CF Rules for the ARRC

[EYERACE]

track gas at sebring was $7.50 a gallon in Feb.......and the AV gas at sebring was $2.98 a gallon.....
...................now what do you think eye use? i was told by those that put the rules together when the fuel port rule and testing came in the other year, that they didn't want to ban AV gas.

i can drive to a small private airport about 20-25 minutes outside of orlando these days and buy their AV gas for about $4.00 a gallon. twenty gallons of price difference begins to add up a little.

the problem with a rule that says AV gas is OK is..........how does one know some fuel being brought into the event is really AV gas or instead the secret rocket fuel? some of them smell different when run. in general AV gas looks a bright blue color. i've never seen C-44 but i bet it doesn't look the same color.

i was earlier going to ask that the supps say AV gas is OK......but does anyone besides me care.....and how could fuel be policed other than the reagent test kit the SCCA has in the GCR?

[andyllc]

Hey Mark
That is exactly what I am afraid of "that I am done with open wheel racing". I havent done it in quite a while so I think it will be very tough because Duck was tough when I was racing open wheels and that was in 2000 that I ran him, Im old now

[jgaither]

Hey Mark
That is exactly what I am afraid of "that I am done with open wheel racing". I havent done it in quite a while so I think it will be very tough because Duck was tough when I was racing open wheels and that was in 2000 that I ran him, Im old now

You think you're old! Hey, Rand. Look who's old!

Andy - your kart team needed you on Monday night.

jg

(42 posts for a CF race - pretty good. maybe lathrop will build some "continuation" models. all the rage in vintage don't ya know)

[John Robinson II]

I would be more then happy to work with Butch.
My opinion is this... hard tires, run tires from the qual session of your fastest lap, track fuel ( Stan, if you show up I will pay you the difference in fuel costs) let the tweeners ('85 and older, cept for DB-1) run in a seperate class on same tires. If they are only competitive with the regular CF, then next year just one class. I am not in favor of the different weights, but if it is the consensus, then it shall be WRITTEN in the sups.

John

[Michael Rand]

I vote for John's proposal.
Consider this an electronic drivers meeting, show of "hands" so we can move forward ?

[jgaither]

I vote for John's proposal.
Consider this an electronic drivers meeting, show of "hands" so we can move forward ?

I think we ought to hear from some of the tweeners before we vote on their rules.

Other than that, my hand is up for the YES vote.

jg

[John Robinson II]

3 for, none against...Butch hurry and write the supps, just kidding. Butch will be at RR this weekend andwill probably have a report from some of the real supporters of the SE CF class.

John

anybody got a a tweener out there willing to part with for a few months of intense development work?

[TedV]

anybody got a a tweener out there willing to part with for a few months of intense development work?

I got an RP-31.... that close enough? think you can sort one of those out? I know, y'all want to see just how a tweener would stack up.

and uhhh... you might be carrying a transmision back to James for some repair, Daytona weekend.
Thanks!!

Ted

[John Robinson II]

Ted,
James is another 250+ miles south of me, I dont speak the language down there.

John
P.S. a Rp-31 is not a tweener.

[Mike Allison]

John

anybody got a a tweener out there willing to part with for a few months of intense development work?

John, I vote for your platform. As stated earlier, I've got 2 Club Fords ( Crossle 30F and Zink Z10) and can only drive one. Wanna drive the other? I'll pay for your track gas and the fuel for the Tweeners that join us. (Non-SouthEast drivers only). Those Tweeners are developed enough.

Mike

PS - Late news, John Gaither is reported to be angling for the Z10 seat. Gaither is reported to be bringing a huge Go-Kart sponsorship package with him

[Roux]

my hand is up. I like the current JR specs

[andyllc]

John
I know I heard but I will be "testing" on Saturday night to get ready for the Monday night showdown.

I vote yes on the Robinson proposal as well.

[jgaither]

We've only heard from one person with a "tweener".

Does anyone have a list or anything from the regional series that run in other parts of the country? I can see if Jim Creighton down here can help on this end.

JR's suggestion is fine with me, but I'm not a tweener guy either.

jg

[rickjohnson356]

Well, now I wish I had my C35 or C45 back!

sounds like momentum is building for a CF revival.

I bought the C71 to get in with the (then) popular CFC class, but it went away. I guess I'm just one step behind the curve.

If I had a vote, I would go with JR rules.

However, eye agree that AVGAS should be allowed as it is fresh and consistent. You never know how long the 'track gas' has been in the underground tank collecting water & who knows what other contamination. Eye have never had a fuel-related problem when using AVGAS..

