There are many more than 5 kits of the wider brakes, but maybe some have been lost?? Seems like you're more in the loop.

Back to the original point the rule was poorly written and some people knew this 4 months ago and did nothing about it until others had already created a kit. I go back to who was involved in putting the rule together?

Brian,

You are speaking without a clear understanding of the facts and processes involved in the approval and creation of the disc brake kits. I've had several people ask me privately what your issue is, and I honestly have no idea. So far you are the only customer who retracted his commitment to purchase a system, and we refunded your deposit without questions even though we had already purchased the components to build your kit. With that being said, let me clear up a couple of things to try and help you understand how this all occurred.

1) We did not do this with the intent of making money. It was clear upfront there was no way we could sell kits at a high enough margin to recover the engineering, prototyping, and testing costs. We did it to provide an available solution to the FV community for those wishing to eliminate the hassles and maintenance of the drum brakes.

2) The rules were drafted during a long process between the entire FV committee and the F/SR committee. Throughout the entire process there were negotiations back and forth between the committees to create a rules package that was as balanced as possible. There were many instances where the F/SR committee (possibly under the direction of the CRB) pushed back on proposals by the FV committee as they felt it was too biased towards the discs. The entire process was done with the intent of not allowing the discs to have any advantages over the drums. Any proposal that could have been interpreted as favorable to the discs was rejected.

3) We went through the engineering struggle to design a kit that was as identical to the drums as possible, as that was the direction the F/SR committee within the SCCA felt was necessary to get final approval from the CRB. This is also how it was pitched to the FV community so those with drums would not feel any obligation to change unless they wanted to.

4) We were aware of the track width issue for a substantial amount of time (months), and have been working behind the scenes to get it corrected without the need to make it public.

5) Based on the requirements from the SCCA throughout the rules making process, we felt there was no way they would allow wider track brake kits as it would go against all the restrictions we were held to and struggled to achieve.

6) When the latest meeting minutes were released, it was literally a slap in the face that they would allow this to occur after the restrictions that were in place to get the rules passed in the first place.

7) It has been proven many times before through SCCA actions that the cat out of the bag justification for allowing something to continue is not a valid reason.

I hope that helps clear up any confusion this has created. Although we feel we are still in the best position by being able to offer both a narrow (for better aero) and wide track version, we owe it to both the early adopters and the FV community to fight to avoid any engineering escalation that will take the performance of the discs above those of the drums. After all, that was the entire premise on the allowance of them in the first place.

Michael

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Speed Sport Engineering

Brian,

You are speaking without a clear understanding of the facts and processes involved in the approval and creation of the disc brake kits. I've had several people ask me privately what your issue is, and I honestly have no idea. So far you are the only customer who retracted his commitment to purchase a system, and we refunded your deposit without questions even though we had already purchased the components to build your kit. With that being said, let me clear up a couple of things to try and help you understand how this all occurred.

1) We did not do this with the intent of making money. It was clear upfront there was no way we could sell kits at a high enough margin to recover the engineering, prototyping, and testing costs. We did it to provide an available solution to the FV community for those wishing to eliminate the hassles and maintenance of the drum brakes.

2) The rules were drafted during a long process between the entire FV committee and the F/SR committee. Throughout the entire process there were negotiations back and forth between the committees to create a rules package that was as balanced as possible. There were many instances where the F/SR committee (possibly under the direction of the CRB) pushed back on proposals by the FV committee as they felt it was too biased towards the discs. The entire process was done with the intent of not allowing the discs to have any advantages over the drums. Any proposal that could have been interpreted as favorable to the discs was rejected.

3) We went through the engineering struggle to design a kit that was as identical to the drums as possible, as that was the direction the F/SR committee within the SCCA felt was necessary to get final approval from the CRB. This is also how it was pitched to the FV community so those with drums would not feel any obligation to change unless they wanted to.

4) We were aware of the track width issue for a substantial amount of time (months), and have been working behind the scenes to get it corrected without the need to make it public.

