Formula D

[Charles Warner]

Bottom line: you want FF type cars to race, then you have to pay for FF type cars.

See, Steve,

We agree on some things after all.

[Jim Garry]

What are you really telling me here, Jim? That you, a FF owner and driver yourself, see your own class as so overpriced, undervalued and unattractive to newcomers to formula racing that an F6 class would kill it off in short order? Or are you saying that FF needs to be rolled into FD (should it come to pass) so that the value of those cars is retained while our de facto entry level formula class adapts to a viable long-term future?

Because if it is the former, we might as well put a bullet in FF right now. Seriously. If OTOH, you are calling for FF to embrace new cars and engine technologies to ensure its own future, then I think we have grounds for a conversation. Let me know.Stan

Hmmm. I really believe if we can't have a conversation Stan, it has nothing to do with me. Your post was really out there.

I and lots of others don't see FF as "overpriced, undervalued and unattractive to newcomers". But the addition of F600 would simply split the class in two. Why do that? Do some people have such a distaste for FF that they want to "put a bullet in FF" as you so eloquently wrote? I can't understand this thinking.

F600 isn't gonna be cheap. The cars could be 10 grand less than FF. That's nice, but they won't cost 18 grand. But there are hundreds (?) of competitive FFs out there to buy. You don't need to buy a new one. But if you want an F600, ya gotta buy new. If Kent owners could trade in their FFs for an F600, it would all work out.

Although your gun is loaded, please put the safety on, Stan. Take some time. And that doesn't mean a year. What I have been calling for repeately in this thread and in others is a moratorium on new classes. Let your group do some real research and evaluation rather than the piecemeal efforts of the past few years. Take a look at the entire structure. Develop a real vision. Stop tossing new classes out there, making some of them national classes right off the bat. It's nuts. And it hurts the club. There also must be class consolidation across the board, not just formula classes. Does the CRB and BOD have the courage for that?

One of the considerations in the Formula category can be opening up Kent engines as you mentioned earlier in this thread. It's a fine idea. This will make them live longer. Another consideration can be adding MC engines to the class. Can't make them equal to Kents? OK, I can accept that. Get them close, let the MC engines have the slight advantage. Make the chassis rules identical. At least the owners of Kent engines and Hewland transmissions won't have to go vintage racing if they don't want to. And it gives them time to use up their equipment before having to buy a MC engine.

I think I'm done.

Jim

[John Nesbitt]

FA, FB, FC, FE, FM, FV, F5, FS, FF, CF, CFC, CFB (as soon as the Stohrs etc. clean up on the converted 90's VD's?), FFirst. We're soon going to run out of alphabet.

I freely admit that I have skin in the game, but I fail to understand what the strategic thinking is behind the BoD's actions in creating yet more national classes. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would wonder whether they simply had decided to dispense with FC and FF (so far) by generating competing classes.

Nothing will restore the glory days of the 70's. That time is past, and open wheel has declined irreversibly. No amount of new classes, however sexy, will change that. Face it, we are managing a decline. By slicing the pie into ever-smaller pieces, the BoD is hastening the decline of open wheel racing. What next? Another Formula M/C to compete with FA?

The BoD needs to stop right now, and wait to see how the Zetec and FB initiatives shake out. The BoD also needs to reveal some coherent long-term vision for open wheel. One hopes that vision does indeed feature consolidation, but a consolidation which provides an upgrade path for existing entrants and does not zero out our investments. In that respect, the Zetec program, however flawed its implementation, was a better plan. Maybe we could learn some lessons from it, and apply them to FF.

The BoD would do well to remember that we (FF owners in this case) are actual current members and entrants. We have invested heavily in SCCA, and we expect the club not to scrap our cars in the search for some hypothetical new players.

[Tim Webb]

FA, FB, FC, FE, FM, FV, F5, FS, FF, CF, CFC, CFB (as soon as the Stohrs etc. clean up on the converted 90's VD's?), FFirst. We're soon going to run out of alphabet.

I freely admit that I have skin in the game, but I fail to understand what the strategic thinking is behind the BoD's actions in creating yet more national classes. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would wonder whether they simply had decided to dispense with FC and FF (so far) by generating competing classes.

Nothing will restore the glory days of the 70's. That time is past, and open wheel has declined irreversibly. No amount of new classes, however sexy, will change that. Face it, we are managing a decline. By slicing the pie into ever-smaller pieces, the BoD is hastening the decline of open wheel racing. What next? Another Formula M/C to compete with FA?

The BoD needs to stop right now, and wait to see how the Zetec and FB initiatives shake out. The BoD also needs to reveal some coherent long-term vision for open wheel. One hopes that vision does indeed feature consolidation, but a consolidation which provides an upgrade path for existing entrants and does not zero out our investments. In that respect, the Zetec program, however flawed its implementation, was a better plan. Maybe we could learn some lessons from it, and apply them to FF.

The BoD would do well to remember that we (FF owners in this case) are actual current members and entrants. We have invested heavily in SCCA, and we expect the club not to scrap our cars in the search for some hypothetical new players.

John,

Well said.

I'd like to see some creative thinking on how to improve FF and not just kill it. Let's drive this bus. We pay the entry fees not the BoDs. FD is not a panacea. Killing off FF guys and their investment in this class is not a way to improve participation.

