F1000 CRB Rules Proposal

[racer27]

Stan Writes:

Essentially the entire force of the impact would transfer directly to the chassis, so no, a beer can does not offer any significant foot protection.

I don't think Richard said a "Beer Can" provided a significant amount of foot protection. He stated that it would be an increase over nothing. Even to this non-engineer, that statement seems valid.

I've seen these cars survive roll-overs with no issues at all. The Rules and construction standards adopted to meet and in some cases exceed the rules have proven to be effective. However, when I see a T-Bone incident, or an incident with front end contact with the wall I cringe. Our feet are most vulnerable in these cars. Most of the CF/FF I run with don't have any crush structure at all up front. Others have home grown interpretations of what would work.

Since this new proposed class requires a wing, the wing needs to be supported, so some sort of mount is required. That mount wither it is designed to or not will act as a crush structure. Why can't some do's and don't be written into the rules that these mounts be designed a certain way to protect & crush and not become spears. At very least we should firm up the current standard as a minimum and over time increase that as real world data indicates as it should.

When my proper crush box was broken with minimal contact with trackside debris earlier this year, I was shocked. In repairing it, I doubled up the Aluminum in several places, re-inforced the mounts and added rivets. I'm thinking my next new box, will have the mounts re-visited, may be foam filled and if I find a fabricator, be of composite construction.

[Rennie Clayton]

Scott,

A claiming rule simply means that there is a monetery disincentive to producing a faster car, it doesn't mean that someone can't come along and outspend you to the finish line. I am sure that there will be at least one or two hyper competitive wealthy types who wouldn't mind taking a bath on their $60k car to win a national championship, and that's the bigger issue. With a claiming rule, you will see people loaf through the regular season, then bring out bullet motors for the finale in a bid to simply walk away from the field, and it would be perfectly legal to do so, if a bit foolish from a money standpoint.

I believe, personally, that a better way to accomplish this is to write the rules in such a way that spending exorbitant amounts of money doesn't lend an insurmountable advantage. That's the philosophy behind the SIR: with unrestricted engines, a wealthy competitor can spend his way to a 20-25% increase in power, whereas with the SIR, he can only spend his way to a 5-10% increase in power. An advantage to be sure, but not an insurmountable one. Hell, my Atlantic national championship was won with a 6-8% power deficit over the big guns, so I'm confident it can be done.

You have a penchant for assuming others feel a certain way when they don't agree 100% with your premises.

Thank you. This is right up near the pointy end on the list of entirely missed points.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Art Smith]

it's my sense that Charles, and Larry in a related post, and others are poking around and among the three central problems making bringing closure difficult to this process that is becoming more emotional and less rational with every passing week. it's my opinion the three central problems are no internally consistent:
1.) mission statement
2.) context for the class in the community
3.) transition plan and vision of the end state

mission statement: is F1000 to be a private gated retirement community for old FC cars and other previously homologated tube frame cars that can be updated to FC like rules with a 1-liter stock motorcycle engine (ie: a REGIONAL ONLY CF like class)? OR is F1000 to be a new NATIONAL (masquerading as a Regional class to avoid the rights of passage) class targeted at new cars that welcomes old FC cars and other previously homologated tube frame cars that have been updated to F1000 rules with a 1-liter stock motorcycle engine? in my mind, the alternatives are two mutually exclusive visions of the future! given the demonstrated performance difference between a very well prepared/driven AMAC and any WF-1, why would anyone spend money to convert to a configuration where they're less competitive than their current situation?? if F1000 is a new National class, the level of detail in the rules being discussed has to be resolved to avoid what will surely approach open warfare between manufactors and their installed customer bases. it's "door A" or "door B"; I see no other viable choices.