5) Based on the requirements from the SCCA throughout the rules making process, we felt there was no way they would allow wider track brake kits as it would go against all the restrictions we were held to and struggled to achieve.

6) When the latest meeting minutes were released, it was literally a slap in the face that they would allow this to occur after the restrictions that were in place to get the rules passed in the first place.

7) It has been proven many times before through SCCA actions that the cat out of the bag justification for allowing something to continue is not a valid reason.

I hope that helps clear up any confusion this has created. Although we feel we are still in the best position by being able to offer both a narrow (for better aero) and wide track version, we owe it to both the early adopters and the FV community to fight to avoid any engineering escalation that will take the performance of the discs above those of the drums. After all, that was the entire premise on the allowance of them in the first place.

Michael

---

Michael,

You ask why Brian has an issue in regards to your original post? It's quite simple, he and others who are considering or those who have purchased kits from other suppliers don't want their kits to be deemed "illegal", and they're protecting they're potential or actual investment which they perceive you're trying to "Make illegal"....It's that simple really!

If you and your Father will vow NOT to make an effort to have the alternative (to yours) Disc Brake Kits made illegal, then I'm sure those who currently oppose your efforts, will be glad to join you in making sure that the DRUM brakes are not obsoleted out of the class.

Take care!

Mark

My issue is 4 months ago this was brought up, multiple brake manufacturers waited on the decision to allow the use of max track. The decision was made that per the GCR that was legal, so of course those manufacturers moved forward.

Now 4 months later we're revisiting this after kits have been produced and people have spent significant amounts of money. Again this decision would make all but one kit illegal which to me isn't right.

I dont like the behind the scenes political struggle and how people use their positions of power to sway things. I believe that's wrong which is why I'm voicing my opinion. Nothing against anyone personally but it's hard to have a committee rule on something when half of them bought the narrow track kit or developed it.

I've said my peace, good luck to everyone this season.

Before everyone gets out of sorts on this, this is is nothing new to FV. we have been fighting rules clarifications for 50+ years.

Lets assume there were no disc brakes.

The track rule was written in 2006 to allow the 4.5" wheels.

The goal was to keep the 4" wheels at 51.4 (no spacers) and allow the 4.5 to run up to 52.5

The prime directive is - if it does not say you can do it, then you cannot do it.

So if people are bending the turkey legs, putting extra spacers in the link pins or on the spring packs, offsetting the offset bushings * or whatever else in order to get the 4" wheels out to 52.5", then they are violating the prime directive and shame on us if we did not correct it sooner.

*this is all speculation on my part, I have no idea what people are doing, other than I was told some people are....

If Michael's system, whatever the cost, met the rules - technically AND in spirit - we have no complaints with him.

What he and his dad seem to be claiming - is that people are or can push the rule in one instance to take advantage of a poorly written rule in another.

This will happen every year until FV is buried in the ground as it is human nature to take advantage of rules to their benefit. And it is the responsibility of us who run under these rules, do decide if the fight is worth fighting.

The question is: Is the wheel rule properly written? If not change it. If it is, then what other ramifications might it have on any other component(s)?

ChrisZ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FVRacer21

Before everyone gets out of sorts on this, this is is nothing new to FV. we have been fighting rules clarifications for 50+ years.

Lets assume there were no disc brakes.

The track rule was written in 2006 to allow the 4.5" wheels.

The goal was to keep the 4" wheels at 51.4 (no spacers) and allow the 4.5 to run up to 52.5

The prime directive is - if it does not say you can do it, then you cannot do it.

So if people are bending the turkey legs, putting extra spacers in the link pins or on the spring packs, offsetting the offset bushings * or whatever else in order to get the 4" wheels out to 52.5", then they are violating the prime directive and shame on us if we did not correct it sooner.

*this is all speculation on my part, I have no idea what people are doing, other than I was told some people are....

If Michael's system, whatever the cost, met the rules - technically AND in spirit - we have no complaints with him.

What he and his dad seem to be claiming - is that people are or can push the rule in one instance to take advantage of a poorly written rule in another.