Tim

[M.L.Sauce]

Someone asked me what it costs to build a competitive FF.I answer by saying I don't know it depends on what you are trying to build.It seems ludicrous to build a motorcycle powered car and think that you are going to save that much money because it does not have a FF engine an drivetrain.The chassis and all the parts necessary to build any car motorcycle powered or not is still not entry leveled priced.Who are we fooling here?I can build a Swift DB6 for about 30k if I had an order for 50 cars.Does that make it cheap enough for some people?Probably not.I think FF is not entry level class anymore.Some people want it to be.I don't care what you call it but you cannot go faster or learn more about car control and race on real race tires for less money.It costs as much money to run Spec Miata competitively as far as parts,cars and support is concerned.Remember this is amateur racing.The free thinkers with more time to think have less time to actually go out and race.That is why this thread is on it's 8th page.I listen to all these people and I would like to know how many entry fees they actually represent. This same old rhetoric about creating something new and for who?Existing racers that are racing.I am not going to buy a F1000 but I sure thought I was especially with the original price quotes I heard 28.5k roller that to me meant a 32-35Kcomplete car.The Stohr is up to 50k.What a joke.Too much money for me at 50k.It is a FF with wings and a motorcycle engine except the chassis does not look safe enough to me.Why does anyone think you can regulate the cost of being competitive?For some drivers it is easy thats why they can win.Some drivers will never win even with competitive equipment.If you want to legislate a class for entry level into roadracing we already have Spec Miata, FV,F/SCCA,SRF and SSC and SSB.Find out what it costs to be competitive in those classes and I think you will be surprised at what value FF has just the way it is.By the way the BOD that I reside on has not discussed getting rid of any classes.Classes in my opinion should be consolidated with concern to keep all cars as competitive with each other as best as possible.I also beleive that we as FF owners and drivers should work harder together to create the future that the concensus desires.If every FF car owner raced as much as 80% of the FF entries at the Runoffs this year there would not be a so-called demise of the class.The numbers are improving so why not take your car to an extra race this year and see what the numbers look like at the end of this year.

[Art Smith]

Mike-

extremely well put!!


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Dave Belz]

I tried to go vintage racing, they wouldn't let me in. I've posted this before, but here I go again...

I started in FV (actually, I drove a S2 in 2 D/S & 1 reg'l. first, but I could only afford a FV). I bought a Lazer kit from Larry Campbell and assembled it in my garage with second hand parts and a "regional" FV motor.

Five+ years and at least a couple of regional wins later (best national finish was a 6th at Road America, Cat), I wanted something faster, so I moved up to a Lola 342. The plan was run in CFF until it became eligible for vintage. HAH! Vintage organizers wanted nothing to do with the 342. They had full fields of virtually every FF which preceded the 342. They had investments in their equipment and enjoyed success, popularity and purity of vintage FF racing. Why should they allow a chassis into vintage racing which obsoleted their cars the first time around? I could run in the CF group, but a 342 is no more competitive in CFF at a vintage event than an SCCA regional.

It had always been my dream to own a "modern" race car, so I sold the Lola and started looking. I first looked at newer FFs, but ended up with a VD RF95 FC (see para. #2 of Steve L's response to Charles, above), primarily because of Kent engine costs and durability. The current plan is to continue racing the RF95 for a couple more years, until the racing fund runs dry. Once that happens, I'm done.

Would a MC engine class keep me involved? The first time I saw anything about MC powered racers was a SportsCar article on revolutionizing xSR with durable/reliable MC power (remember, I'm running on a pretty tight annual budget, so limiting huge engine maintenance costs is VERY appealing to me). Sports racing really took off, but... oops, I can't afford to buy into that. So I got excited about F1000, and... oops, I can't afford buy into that, either. Well, now there's a discussion about FD/F600. Maybe even $20k cars. Hey, I could afford that! No wings? That's OK, I started in FV, then CFF and liked it just fine without wings, it reduces the replacement parts cost as I'm now discovering.

Would more modern technology keep me involved? My dream was to own a modern car. Do you think access to features like sequential or even paddle shifters would appeal to me over a MK9 or LD200? The single biggest reason that I left FV was to move forward by at least 30 years in suspension technology. The single biggest reason I skipped from CFF to FC was the move beyond the fragility of the Kent engine in FF. I'd be willing to spend $20k and then some to get into a formula car with more modern features. I won't spend that amount over the next several years just to keep the motor running.

I don't know what's happening to Formula car racing in general, but I do know what's happening with with my racing fund. Tick, tick, tick.

Dave

[carnut169]

Phoenix has a new roller kit for $18,000 listed right now.

I've outlined the cost to convert my car, and it was not that bad. WAAAY less than a new FB. You will probably see Mike B, Russ M, Sean M, Ian etc chime in with their eperiences and costs.

No, maybe I won't be on the pointy end of a large FB field with my 96 VD and 04 GSXR.... or who knows- maybe I will. The great thing is an annual eng & trans expense of $375 which will keep me racing.


Converting that 95 might just stop your clock.

[Dave Belz]

Phoenix has a new roller kit for $18,000 listed right now.

Converting that 95 might just stop your clock.

That is definitely still an option.