context for the class in the community:
if F1000 is a "private gated retirement community for old FC cars and other previously homologaged tube frame cars that can be updated to FC like rules with a 1-liter stock motorcycle engine" the mission statement also establiched the class's context in the community. no other current National classes are implicitly threatened with loss of their RunOffs invitation. combined grids of FC's and F1000's would probably make for interesting racing for all involved. if however F1000 is a class targeted at new cars then some very difficult choices have to be made; they only get more difficult if put off for a "rainy day". why do we need another Formula class(s)? with only 24 spots available for the RunOffs, which formula class(s) are the proponents of F1000 suggesting go?? where does F1000 fit in the waterfall of performance & cost??? I don't see new purpose built F1000's being the answer to the suggested need for a $25,000 winged formula car......

transition plan and vision of the end state:
if F1000 is a "private gated retirement community for old FC and other previously homologated tube frame cars that can be updated to FC like rules with a 1-liter stock motorcycle engine" the transition plan and envisioned end state are easy. convert them and race them as quickly and as long as your interest/budget permit. if F1000 is a class targeted at new cars, the permutations and combinations flowing from the possible 'contexts for the class in the community' are too numerous to address. once the proponents make public their vision for the 'context of the class in the community' the real fun will start. immediate and focused "backlash" can be expected in strength since the best time to repell invaders is before they establish a beach head to sustain growth from.....................


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net


given the congressional budget, it works the same way in Washington. to buy a new widget/airplane/satellite/ship/........... one of the existing infrastructures has to be retired and the effected people reassigned to the new thing, sent to a desk job, or retired.

[Stan Clayton]

I always enjoy reading your posts, Art, and this latest is no exception, as you have highlighted an important issue that bears clearing up.

To ensure nobody is confused, the CRB recommended F-1000 to the BoD as a new potentially National class.

If you are following the headlines on the SCCA website, you may have noticed in the third paragraph of the lead article (in the News section) that the BoD recently approved several new classes. (Five new classes were on their docket: F1k, BP, DP and a new T1 as Nationals, and ITR as "Regional Only".) If F1k is among the "several" approved it will be a National class from eight weeks from now, on Nov 1st, and will be among the 29 or so National classes fighting for one of the 24 berths at the 2007 Runoffs.

Everything else flows from this decision, which the staff folks at SCCA say will be the subject of a public announcement soon (next few days?).

Regards, Stan

[Dave Gomberg]

...If F1k is among the "several" approved it will be a National class from eight weeks from now, on Nov 1st, and will be among the 29 or so National classes fighting for one of the 24 berths at the 2007 Runoffs.

Stan has misstated this slightly. Participation in 2007 Nationals will determine which classes will go to the 2008 Runoffs. (It is easy to make this error - I did the same thing two days ago.)

Dave

[Stan Clayton]

Quite so, Dave...thanks for catching that.

[Rick Silver]

Uh Stan, are you sure about that? I would have thought that what would be approved was a class which would become eligible for national status once it made the standard minimums in regional status. I think it would be highly unusual in the current circumstances to do anything else. F1000 would be a regional class which could meet the national class requirements at which time it could then compete for a spot in the Runoffs. That would mean the soonest F1000 Runoffs would be at least 3 years off. And probably a few more years than that as there are not many around currently to meet the 5 division, 5 cars per regional average numbers (or whatever the requirement is).

-Rick

[Charles Warner]

Rick,

It's my understanding that the regional numbers requirements are no longer in place. The CRB can designate a class as a national class from the get-go. Ergo, national class in 2007 and can qualify for RunOffs in 2008. Therefore, the stated "intent" of F1000 "making the numbers" to become a national class in the future is a moot point.

[RussMcB]

So, F1000 may become a national class right off the bat, without the need to prove it's worth?

Wow.

I guess somebody did a heck of a good selling job when they presented it to the CRB.

But does F1000 need to be worried about losing it's national status after a year (or two) with minimal participation? I'll be surprised if there are plenty of F1000 cars racing in nationals next year.