This will happen every year until FV is buried in the ground as it is human nature to take advantage of rules to their benefit. And it is the responsibility of us who run under these rules, do decide if the fight is worth fighting.

The question is: Is the wheel rule properly written? If not change it. If it is, then what other ramifications might it have on any other component(s)?

ChrisZ

---

Chris,

So to answer your last sentence or two: Who is going to make that decision? A board that is comprised of several members already owning or having developed the narrow-track kits? The wide-track kits were made AFTER a ruling was made, not before and because the wide -track Manufacturers waited instead of rushing a kit to market in order to capture that specific market, they're now being told that they have to give up their investment in tooling & manufacturing costs. What about the drivers who bought the wide - track kits, they'd be illegal and now worthless after a considerable expense was made, so how is that fair? Does that really sound fair to punish those who waited on the decision and produced a product that is considered LEGAL at the time of MFG?

The OP said they can make narrow and wide-track kits, so do so and let's move on as the horse is out of the barn.

Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amon

Chris,

So to answer your last sentence or two: Who is going to make that decision? A board that is compromised of several members already owning or having developed the narrow-track kits? The wide-track kits were made AFTER a ruling was made, not before and because the wide -track Manufacturers waited instead of rushing a kit to market in order to capture that specific market, they're now being told that they have to give up their investment in tooling & manufacturing costs. What about the drivers who bought the wide - track kits, they'd be illegal and now worthless after a considerable expense was made, so how is that fair? Does that really sound fair to punish those who waited on the decision and produced a product that is considered LEGAL at the time of MFG?

The OP said they can make narrow and wide-track kits, so do so and let's move on as the horse is out of the barn.

Mark

---

Mark,

"The wide-track kits were made AFTER a ruling was made, not before and because the wide -track Manufacturers waited instead of rushing a kit to market in order to capture that specific market, they're now being told that they have to give up their investment in tooling & manufacturing costs."

Okay - please tell me who made this ruling - names and phone numbers please.

Don't know what your history is with FV but you can ask all the people who had to send their carbs back to Noble because he modified them according to how HE read the rules and the majority said no, or all the manifolds that went back after the last round of rules changes, or all the Lasers and others that had to have their body work changed after they lost a ruling (do you know why we have a "air has to turn 90 degrees" rule?). And I am sure this list is not complete.

If the Comp Board made a ruling without consulting the class members than shame on them.
If our Ad Hoc committee made a decision without consulting us then shame on them.
If someone manufactured a part based on a loophole then shame on them.

The fact that most of us are just hearing about this now, shows something is wrong with how the decision was made. The spec tire rule was debated for over 20 years. You might not realize this but the disc brake was debated for almost as long. Two days into this I am still trying to figure out what happened so I am only speaking about what is in this thread.

ChrisZ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FVRacer21

Mark,

"The wide-track kits were made AFTER a ruling was made, not before and because the wide -track Manufacturers waited instead of rushing a kit to market in order to capture that specific market, they're now being told that they have to give up their investment in tooling & manufacturing costs."

Okay - please tell me who made this ruling - names and phone numbers please.

Don't know what your history is with FV but you can ask all the people who had to send their carbs back to Noble because he modified them according to how HE read the rules and the majority said no, or all the manifolds that went back after the last round of rules changes, or all the Lasers and others that had to have their body work changed after they lost a ruling (do you know why we have a "air has to turn 90 degrees" rule?). And I am sure this list is not complete.

If the Comp Board made a ruling without consulting the class members than shame on them.
If our Ad Hoc committee made a decision without consulting us then shame on them.
If someone manufactured a part based on a loophole then shame on them.

The fact that most of us are just hearing about this now, shows something is wrong with how the decision was made. The spec tire rule was debated for over 20 years. You might not realize this but the disc brake was debated for almost as long. Two days into this I am still trying to figure out what happened so I am only speaking about what is in this thread.

ChrisZ

---

Chris,

I agree with the majority of your most recent post, especially your second and third paragraph. The fact remains that you can't punish drivers who ordered the wide-track kits by declaring them illegal after they've made the expensive purchase and those purchases were made at a time when they were and are still considered LEGAL. The focus should be placed on those who made the rule (s) and not those who purchased legal brake kits as that's unfair and unwarranted.

Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FVRacer21

....
If our Ad Hoc committee made a decision without consulting us then shame on them.
....

ChrisZ

---

Just to be clear .. the original FV Ad Hoc Committee put special effort into COMMUNICATING with the FV drivers about things we were discussing and often asked for input on those items. But that Committee was REPLACED by an OFFICIAL SCCA FV Committee - members determined by Topeka. Since it's inception, there has been almost ZERO communication with the FV Drivers. The new committee has been acting on its own and has not, to the best of my knowledge, ASKED ANYONE FOR INPUT on any subject they might be considering. We don't even know what they are talking about until it shows up as a 'new rule' in the CRB Minutes with ZERO input from the 'community'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Davis

Since it's inception, there has been almost ZERO communication with the FV Drivers.

---

There is a reason for this. They are generally restricted from communicating with competitors by the CRB. Have to get permission from the CRB before saying anything. We all know the CRB is not great on communication.

Steve, what details do you remember about the 4.5" approval process? The old Committee might of had an input.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Davis

Just to be clear .. the original FV Ad Hoc Committee put special effort into COMMUNICATING with the FV drivers about things we were discussing and often asked for input on those items. But that Committee was REPLACED by an OFFICIAL SCCA FV Committee - members determined by Topeka. Since it's inception, there has been almost ZERO communication with the FV Drivers. The new committee has been acting on its own and has not, to the best of my knowledge, ASKED ANYONE FOR INPUT on any subject they might be considering. We don't even know what they are talking about until it shows up as a 'new rule' in the CRB Minutes with ZERO input from the 'community'.

---

Steve,

As upset as I am about the procedure, I am not ready to throw anyone under the bus without facts.

"Since it's inception, there has been almost ZERO communication with the FV Drivers." That is different from my experience, as you can see on the FV Forum and in discussions and meetings with the people I know on the committee. No process is perfect, but using something like Kaizen, or continual improvement should be our goal.

If my use of the words "shame on them" was taken the wrong way then I profoundly apologize. I was reacting to other statements that did fit your last sentence and having been an SCCA member for over 40 years, I thought we had moved passed that - hence the anger. But I realize it has happened before and it will happen again. **

The problem with social media is that while you want to take the time to figure things out, you do not want to see wrong information get a toehold.

I am sorry if my emotions got ahead of the facts - 35 of those years have been with FV and all of us have put more in than we have taken out. That is the beauty of FV.

And for those who are not aware, thank you for all you do and have done with the original committee, the Forum and Registry.

ChrisZ

** You should never respond when you are having a bad day at work ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

There is a reason for this. They are generally restricted from communicating with competitors by the CRB. Have to get permission from the CRB before saying anything. We all know the CRB is not great on communication.

Steve, what details do you remember about the 4.5" approval process? The old Committee might of had an input.

Brian

---

Brian,
I could be wrong, but my memory has NO RECOLLECTION of significant discussions about the 4.5 wheels beyond .. "Gee 4" wheels are getting hard to come by and NEW ones are basically impossible". The smallest thing available new at the time was Dune Buggy or Street Rod 4.5 wheels ... I also have NO mention of wheel width discussions in any of the HUNDREDS of emails that I have archived from years past. Perhaps Bruce Livermore (who always seems to have better email organization as well as MEMORY than the rest of us) might remember for sure. I know it 'came up', but I think we just rubber stamped it as "we HAVE to allow this and it's not an advantage" just so people can get NEW WHEELS. It was obvious that the track requirement would have to be increased to allow them .. based on the centerline of the tires with equal backset based on the STOCK later model 4.5 wheels available (used) at that time. NO THOUGHT was directed towards "equalization" of track width between 4 and 4.5 wheels. 4.5 wheels were considered an 'ever so slight' DISadvantage. Personally, IMHO, all this talk about the ADVANTAGE of the additional 0.5 track width is a waste of good internet bandwidth.