Dave

[Art Smith]

it's my sense most of the participants here at ApexSpeed observing a
newbie trying to set the ride height and tow of their car "by eye" on an
uneven piece of paddock would quickly conclude that the newbie's
probabiliy of success was one divided by an astronomicly large number.
it's also my sense that more, than not, would offer to help, some even
fetching the required equipment to to get it right for a fellow competitor.

in a far too similar manner, anyone with professional experience solving
problems in a technical environment would conclude on observing the
preoccupation with solutions here that the probability of success was
even less than the newbie's!!! people that solve problems for a
living invest a large amount of time doing clinically object analysis to
support coming to a quantifiable problem statement (ie: objectively
verifiable). without a quantifiable problem statement there is no hope
of forging a consensus on what the problem is. time spent on
objective analysis and data gathering is almost always required to
carry the day when the quantifiable problem statement is exposed to
the free and open partisan debate of a large distributed group of interested
parties. one of my favorite books/movies is "Fate is the Hunter" by
Ernest Gann; reading the book or watching the movie would be enjoyable
and enlightening time spent away from the raging debate. the character
portrayed by Glenn Ford in the movie was NEVER interested in designing
a new airplane; he was interested in identifing the "problem"!!!

how can anyone conclude the current group(s) in Topeka is/are any more
likely to fix the alledged problem than their predessors? continued use
of the same techniques and processes that brought us F500, SRF,
F/SCCA, F/M, and F1000 doesn't enspire an abundance of confidence
in me!! a quantifiable problem statement that can survive open extreme
partisan debate is required. it may not be fun, glamorus, or your cup
of tea, but it is what is required. the "New Rational Manager" by
Kepner & Tregoe will make interesting reading to those who haven't
been exposed to professional problem solving and decision making
techniques.


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Sean Maisey]

Art,

I agree with much of what you are saying, but you truely ignor the political and organizational realities of the SCCA. The SCCA has no one doing central planning. The club racing department is not creating a strategic vision for the future, working with racers, sponsors and manufacturers to create class transition plans and lifelines. The fact is that they are lightly staffed and can barely even keep up with the individual rules of so many classes. We are lucky to get a GCR every year.

So, I am not sure that we can expect some sort of George Welchian "sixth sigma" zen solution to these problems. In the past couple of years I have jumped in to a couple of these efforts to change the SCCA status quo. First championing the Zetec in FC and most recently championing F1000. In both cases I know that there would be controversy and that class consolidation would have been preferred. But I knew that F1000 would NEVER be accepted as a FC engine choice, and I felt like the club needed this kind of car to attract new racers under the age of 45. I welcome the new Darwin system as the only alternative to no change.

Let's face it the SCCA is like any semi-representative democracy. The process is ugly and inefficient. A dictator would simply line up some attractive commercial deals for a few lucrative controlled classes (ala SRF, Skippy, Russell, Panoz, IMSA Lites etc...) and tell you to shut up and buy their car if you wanted to race. A year or two later they would sign a new deal, and your investment would be fairly worthless (say SCA, Super V, FRenualt, Panoz GT, FA etc...)

Finally, I do not prescribe to the over analysis of "problem statements" etc. When the house is on fire you either start spraying water or you get out. Standing around wondering what started the fire is not productive. Bias towards action is the mark of a successful individual...

Sean

[Larry]

I like your approach! There is something called "paralysis by analysis," which meant a failure to take action because the data set was incomplete. Many companies have gone bankrupt waiting for the last bit of data to come in. It's generally a sign that the people charged with making a decision are afraid of change, and therefore look for ways to avoid change.

I also like the following definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, but expecting the results to change. While it's nice to have reams of supporting data, sometims it's enough to know that you don't want to continue to have the same results. Sometimes you just need to accept the fact that change is good. Most of us understand that FF is in decline, and that without change, it will continue its death march.

Larry Oliver

[RobLav]

I do decision analysis with the military... and I agree with Larry and Sean.

[Jim Garry]

I guess I'm not done ...

Sean and Larry, I respectfully couldn't disagree more with you. No one is asking for "over analysis". Just SOME analysis. As for "paralysis by analysis", we need to stop, think, look around, and then decide.

Why must we rush to a decision? That is the way SCCA has almost always done the job and look at the mess the club racing structure is in.

I don't think that anyone in this thread has said to do nothing. But statements of "put a bullet in the class", and "death march" are not proven to be necessary or factual. When looked at relative to all the other classes, FF remains one of the higher subscribed classes. Does it need change. You bet! Does it need to be killed off. IMO, NO.

As for the SCCA National Staff being light in numbers, they sure are. There's a pretty tight budget. But the national staff shouldn't be the ones doing the research and making the decisions. It's the membership.

Jim

[Greg Mercurio]

Problem statement? I don't need no stinkin Problem Statement!

Ignoring data is SO new millenium. FF participation numbers, if you'd look at the data, are on the way UP. There must be a reason for THAT, but nobody wants to ask.

If you want to test the F1000 = Newbie participation, just ask how many new Stohr or Phoenix cars are destined for "new" members.

Making it up as you go is incoherent.

Thanks Mr. Sauce, it probably won't be stated as well ever again.

Keep fighting Art, rationality is not a dream.

[Dave Belz]

FA, FB, FC, FE, FM, FV, F5, FS, FF, CF, CFC, CFB (as soon as the Stohrs etc. clean up on the converted 90's VD's?), FFirst. We're soon going to run out of alphabet.