[R. Pare]

A quick read of the 2006 GCR shows no changes from previous years that I could see - 17.1.11 still states that a Regional class needs to meet certain requirement for a certain period of time to be eligable for National status. - I do not see that provision in the CRB authority section either. It is possible that something has been published in Fastrack that I haven't noticed, but if not, the CRB cannot as of yet bypass that rule.

And if it HAS been published in Fastrack, but doesn't get added into the 2007 GCR, it still isn't a rule!


.................................................. .................................................. .............................

Richard,

At which point did I indicate I felt that way? You have a penchant for assuming others feel a certain way when they don't agree 100% with your premises.

The only penchant displayed here looks more like someone who can't keep track of their own thought process!

To wit:

The goal of the Club should also be to ensure that "new" classes are build to more stringent safety requirements, or at least not to requirements lower than previously required.

However, I do not accept all of your personal premises, such as the one above.

Get the picture? Looked to be a rather straightforward statement to me.

No, I just get frustrated with supposedly intelligent people when they add 2+2 and keep getting 7.

As for costs, I have not seen any real discussions regarding keeping the costs down other than Steve's interesting idea regarding the conversion kits at varying levels aimed at extant FC cars. If I missed your suggestions as to how to keep the costs down I apologize.

Apology accepted, but not really needed.

Charles, starting from the very beginning back in January or whenever it was, we have been trying to keep the costs escallation down by getting everyone to eliminate things that we as manufacturers know absolutely without question would escallate costs over time. It started with carbon tubs, carbon bodywork, then to the wide bodywork,the stepped chassis allowance, the wide tires, and so on. With the exception of Rick Silver, we seem to be almost the only people that have posted here that recognize what the current proposal will allow and what it will mean over time, not only in direct car costs, but the potential legal costs also. It seems at times that there is more concern that European cars won't be able to be sold by somebody, than concern that the rules actually do over the long run what you want them to do.

I have personally sent detailed e-mails to the general CRB and BOD e-mail accounts, and as yet have not even had an acknowlement that they were recieved, never mind discussed or even read.

Exactly WHAT it is going to take before people wake up to what these rules mean is beyond me at this point - I've said about all I can in every manner available.

If the Club establishes a certain rule set and some manufacturers don't agree with them then they don't have to build a chassis.

I'm not sure that that statement is even worthy of comment.

[Mike B]

why do we need another Formula class(s)? with only 24 spots available for the RunOffs, which formula class(s) are the proponents of F1000 suggesting go?? where does F1000 fit in the waterfall of performance & cost??? I don't see new purpose built F1000's being the answer to the suggested need for a $25,000 winged formula car......

Who says a formula class has to be cut? If you look at the participation numbers:http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/64RaceStats.pdf the only formula class in remote danger of being axed is F500. There are six fendered classes that would go before it got to that point. In fact, formula cars make up 5 of the top 10 classes and 3 of the top 5! Who says formula car racing is unhealthy?

[Art Smith]

yesterday's brief press release from town hall put a sad end to the plans for the upscale private gated community that has created so much interest here in town. it seems the town council has quietly changed the zoning requirements for the parcel so the high technology office complex that has so polarized the town can be built. while not part of the official brief press release, knowledgable sources with close ties to the council said a number of importers and local manufactoring firms have already signed leases for all of the office space being built during phase one (terms were not available). the press release also clearly signalled that the balance of power on the town council has shifted toward the developers and away from the communities historical roots in family farming, tourism, and being a wonderful quiet place to retire. lawyers for the group working to put the private gated retirement community are already privately suggesting the re-zoning is only the first step in the council's long rumored super secret re-development plan for the east side of town. four of the town's nine large family farms, the people's park, and the town's National Historical site are located on the east side of town on the flat ground between the new high tech office complex and the freeway. with only so much flat ground in town suitable for use, there's likely to be a fierce fight by the long time residents of the town to prevent the unbridled use of eminent domain to further the secret designs of the council in the name of progress.


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Rennie Clayton]

I know I'm breaking the feeding rule, however: don't be a troll, Art. It's beneath you.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Anonymous Lee]

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.