I might mention that I also SEVERELY DISAGREE with the SCCA restriction on Committee communication with the membership. I do agree that it IS (must be?) in place since it's followed so well, but it's totally AGAINST the whole 'Transparent Process' that is so needed for a MEMBER DRIVEN CLUB such as SCCA.

Steve,

My recollection is essentially the same as yours: We got some fairly frantic input from the major FV suppliers of the time that NEW (aftermarket) 4” wide VW wheels were no longer available and that the 4.5” (also aftermarket) VW wheels were our only option as a source of NEW wheels. I don’t think we did much research on the subject ourselves and trusted the suppliers. The exact track increase was expected to be a bit more than ½” so I think we chose to round it up to a ¾” increase from the then upper limit of 51.7” bringing it to the 52.5”. We added the same ¾” to the upper limit for rear track. The changes show up between the 2006 and 2007 GCR’s. Of course within about a year, NEW 4” wheels were again available but there was no effort made to go back on allowing the 4.5” wheels and the track changes made to accommodate them. No one seemed to think that the extra track was in issue worth bothering with...

Some snap shots from history, from what I have in my library.

1965 GCR - Front Track: Standard VW – 51.4” Rear Track: Standard VW – 50.7”

1980 GCR - Front Track: Standard VW – 51.4” Rear Track: 49.8” +1/8” -5/8”
(I don’t know why the rear was changed, but it’s interesting that it was reduced.)

1994 FCS - Front Track: Standard VW = 51.4” – 51.7” (No Spacers)
Rear Track: 49 13/16” +1/8” -5/8”

2006 GCR – Front Track: Standard VW – Maximum 51.7” (No Spacers)
Rear Track: 49 13/16” +1/8” -5/8”

2007 GCR – Front Track: Standard VW – Maximum 52.5” (No Spacers)
Rear Track: 49 13/16” +7/8” -5/8”

2009 GCR – Front Track: Standard VW – maximum 52.5” (no spacers allowed)
Rear Track: 49.125” minimum, 50.750 maximum (no spacers allowed)

The 2009 changes were part of the overall rewrite of the rules the original ad Hoc committee undertook in 2008. Why we left in the "Standard VW" verbiage for the front track is a mystery to me except that there was a LOT of other stuff on our plate.

The spacer issue, the increased 51.7” front track and changes to the rear track happened before my time participating in FV (1994 – 2016) so I have no clue as to the reasoning. It's all very interesting and also a bit confusing…

Bruce

(My ears must have been burning or something :rolleyes: )

This posting is mine and I’m not speaking for the FV Advisory Committee or SCCA.

I’ve read this thread carefully through twice and the arguments and points are valid on both sides. About the process, I can tell you that the FV committee and the FSRAC spent considerable time fact-finding and researching the rules and GCR changes on this topic, and there was much discussion between these committees before this issue was presented to the CRB. There are also discussions between committees with members outside the committees to best understand the situation. I know for a fact that this happened with this topic. This process is typical for almost every topic that comes up.

The committees were aware of pretty much every issue mentioned in this thread, and were also aware of positive and negative aspects of each before presented to the CRB. Although the FV Ad Hoc committee has no visibility into the Committees above us, we do know that this letter received a lot careful attention.

Steve D, Brian H, and Chris Z, thanks for your comments on the process and communications. Although we do have restrictions on what we can post, especially compared with the previous FV Ad Hoc Committee, the current FV Ad Hoc Committee has posted public notices at times, and we also now forward notices to Steve Davis for public dissemination through the FV Registry. If you are not registered with the FV Registry, please do so. That being said, we will try to be more informative to the community in the future.

Also, please don’t hesitate to reach out to the FV committee members. We’d be happy to talk.

Hi Bruce!

Thanks, John

Not significant in the discussion, but some historical context ..... perhaps suggesting why the front track was increased more than the rear. Our FV representative on the CRB was selling offset linkpin bushings which were allowing more camber and potentially increasing track slightly. Quietly adding some extra front track to the rules while dealing with other matters would have removed any issues.