The BoD would do well to remember that we (FF owners in this case) are actual current members and entrants. We have invested heavily in SCCA, and we expect the club not to scrap our cars in the search for some hypothetical new players.

FA - Top of the formula car ladder, no one disputes its cost. Evolution of class has continued until recently due to availability of new pro series spec cars. MC power has been debated and is solidly opposed in the name of tradition and class purity, sound familiar?
FB - Brand new class, many new designs and builders, more new development here than in all SCCA formula classes combined for the last 10 years. Sounds like a good reason to oppose it, to me.
FC - Only a few new chassis sold in the last several years. Waiting for impact of Zeetech. Opposition to (and rules changes affecting) MC power and only a incredible effort by the Zeetech group permitted any evolution of this class. What choice was there but to create a new class for FB?
FE - Formula cars for spec racing biggest problem was rollout, cost creep (and resulting final price) but at least it actually resembles a modern formula car more closely than it does a tank.
FM - Great reliability, poor aero, high cost for the technology that you get. Holds its value well. Unfortunately, it is a perfect match for my philosophy of valuing buy in cost over annual maintenance costs. What keeps me out of this class is the technology.
FV - Still an inexpensive way to get and stay on the track. Technology that is more than 60 years old does not appeal to a lot of potential new racers (should it?). Motor rebuilds are not cheep here either (relative to all other annual operating costs).
F5 - Two stroke smoke and plenty of other personal prejudices on my part (sorry). I has not blossomed, regardless.
FF - Once an incredible leap in performance vs. "entry level" FV with only a moderate increase in cost (Steve L. - was it really, is it actually still pretty close if measured as percentage increase between a "new" FV and FF?). A 40 year old, fragile engine (with no alternative) makes ongoing participation in this class much more expensive than is necessary.
FS, CF, CFC, CFB, FFirst. - OK, CFB is a hypothetical class based on speculative development and we shouldn't include it just yet... As for the rest, they are regional classes not directly regulated by national class structure or rules. You wouldn't want to scrap members investments in equipment at the regional level in the search for some hypothetical new players, would you? I know the answer to that one, but I couldn't resist.

SCCA web site lists seven national formula classes (should be EIGHT they left out FE - Eric S.?), and eighteen production/GT/sedan, etc. classes. There are almost as many CATEGORIES for production based cars as CLASSES for formula cars. My criteria for evaluating my ongoing participation in SCCA Club Racing includes not just ownership and maintenance costs, but also the cost, quantity and quality of track time. The debate over how and why we either attract new participants or kill off classes cannot be limited to technical specs and classifications. You have to include intangibles and perceptions of participants as well. There are only so many classes than you can cram into a two day race weekend paper bag. Art, how does that fit into your quantifiable problem statement? My guess is that you'll end up with several (problem statements), which one do you tackle first, or does that require another problem statement?

Dave

[Rick Kirchner]

Art and Sean are both right.

First, you do have to define the problem, which involves a certain amount of analysis and the conviction that you have asked the right questions, recieved truthful answers, and defined the problem correctly. (Art)

Then, you hypothesize what should be done, in as perfect a world as you can imagine. (Art)

Then, you adapt that plan to what can be done, and take action. (Sean)

I think the F1000 crowd did step 3 based on their own informal interpretations of steps 1 and 2. I also believe that this is how the club has operated in the past, leading us to where we are now and has done so on a number of occasions.

While we cah think of what is needed to project a healthy open wheel environment well into the future, I'll get back on my soapbox about what's really wrong.

Get together and propose to fix the clubs operating processes. Start with the bylaws. Focus on what the club should be doing, which is setting standards and proceedures that can't be easily circumvented by its own officers. Make strategic planning a requirement of the president. There are certainly a number of things that need to be fixed, I don't need to make an exhaustive list here. Force this to happen via lawsuit if necessary. But if you don't fix the problem at the top you are just treating the symptoms, and for the most part contributing to the disease.

[John Nesbitt]

My criteria for evaluating my ongoing participation in SCCA Club Racing includes not just ownership and maintenance costs, but also the cost, quantity and quality of track time. ... There are only so many classes than you can cram into a two day race weekend paper bag.

You can stuff classes into a weekend virtually without limit. The limiting factor is run groups; there are only so many run groups that you stuff into a weekend.

We are heading toward a situation of having run groups with eleventeen different non-production classes, but only one or two cars per class. Look at any virtually any Wings&Things group. This lands directly on the quality of your track time. It would be much better for all if we could do a sensible consolidation, bringing in newer engines and chassis, while not destroying the value of our existing entrants' packages.

The quantity of track time is a direct function of the overall number of entries. If you look back over the past 10 years, you will see that entries in the formula and production classes have declined, while IT and SM entries have increased. It's a long-term demographic change in SCCA entries. There is not much we can do to reverse that trend line, but we can avoid making it worse by not slicing and dicing the remaining entries into ever-more, ever-smaller classes.

[Rennie Clayton]

Let me just preface this (and shock everybody) by saying that I support Art (to a certain degree) in his push for introducing process to what appears to be haphazard introduction of new classes to SCCA. I say appears to be haphazard, because I suspect that is not really the case. I'll elaborate in a moment.