[Stan Clayton]

Yes, Anonomous Lee, the truth is incontrovertible. Unfortunately for you and Art, it has nothing to do with what you are implying. There aren't any black helicopters of conspiracy, and the town council hasn't sold out to foreign interests, but we are nearly ready to launch the class.

As near as I can tell, public discussion of the F-1000 concept dates from 14 December 2004, when Bill Maisey started a new topic titled Growth, in which he proposed a new motorcycle powered subclass for Formula Atlantic. The concept rapidly gained momentum, and less than a month later (on January 5th 2005) Mike Beauchamp posted a link to his first draft of rules for the F-1000 class (see post #72).

Far from being a "gated community" for unloved FC cars, that first draft was broadly inclusive right from the beginning:

Definition. A formula for purpose built, open-wheel, open cockpit racing cars, which meet the general regulations of Section 17 of the GCR for Formula Category cars. F1000 is a combination of converted Formula Continental, Formula 2000, Formula Ford, Formula Super Vee cars, and purpose-built motorcycle-powered cars.

Monocoque cars were welcome in the early months of discussion. A significant minority wanted engines up to 1300cc Hayabusas. Turbochargers were permitted up to 620cc, and the DSR engine rules were the default supposition.

Then cooler heads prevailed and the majority wanted a more cost effective solution. Tube frame chassis were settled on. Engines were rolled back to one liter and turbos were outlawed. Eventually, stock engine internals were required and the CRB has retained the right to impose an SIR should they feel the engines have gotten too powerful.

The cars will still run circles around an FC, not to mention look and sound better, and the class displays all the hallmarks of a strong, successful start. Maybe that disappoints those who want a quiet place to race their low-budget one-off, but there is nothing I can do about that. There is simply too much interest and too much excitement. So for folks like Art, I say forget the "paralysis of analysis"... build a car and come on out and have fun.

But please don't suggest we sold out to back room interests. It's not true and we all know it.

Regards, Stan

[Anonymous Lee]

If men would consider not so much wherein they differ, as wherein they agree, there would be far less of uncharitableness and angry feelings.

Stan, my only statement was about truth but in the end there it is.

[RobLav]

Stan's got it right here.

[sidney]

I've lost track of who posted what. Too many threads and too many "constructive" agruements.

The part I struggle with is how to give the guy who wants to build his own car, buy a "kit" to convert or convert his own car himself a chance against the manufacturers. This way we get more guys with varying levels of manufacturing skills to come out and play. Otherwise the conversion guys will leave their older FCs in the shop. I'd like to see more input on how best this could be done. However, if the rules are made such that this near equality can exist, then the market price for a new car will be much lower, at least to start. This means that the guys with the most knowledge and I'd respecfully submit, influence over the rules are less motivated to assist in this activity.

[Stan Clayton]

If men would consider not so much wherein they differ, as wherein they agree, there would be far less of uncharitableness and angry feelings.

Stan, my only statement was about truth but in the end there it is.

Oh please, Lee, spare us the pius self-deprecation. If this was about truth, why would you plagiarize Churchill and Addison in your last two posts?

[RobLav]

A few thoughts here:

- The most important nut on the car is the nut behind the wheel. Good equipment helps, but it's still the driver that makes the vast difference. I've watched a friend in an old 1989 Van Diemen, competing in CFC, wipe almost everyone in FC. Good Club Ford drivers do the same thing in FF.

- This class will be all about "development". I'd predict that, initially, converted cars (especially 1998 and up VD) will be competitive with new cars. The "tinkerers", who we wanted to convert cars, must continue to tinker with the aero, weight distribution, underbody area, frontal area, difusors, shock settings, etc. But this development also applies to new car manufacturers as well.

- At some point in the future, probably in about 2-3 years, a new car manufacturer will emerge as the premier car for the class, and everyone else will be following that lead.

- If someone offers a really good rear end structural conversion for 98 and up VD's, that would be a great start. Then we can play with the aero, difusor, and shocks / springs. I'm hoping Steve / Richard, Lee, etc will design and sell these. Older VD's could also be competitive, especially 1997, but they will require a different structure between the engine and the chassis. I'm sure that aero people, like Pennon, will start manufacturing difusors, wings, and other aero devices specifically for the class.

- With all the interest in the class, I doubt it will ever turn into a monopoly of one car type, more likely an oligopoly (a few) - similar to what happens in the course of natural economics.

So... there's my predictions. It's going to be all about development (including the nut behind the wheel). Darwin at its best.

[Bill Bonow]

Disclaimer: I have no dog in this fight at all.

I am very curious about some statements that were made, questioned by others and not answered directly. For myself (and I hope a few others) I think it would really be of benifit to be clear on this issue.

Stan Clayton: To ensure nobody is confused, the CRB recommended F-1000 to the BoD as a new potentially National class. (yes, I do see "potentially")

Dave Gomberg: Participation in 2007 Nationals will determine which classes will go to the 2008 Runoffs. (general statement, but in support of Stan's statement)

Rick Silver: I would have thought that what would be approved was a class which would become eligible for national status once it made the standard minimums in regional status.

Charles Warner: It's my understanding that the regional numbers requirements are no longer in place. The CRB can designate a class as a national class from the get-go.

Russ McB: F1000 may become a national class right off the bat, without the need to prove it's worth?

Richard Pare: A quick read of the 2006 GCR shows no changes from previous years that I could see - 17.1.11 still states that a Regional class needs to meet certain requirement for a certain period of time to be eligable for National status. - I do not see that provision in the CRB authority section either. It is possible that something has been published in Fastrack that I haven't noticed, but if not, the CRB cannot as of yet bypass that rule.

Again, I have no direct interest in F1000. I do have interest in my club. That same club has had legal issues that stemmed directly from "rule breaking". If F1000 becomes a National class right out of the gate and our club rules do not allow this (per GCR 17.1.11), are we opening up the club to more litigation? If I owned a FSCCA car (stuck at a regional level) and F1000 came on as a National class, I think I would have some pretty serious issues.

Coming to my point, if something has changed in the classification process, please clarify it as what I am reading here appears to be not by the written rules.

[R. Pare]

However, if the rules are made such that this near equality can exist, then the market price for a new car will be much lower, at least to start. This means that the guys with the most knowledge and I'd respecfully submit, influence over the rules are less motivated to assist in this activity.

It is sad that people keep make that assumption, because, for the most part, that is not the case.

Market price of anything will be determined by production costs and profit margin needed to make it worthwhile, and that's about it.

Escallation of that market price will be ultimately determined by what the rules structure allows to be developed beyond the current level, and whether or not people feel it is worth it to them to spend that much extra. It wouldn't matter what XYZ Manufacturer builds for a kick-everybodys-butt car if no one is willing to pay the asking price.

To manufacturers, the long term health of their business is based a lot in being able to sell the same thing to as many people as possible for as many years as possible. To that end, it is in their interest to have a rules set that minimises customer drop-out from costs escallation.

[R. Pare]

Bill:

I doubt highly that the Club could be sued over the scenario that you put forth - but you never know what a skilled lawyer can get accepted as a valid arguement!

[Anonymous Lee]

"Screws fall out all the time, the world is an imperfect place." John Bender

"I'll tell you what, you can get a good look at a t-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it." Tommy Boy

[Stan Clayton]

Stan Clayton: To ensure nobody is confused, the CRB recommended F-1000 to the BoD as a new potentially National class. (yes, I do see "potentially")

Bill,

I wrote "potential" because at the time the CRB recommended F-1000 to the BoD it was unclear to us what the criteria would be for moving from Regional to National status in future. I understand that the details are still to be worked out, but the introduction of the 24 class limit at the Runoffs removed the need for distinguishing between National classes and Regional classes which could (at least in theory) regain their National status. Except for Regional Only classes, all approved classes henceforth will be National, and distinguished by whether they earn a berth at the Runoffs or not, and they will be free to float up and down that scale.