Art, et al, have been operating under the assumption that the Club is trying to establish classes with strong participation numbers. Personally, I feel that this assumption is fundamentally flawed. SCCA finds itself behind the 8 ball with respect to active membership compared to NASA, and I feel pretty strongly that the impetus behind all of the recent class activity is primarily a numbers grab.

As a competitor, I would rather have 3 classes to choose from with 25 competitors each. Every competitor that I have in equalish equipment increases my satisfaction level and likelihood of continuing on. As a Club, I would rather have 50 classes with 2 competitors each. Every paying competitor goes to the bottom line, regardless of whether they are competing against each other or not. Obviously, each approach has its tradeoffs.

To that end, we've all got decisions to make about how we're going to vote on this issue with the most effective ballot we can cast: our pocketbooks.


Cheers,
Rennie

[SSpiffytoo]

I like your approach! There is something called "paralysis by analysis," which meant a failure to take action because the data set was incomplete. Many companies have gone bankrupt waiting for the last bit of data to come in. It's generally a sign that the people charged with making a decision are afraid of change, and therefore look for ways to avoid change.

Around here we call that "The Seattle Way."

[Art Smith]

Rennie-

I'm shocked!!


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Rennie Clayton]

I'm shocked!!

Don't think this means I'm changing my mind about the Kent being a tractor engine...

Speaking of which (and OT - reply privately if you like), who have you got lined up to drive that lightweight Viking-chassised lawn tiller of yours?


Cheers,
Rennie

[racer27]

Need a Plan-Never going to get there if you don't know where u want to go

Rennie brought up the "N"Word, NASA. NASA is structured fundamentally different then the "Club". They are a for profit organization, who needs to tune their products and services to pull in membership and have membership event participation. If they feel that there is profit potential and the desire to compete in the Formula Car Racing Sanctioning business, they'll do as any good for profit entity should, they will:

1- Look at all the data available
2- Look at the Competition
3- Look at other outside factors
4- Look at demographic trends
5- Determine the audience - including their needs and desires
6- Will do market research/focus groups
7- Will determine goals/objectives/milestones
8- See how the new venture fits into the overall "Product Mix", both short and long term
--- Make sure there is no cannibalization
9- Analyze the risk/reward
10- Make a business decision
11- Develop and execute a plan (Includes assigning resources)
12- Market/promote it
13- Adjust as needed

The idea is to minimize risk and maximize the reward. As a club, we need to go through most of the above steps. Unfortunately, it probably won't be as efficient, as our club structure is not naturally suited to this type of approach, nor do I know if we have the resources.

Even before the above steps, I believe it starts developing a broad master plan for the Formula Car Classes. Then defining the attributes of each class (Audience, performance, cost, etc). Put this information into a grid. What you hope to see are very few overlaps. When this most basic information is on paper, the opportunities and issues will present themselves, as they will support or not support the master plan.

[Rennie Clayton]

NASA is structured fundamentally different then the "Club". They are a for profit organization, who needs to tune their products and services to pull in membership and have membership event participation.

True, although I suspect you would have to agree that the SCCA is just as required to tune their products and services to pull in membership and have membership event participation. No participants = no club.

What you hope to see are very few overlaps.

Maybe if your goal is purity of architectural plan. If, OTOH, your aims are maximum membership draw, then you are likely to throw the door open to a much wider field, fragmentation be damned. The first problem is getting participants in the door, and the fragmentation mess is secondary and can be cleared up later, if ever. NASA has a phenomenal growth rate, and that's largely in part to their willingness to take on every little niche competitor under the sun that's willing to pony up the cash to take to the track. Once you have a huge active membership base, you can leverage that much more readily than if you start with a thin pool of competitors. SCCA is taking notice, apparently.


Your conclusions may vary,
Rennie

[Art Smith]

Rennie-

in the absense of objectively verifiable hard data I can't imagine jumping to the unsupported and silly conclusion you've changed your position on the lordly Kent!

the driver for the Viking, like with the Swift and Crossle, will be worked very late in the game; probably later with the Viking given its initial weight. none of the cockpits are
known for being "spacious" and changes to all three to reduce frontal area and improve the mid-section drag coefficients hasn't helped any of their reputations. the plan is to let a dyno sheet and finished car do most of the selling/negotiating in the driver selection process; I've never done well waving my arms in a selling environment. given the Viking is being optimized to be a "pavement pounder", drivers with experience "tilling lawns" will be at a distinct disadvantage in the selection process. the Viking's minimal ground clearance in front, stiff springs, and 37 1/4" swath width will not make it an ideal candidate to be DR's next generation "professional grade" lawn & garden implement!!!


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[carnut169]

NASA has a phenomenal growth rate, and that's largely in part to their willingness to take on every little niche competitor under the sun that's willing to pony up the cash to take to the track. Once you have a huge active membership base, you can leverage that much more readily than if you start with a thin pool of competitors. SCCA is taking notice, apparently.

Its also because they are friendly, inexpensive, well organized and have somehow figured out how to get rid of the "I am God" mentality when it comes to the folks running the events. If they had a specific formula car group I'd attend their events. Problem is that we are grouped with the kit cars and run with 3 series BMWs, Rx7s, 944s, etc (at least here in the southeast) and it just does not feel safe.