One of the classes considered by the BoD at their recent meeting was ITR, which the ITAC specifically submitted as a "Regional Only" class. They did not ask that the class ever be considered for National status. In contrast, it was clear from the submission for F-1000 that the proposal authors wanted the class to have the opportunity to earn its way to National status, which brings me full circle to why I said "potentially". We will simply have to wait until the results of the BoD meeting are published to know exactly what they decided.

Just as F-1000 will benefit from 'good timing' if it's approved, F-SCCA appears to have been caught in the pits during a 'full course caution'. Once the F-SCCA guys catch onto the new paradigm, though, I would not be surprised to see a chorus of calls for them to have their own class. And I would not object. If that's the new paradigm, then they too should have their shot at a Runoffs berth if that's what they want. My only caution to them is, 'be careful what you ask for', because if they get instant National status and then are mired in 26th place, it could be a long dry spell before they get to go to the Runoffs again, if ever. At least now they can go as Atlantics, but in the end that is for them to decide.

Same thing for any other new classes contemplating seeking SCCA recognition. Decide whether one wants Regional Only or National status before making one's submission, then be prepared to live with the consequences.

The astute reader has already asked 'why the need for change'. Simple, the Club has never really stuck to the existing rules. Consider the present rule; maintain a 0.5 cars per race average above the minimum for 2 years running. In practice, the rule has never been used. First of all, average in what? Cars have to be approved in a National class before they can meet this standard, so if they are a Regional class desiring to move up to National status they can never get there unless they are first approved as a addition to an existing National class. FM was a subclass of FA, but got its National status in 1998 before meeting the letter of the law. AFAIK, nothing before that ever met the law, and SM was approved without ever meeting ANY National participation goals whatsoever.

So what to do? A rule is meaningless if it is not adhered to, and the BoD appears to have faced up to that and appears to be changing the rule to suit the reality. I anticipate that the 2007 GCR will reflect this new reality, what ever its final form takes.

Hope that helps...

Stan

[Bill Bonow]

Stan,

Thank you for the detailed explanation and yes, it did help me understand. I have often commented that the existing GCR 17.1.11 was the Regional to National "gauntlet" that could most likely never be met.

My post was mostly based on not wanting to see the club get itself into anymore trouble.

[sidney]

Market price of anything will be determined by production costs and profit margin needed to make it worthwhile, and that's about it

Richard, I don't want to get in a fight here, but being a sales and marketing wennie, I have this conversation with engineers on a daily basis. Market price has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the cost of an item. Do you really think it cost BMW a lot more to produce, ship and import a 3 Series versus a Ford Fusion? Or the market price of a Sony Playstation is set by how much it costs to produce? No, but people pay a higher price for image, perceived quality, the number of participants in the area, etc. The only impact market price has on a project, is if you invest in it at the start or not, once you are comitted, you must make the cost of the item produce an acceptable profit, or you are out of business (you have a "dog" in sales terms).

Image does not sell race cars, the first guy to the flag does and the steed he chooses to ride, and if he/she can do it for $20k and win races, they won't spend $40k unless they are mathmatically challenged. If I were a builder, I'd figure out how much it would cost to produce a car and then work like hell to make sure that a lower cost alternative couldn't be easlily created to give similar results. Otherwise, the market price drops, and the profits on my significant investment are gone.

[R. Pare]

Sid:

I'm not sure that your post is even worth rebutting - we basicly said the same things, but in different ways, and aimed at different subjects. How you put 2+2 together and got 3 is beyond me!

[sidney]

Help me out, what is the current level of an F1000 car? Since I know of only one car in the entire world that fits the rules as posted, is that the current level, or is the soon to be unveiled Stohr F1000 the standard by which all escalation will be measured? If I understand you correctly, then let's get all the really smart engineering guys in a room and figure out a way to prevent the arms race as seen in DSR by setting the rules based on the history of events as we know them in other classes. History repeats itself.

If I understand Richards comment correctly, Lee didn't want to make a new car with "tunnels", because the goal is to produce the very same car over and over again, year after year. Why did he do it? Because he knew it would give him a huge competitive advantage over other manufacturers who would now have to play catch-up and customers would pay a premium for his car and was within the rules as written. Sounds like good business sense to me. Looks like all those guys who bought something else are now trying to level the field = spend more money = arms race.

Let's make it easy on the manufacturers and set the rules such that they can design a car which will be successful for a number of years without needing the "update of the year kit" to be competitive. It will help produce a base of cars that will retain their value in the event of resale, and hopefully allow for lower parts costs when spares are needed. Kinda like those almost 20 year old FF Swifts. They seem to still be very competitive in the right hands.

Then again, this may be the vision of a foolish dreamer.

P.S. In Marketing 2+2 can equal anything the customer desires. That must be why I failed engineering and they moved me there.

[Rennie Clayton]

I'm not sure that your post is even worth rebutting - we basicly said the same things, but in different ways, and aimed at different subjects. How you put 2+2 together and got 3 is beyond me!

Tom Smykowski, for the win!


Cheers,
Rennie

[Stan Clayton]

Yeah, "It's a "Jump to Conclusions mat". You see, you have this MAT, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO."

Get it...?

My favorite movie, dude!

[Charles Warner]

He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument.

(Love's Labors Lost, V,1,18)

[R. Pare]

Help me out, what is the current level of an F1000 car? Since I know of only one car in the entire world that fits the rules as posted, is that the current level, or is the soon to be unveiled Stohr F1000 the standard by which all escalation will be measured? If I understand you correctly, then let's get all the really smart engineering guys in a room and figure out a way to prevent the arms race as seen in DSR by setting the rules based on the history of events as we know them in other classes. History repeats itself.

The "current level" that people desire is a car that can be converted out of a decent FC, and perform "slightly" faster, AND new roller availibility at around $35k or so.

That "current level" some us are arguing will be quickly raised in both performance and price to the user IF that increased $$ price is judged to be worth it to the user. The rule set proposed allows exactly that scenario.

That "one car that fits the rules as posted" is the level that most guys would want, I think, but that car is nowhere NEAR the level that the rules actually allow!

If I understand Richards comment correctly, Lee didn't want to make a new car with "tunnels", because the goal is to produce the very same car over and over again, year after year. Why did he do it? Because he knew it would give him a huge competitive advantage over other manufacturers who would now have to play catch-up and customers would pay a premium for his car and was within the rules as written. Sounds like good business sense to me. Looks like all those guys who bought something else are now trying to level the field = spend more money = arms race.

The world is full of defunct racing series that allowed costs to escallate beyond that which the players were willing to pay - time will tell whether or not Lees' "good business sense" can be sustained if the costs go even higher over time. Shortly after the DB1 came out, Ralph Firman asked David Bruns : " OK, now what are you going to sell them next year?". Guess who is still in business..........

and where FF is in the participation numbers now compared to then.

Let's make it easy on the manufacturers and set the rules such that they can design a car which will be successful for a number of years without needing the "update of the year kit" to be competitive. It will help produce a base of cars that will retain their value in the event of resale, and hopefully allow for lower parts costs when spares are needed.

Exactly what I have been arguing for!

[Lee Stohr]

The comment about the Swift DB1 is very interesting. You are right, there was nothing better to build the following year. The class grew stagnant. But I feel that's not Swift's fault. If a class has lots of rules to keep the cars equal and restrict new technology and supposedly cost, then eventually the ultimate car for that set of rules gets built. Then the class begins to die, like S2000, FF, FC, etc. I think that is because car racers get bored if they can't make their cars faster ! We want cool new stuff ! In my opinion, a class with almost no rules like DSR is best. It never gets stagnant, you can never build the ultimate car when there are so many unrestricted areas to explore. Yes, old DSR's become obselete, but the class doesn't. The whole class of FF and such will die - DSR will constantly re-invent itself. It already has over the last 5 years. I don't think FF, S2, etc have ever done that.