[Rennie Clayton]

Its also because they are friendly, inexpensive, well organized and have somehow figured out how to get rid of the "I am God" mentality when it comes to the folks running the events. If they had a specific formula car group I'd attend their events. Problem is that we are grouped with the kit cars and run with 3 series BMWs, Rx7s, 944s, etc (at least here in the southeast) and it just does not feel safe.

Right, so... given that NASA's class fragmentation "issues" dwarf ours by comparison, and they are growing like gangbusters, is all this class fragmentation ballyhoo really the primary driver for dissatisfaction and lack of participation?

Or should we set our sights on other, more pressing matters as targets for rehabilitation...?


Cheers,
Rennie

[Art Smith]

Sean-

if you're suggesting that is should be intuitively obvious to a casual observer that
the "political and organizationa realities of the SCCA" are a part of the problem
as Rick has also suggested in a later post, I whole heartedly agree! just because
the club provides an umbrella for amateur racing doesn't mean it should be
administered and managed using amateur techniques and processes. why should
any of us continue to watch the latest group in Topeka throw "stuff" at the wall when
at the end of the day the membership is financailly responsible for cleaning up the
mess with their finite recreation dollars? who do you think is going to sholder the
financial results of the club's F/Reanult decisions? what do you think the net
present value of the "loan" from the general fund to go the SRF and F/SCCA
business is today? it's hard to imagine that the supplier base's lost opportunity
cost and lost economies of scale haven't been passed on to the membership
meaning the membership lost on both sides to the adventure!! is an asset
that can't be sold without significantly greater financial exsposure (read lawsuit)
really an asset?

it's my sense that use of only average (not 1 sigma, or 2 sigma, or .......6 sigma)
professional techniques and processes in the club's administration and management
of ameteur racing is not too much to expect. through the years I've always believed
the vast majority of people want to do good work and will go the extra mile to produce
good work when objective expectations are clearly communicated to them. in this
case that communications assignment falls to the membership and the community.
the message is simple, direct, and NOT personal; current practices and results
are unacceptable and must improve. while it's always important to acknowledge
effort, at the end of the day we're paying for objective and measureable results. why
is the the need for a mission statement, and its allocation & flowdown to all of the
club's goods and services apparantly approaching rocket sciecne? in a similar
vane, why is the need for written policies and procedures that are required to be
used on a daily basis not intuitively obvious?? and finally, why isn't clinically
objective analysis being required to support the club's decision making process?
it's my opinion that only average professional techniques and processes would
have helped avoid most of the club's current baggage from past adventures and the
membership's financial cost for cleaning up the mess currently at the bottom of the
wall.

hoping you have much enjoyment and success with your F1000 project.



Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Professor]

WOW! This is the super-sized version of the so-called yearly FF alternate engine and/or tire discussion... GOOD!!! People disparagingly refer to these discussions as harmful to FF, calling it the "silly season", the "yearly discussion", or worse. Well that's a BS negative attitude that just won't fly anymore. So I'm saying this is the most positive way possible...
Won't you guys ever get anything going? It's getting just like a continuous circle-jerk now (although I personally have never shared such an experience!) with everyone patting themselves on the back saying how great each others comments are or agreeing how wrong the other people's comments are. I have always argued that "internet areas" such as this cannot ever conclude any serious results, and have hated ever even trying to get anything organized in such a place. I think the biggest section here is the joke section... how appropriate. (Yes, that might sound like a few negative comments, but don't let the
usual panty wadding begin just yet, I'm just trying to make a point on how the this whole thing is not heading in any useful direction. And yes this is another long post of mine...blah, blah, blah... get over it.)

Well FF is not dead (just "dying on the vine" - gotta call it that since nothing better describes how it's fallen from grace), but FF might just as well be dead to the SCCA. FF is a de facto VINTAGE CLASS, and the SCCA doesn't do vintage. In many parts of the country FF activity in "vintage" organizations exceeds FF activity in so-called "racing" organizations. So yes, by definition FF will never actually "die". For some, unfortunately, that seems to be enough! And if you are OK with that, then NOTHING, obviously, needs to be done to help the class, as you pin your hopes on the tiniest little blip on the participation radar.

For those who actually WANT a healthy contemporary class, the purpose here is NOT to "change" FF but as I have always stated to instead "RESTORE" it! Rein in the technology creep (costs), and do some other things (improved competition). YES, naysayers, it can be done with rules updates which again place FF in the correct level of "racing value" to be attractive to new racers and new manufacturers, while enhancing existing drivers experiences with minimal impact (For one possible example, see the "FF in the 21st Century" plan). The rules are just a container into which a car fits. The need is to just change the shape of the container a bit so that ALL existing cars still fit in, and yet allows new cars a chance to be made to fit in too according to market forces, BUT does NOT change the actual product itself. As stated many times, new chassis MUST be built to bring in new racers, and the often-stated simplistic line of saying "well just go race and we'll all be fine" is a failure to understand the reality that "it" will NEVER work unless it makes "sense" in every sense of that word. That means it's an all-or-nothing, integrated solution that is needed. Unless you "fix" the several weaknesses together, you fix none.