[S Lathrop]

Very interesting idea Lee.

Let me suggest for others to ponder and discuss that it was economics that brought FF, and S2 to their present state. When FF became a super class (say selling over 200 cars per year -- my definition), the cost of car was slightly over half of medium income. At the time Swift arrived the cost had escallated to 100% of medium income. Then S2000 looked like a good alternative to FF. But S2000 fell victum to some dum policies and FC came along with more performance for less money.

I would guess that if you look at FF and FC along with the spin offs of those two classes then the number of cars participating in all SCCA racing combined is probably stable and represents a significant percentage of SCCA Club racing.

F1000 will probably not help FF or FC but it will be very successful if it expands the participation of this basic class type -- the combination of FF, FC and F1000.

I only wish the rules would have kept F1000 closer to FF and FC so the benefit of any expansion would better accrue to the current participants of FF anf FC.

Simply put, is it technical dullness that is killing FF and S2000 or economics?

To my knowledge, no SCCA class has ever rivaled FF for expansion. Maybe FV was very close. I am certain that the Daytona FV races of the late 60's were the biggest fields at over 100 cars per race. Elkhart Lake would have FF and FV races of 90 entries. I think it was economics that made that possible.

I think a better effort would have been F600 -- a more restructive FF type class. A true economical, exciting, entry level class in the style of FF and FV.

[sidney]

So now the picture seems to get clearer for me. I am clearly in a similar camp as Richard, Write the rules to make sure a wider financial base can competitively participate in the class (my reasoning) working toward a strict definition with an aim to create equality and limit new option development.

Lee sees long term viability in having the rules as wide open as possible to allow for continued evolution.

If I understand the rules as they are currently proposed, the engine is strictly controlled, and the aero, not so much. Maybe the initial writers had the right idea, when they included a little of both. Only time will tell.

[Rennie Clayton]

If it's not technically interesting, it had better be cheap.

If it's not cheap, it had better be technically interesting.

Personally, I suspect FF is dying because it's neither cheap, nor technically interesting. Skew it one way or the other, and it would pick up from where it is.


Cheers,
Rennie

[RobLav]

In response to Steve's comment:

"I think a better effort would have been F600 -- a more restructive FF type class. A true economical, exciting, entry level class in the style of FF and FV."

In the F1000 rules committee, we discussed two other alternative paths alongside F1000. One was a 1300cc (Hayabusa / ZX-14R) class with performance similar to FA and the other was F600 to perform near FF. We obviously focused our efforts on F1000, but we recognized the possibilities with the other two potential classes. F600 would be a great class for recent FSAE college grads (as well as many other people).

All of this could eventually fall into Stan's idea of FA, FB, FC, FD, etc... but there would be tons of backlash from the club. But we have to move forward. Stagnancy means eventual death.

[Stan Clayton]

Rob,

The Formula Ford Ah Hoc Committee recently recommended adding 600cc m/c engines to the FF mix (along with a couple of 1600cc auto engines), but were met with an overwhelming NO! from the class. Therefore, if something like this is to emerge, both cheap and technically interesting, as Rennie would call it, then it may have to be in a new class.

Stan

[Marshall Mauney]

The Formula Ford Ah Hoc Committee recently recommended adding 600cc m/c engines to the FF mix (along with a couple of 1600cc auto engines), but were met with an overwhelming NO! from the class. Therefore, if something like this is to emerge, both cheap and technically interesting, as Rennie would call it, then it may have to be in a new class.

The same conversation has been going on in the F500 community, with roughly the same results. The concern in F500, though, is that it could increase costs. Everyone seems to think it's a good idea, they just don't want it in their class.