Earlier in this thread, you were being warned, AGAIN, by the "powers-that-be" in the SCCA. This is about the third warning in as many years - do something or "we" will do it for you. Since it appears that the FF community still cannot act on any items that are more than just minor engine-builder-driven tweaks which only "prolong the agony", I wish that the SCCA would just go ahead and "shotgun" some changes. Example: I believe there were enough letters in support of a tire rule (I call it a need for a "tire formula", NOT a "spec tire") - why didn't the SCCA just do it? Same with the engine thing - other parts of the world already use the Duratec - just do it SCCA (an "engine formula"). But Fastrack says no action on either tires or engine. But now here it was stated that the so-called ad hoc committee might look at two engines (Duratec and Miata I bet - a year later and back to square one with the original idea brought up). Is this more conflicting information? Another desperate attempt at propriety? But in any case, the SCCA should have the balls to just do BOTH now!

Since lotsa people are using asinine little cliches to describe the situation, here's my own asinine little cliche. Since FF is "dying", in some sense anyway, here are the classic "Five Stages of Death" as relates to the ongoing demise of FF:
1. Denial and Isolation: (up to 2002) Head in the sand; "There's no problem"; "This kinda talk hurts the FFU forum".
2. Anger: (2002 to 2004) "You are ruining the class"; "It will never work"; "It's somebody else's fault".
3. Bargaining: (2004 to present - our current situation!) "Let other classes save FF"; "Maybe we should do something?"
4. Depression: (Future) Sour grapes; Why didn't we do something?; "It used to be such a great class".
5. Acceptance: (Future) "Vintage car for sale"; "Yeah sonny, I used to race those back in my day".

It's not like something HAS to be done, so keep racing your vintage cars. Hey, let's apply to the SCCA to make FF the first official vintage class they have. And I see a "new" 50-year-old technology Kent in the classifieds for over 12 big ones. Gee, and it will even last 25 hours! Boy, you'll never be able to keep the kids down on the farm once they see that! Like they used to say in this former chicken ranch town that I live in: "We're crowin' cuz we're growin'".

Ron

[carnut169]

lol
For what is worth, not everyone sits on their hands- if that was true we might still be discussing FB instead of racing them.

[Jim Garry]

And yes this is another long post of mine...blah, blah, blah... get over it.
Ron

Well, that part was good anyway.

Jim

[Sean Maisey]

Art, Jim, Sean O., Rennie, (et al),

Again I agree with almost 100% of your comments. The real problem with your expectations is that the Club Racing staff at Topeka are largely caretakers. I spent a few unproductive years before I bought the Zetec car, writing letters to the BOD and Comp Boards essentially saying "FC needs the Zetec, let it in". Those letters mostly frustrated the Comp Board and never got me anywhere.

So a few years ago, I was running the Zetec car as a FA in the Runoffs. I had a chance at the formula group tent meeting to talk to several influential SCCA members (Dave G., Joe S., Sandy S., and Kevin K.). Dave and Joe did a very good job of explaining the root problem to me. The SCCA is a member driven organization. The Club Racing staff is not expected or intended to provide any strategic direction or long term planning. They are there to administer the will of the masses. In short I needed to offer not suggested tweaks, but a comprehensive plan.

I came away from the Runoffs with a new understanding. If I wanted the SCCA to change, it was up to me to get the ball rolling. The SCCA would willingly adopt such a reasonable plan, if and only if it was precrafted, fully vetted and seemed to have strong member support.

Shortly after the Runoffs, Rick Silver contacted me. With Rick carrying the flag, a group of Pinto and Zetec FC drivers banded together and worked out a new paradigm for the FC class. I am proud of that work, but it also opened my eyes. The SCCA is relying on us the members/drivers to tell them what we want to happen. If we don't organize and provide them with a clear easily implemented road map, no one else will. Stagnation and status quo will follow.

Sean

[John Merriman]

Obviously there are a lot of strong positions, pro and con, expressed in this thread - a thread which is essentially the 2006-2007 edition of the debate that's raged for years in various forms! It's up to eight pages now and still going strong! But I suggest the answer to Stan's original inquiry can be found on Page 1 where Steve Lathrop offered an intersting proposal. Now here's a guy who's been involved in racing for a number of decades. He's built scores of cars - many of which rose to the top of the class - and he's shown a passion for FF1600, second to no one, for over 35 years. While keeping a realistic and sensible view of open wheel racing and FF1600, Steve recognizes the need for a newer, cheaper, higher-tech car not unlike FF but with some new twists - many of which are directed at holding costs down from day one. And he doesn't see the idea as being a negative, overall, for FF1600. 'Think about it. It looks like a pretty good proposal to me and maybe his ideas can be maximized even further. Perhaps a chassis builder pow-wow with SCCA participation would help refine the idea. Steve also sees FF1600 for what it is - a "fixed" class with what amounts to a "spec" engine, a class which has been great because of rules stability, a class which cannot go on at the top forever - although it still has many healthy years left, regardless. And for all those who think the Club is failing us on a collosal scale, read through Sean's thoughtful post right above. Yes, this is a member-driven Club but obviously the decision has been made to try to encourage members to participate in a process which, it is hoped, will address a decline - and not of FF1600 specifically - but rather, a void in the class structure where FF once reined. And in that regard, we have Stan to thank - for his dogged pursuit of the best possible answer. Hey, I don't always agree with him either. But he asked a question, didn't he? And look at all the fun we've had - each of us throwing our two cents out here!! Well, I propose a reconsideration of Lathrop's two cents again. Frankly, I think he's on to something. johnm63@gmail.com 24 years in SCCA Club Ford

[Wren]

And I see a "new" 50-year-old technology Kent in the classifieds for over 12 big ones. Gee, and it will even last 25 hours! Boy, you'll never be able to keep the kids down on the farm once they see that! Like they used to say in this former chicken ranch town that I live in: "We're crowin' cuz we're growin'".

Ron

as someone who will be looking to move up out of vee's eventually, I don't see why I wouldn't want to move up to a class that costs the same for entry, is slower, and the engines cost more. No reason to think about going zetec continental when I could just go Kent FF with bargains like that out there.

[Rick Kirchner]

Dude - my very low budget costs are around $1K per weekend in a Pinto FC. Tires are $250 of that, and how many FC guys try to squeeze 12 heat cycles out of a set of tires? Engine is about $200, there's about $100 of general maintenance, and the rest is entry, tow, food, race gas, etc, and I stay at the track, in my trailer, and bring my own chow.

Note that tire cost and realize that if I were to suddenly become ultracompetitive the engine costs might double, but the tire costs would at least triple. The discussion here is mostly about future direction as opposed to relative value (although there's certainly an undercurrent of that). The cost of the Kent, Pinto, or any other mill isn't what's going to take your breath away - its tires first and then other stuff.

As far as slower, has the same entry, and costs more for engines, you just described everything except GT1 and FA (they're faster).

There's nothing keeping you from putting a junkyard Zetec in a Crossle 35 and running FS. Maybe it will catch on.

[Art Smith]

John-

truely a well crafted diplomatic statesman like post; if only our rules were
as carefully and well written. that said, it's probably not a surprise I'm not
buying! I've seen this skunk in action before and would know it anywhere:

1.) one or more key members of the CRB, without sufficient objective
data to come to a quantifiable problem statement and anything
approaching a consensus, signals their support for a "ground roots"
membership inititive to draft a set of rules for a new class

2.) miraculously a like minded group of volunteers appears and is
informally recognized by the CRB after being provided a 'process
consultant' to help the group

3.) the recognized group after meeting with the 'process consultant' decides
to work secretly in the name of expediancy

4.) in spite of tremendous investment of time and effort the group produces
another amateurish set of rules full of undefined terms and key performance
rules that are not objectively verifiable

5.) the CRB accepts the draft with great fanfare and hails the effort as the
foundation of open wheel racing in the club for years to come

6.) the CRB, after making a number of minor gramatical changes to get what
they asked for "green lights" the draft through the appropriate hoops while
extolling the spontaneous ground roots membership efforts

7.) the first draft is published in FasTrack precipitating a hailstorm of comments
to the CRB that are ignored since the contributors clearly aren't with
the program

8.) the second draft is published in FasTrack with only an obvious spelling error
fixed/changed precipitating another hailstorm of comments to the CRB that
are also ignored

9.) the CRB citing the ground swell of membership interest and efforts to make
the new class a reality recommend approval to the BOD. the BOD rubber
stamps the recommendation without asking any questions about the:
problem statement, the extent of the consensus for the new class & rules;
proliferation of new formula classes, the transition plan, ........................

10. it is published in the November 20 FasTrack that Formula XYZ is a new National
class effective 1 January 2008 and eligible for the RunOffs in 2009


not a pretty sight that smells even worse!!!


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Rennie Clayton]

Art,

For a guy that publicly prides himself on making choices based solely on "objectively verifiable hard data", you sure do make a lot of assumptions about nefarious intent in that last post. Kindly remove the tinfoil hat and rejoin the conversation.

My understanding from your posts is that you feel that "the club" has not done enough due dilligence with regard to problem domain analysis in order to determine the real problems they should be solving, yes? Well, guess what - you are the club.

While Ron's post certainly has its share of glib sarcasm and makes his frustrations well known, he raises a good point which I will ask of you: What would you like to do to help that process along?


Cheers,
Rennie

[Rick Kirchner]

Rennie - I'd ask what can be done? It seems that the club has plenty of processes for changing classes, but what about for changing the club's operating proceedures? Where are those written down?

From the simple, like not charging any appeal fee when the stewards are found totally wrong, to the complex, like attempting to put some real processes behind some of these things, I've certainly never found anything written that might help folks along in that quest.

[Rennie Clayton]

Rennie - I'd ask what can be done? It seems that the club has plenty of processes for changing classes, but what about for changing the club's operating proceedures? Where are those written down?

From the simple, like not charging any appeal fee when the stewards are found totally wrong, to the complex, like attempting to put some real processes behind some of these things, I've certainly never found anything written that might help folks along in that quest.

Rick,

You are a voting member of SCCA, and with that membership comes certain rights. A good place to start would be the ByLaws of the SCCA.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Greg Mercurio]

Well hell Billy Bob, jes' let'r fly.

Translated: Just make the damn class and let market forces take over. If it takes off, we'll all watch, if it doesn't we can tell the CRB and BOD that their classmakingprocess whatever THAT is, is flawed and needs an overhaul.

It's going to be very interesting to see the participation numbers for F1000 this year. How many years will the class be allowed National status before it actually attains the requirments for National status?

Welcome back Ron. Where ya been?