[Michael Rand]

I spent some time looking at results from the last few seasons here in the NorthEast [yes, mostly Lime Rock, but that is where we get the biggest fields anyway, and including the Glen Fun One, a well supported Double] and what we are all referring to as "Tweener" cars appear very thin on the ground.
I found 2 Reynards, one RF84 VD, 2 Crossle 60/62's, and that's it. And that is over about 14 events during 2005 and 2006.
Everything else is either clearly CF [or NCF up here, NARRC CF, hard tire rules] or clearly FF. like late model VD's and DB-1's. Oh yeah, and Eddie Callos Bowman, the answer to the question no one ever asked....
Maybe they are all turned into Solo cars?
Maybe the SeDiv has a bigger group ?
There must be hundreds and hundreds of these cars out there somewhere.
I know there are several up North running the OFFC series.
But where did they all go ?
Certainly Swift killed the British FF manufactureres to a large degree, but VD and Lola and Crossle and Reynard kept building cars and we kept buying them, so where the hell are they ?

[EACIII]

My old tweener, the Lola 644, is on it's way down under. They seem to be buying up a lot of these type of cars down under. I replaced it with a second Bowman, maybe I can get a Spec-Bowman class going.

EAC III

[Mike Allison]

My old tweener, the Lola 644, is on it's way down under. They seem to be buying up a lot of these type of cars down under. I replaced it with a second Bowman, maybe I can get a Spec-Bowman class going.

EAC III

Ed, I think you need to have enough cars built to the same specification to have a "spec" class. How many Bowman's were built anyhow?


Mike

[EACIII]

From what I understand they made eleven of them. Two are in Canada, one in Europe, I have 2 and I know where 4 or so others are in case I need more parts. Oh, and they are not all the same. The two I have are identical (thats why I got those 2), but they kept "improving" the chassis with each car.

Ed

[GT1Vette]

OK guys, besides the input here I've talked with Steve Robertson, Steve Brooks and the Duck down at RRR this past weekend (didn't make it by to see James Lee). All are in agreement with the following (which we'll refer to as the "JRII proposal"):

. All cars must meet the current GCR specs for FF
. Track fuel
. Hard tires (Goodyear 600, Hoosier 60, American Racers, Dunlop treaded, any DOT tire)
. Race on what you qualified with
. Open rain tire if Chief Steward declares it a rain race

Two classes:
CF - '84 & earlier, outboard suspension on at least one end
CFX - '84 & earlier, except Swift DB-1

The CFX designation is certainly negotiable ("CFT" is an option) but make it easy to build it out of tape.

Is '85 the correct date? (no, changed to '84 on 5/1/07)

Also do we need to mark the tires or just make sure no stickers show up for the race? (if they do, then they start at the back of the pack) (5/1/07 - consensus is to mark the tires for each session)

Separating the Tweeners but putting them on the same tires accomplishes two things: it keeps from mucking up the "traditional" CF class plus it gives us feedback on whether a good Tweener will run away from a good CF. If no Tweeners show up in 2007 we drop them from the menu for 2008. If they show up and run mid-pack we consider combining the classes in the future, but if they show up and dominate then we keep the separate classes.

Let me know if I've missed the boat on anything, then I'll submit it to the ARRC Committee for approval (although I guarantee it'll pass if that's what you guys want).

Otherwise start making your travel plans now (Nov. 8-11) for Road Atlanta...

Butch Kummer
2007 ARRC Committee Chairman

[John Robinson II]

Butch,
I think the tires should be marked as to qual sessions. If one wanted to, they could put down a good lap in the first session, then use the second to scrub off the stickers and use the newer tires for the race. This should be easy enough to police on the grid as the grid sheet usually shows which session the qual time comes from.

Interesting, James did not tell me Frank was there...the Duck must be to busy with those commercials and slipping to let Steve win both races.

Send the rules and lets race.

John
Still looking for a tweener ride...

[Mark Walthew]

I like the CFX rules as proposed but the cutoff year bothers me. I have a Van Diemen
RF-85 that I believe meets the rules. There is very little difference between an RF-85 and a RF-86. Every RF-85 I've seen has the '86 wide track front suspension. So it seems strange the 85 could be raced but not an 86. Perhaps the cutoff year should be a later but that might open it up to other cars you don't want, I don't remember all the differences in other chassis. Maybe rocker cars except Swift DB-1, DB-3 would work? Or maybe the cutoff year should be '84.

Mark

[Michael Rand]

Hello to Butch and John from New England.
I don't want to speak for the rest of the NARRC field but I, for one, am good with the proposal as stated.
Please let me know if there is anything I can from up here, aside from trying to marshall the troops, to help.
The very real intention at this point is to be there in November with some of the regulars from around here in tow.
Looking forward to it......
Mike Rand

[GT1Vette]

I'm good with marking the tires, but I/we still need an answer on years (and they can be different for CF and CFX). You guys need to come to an agreement and let me know.

BK

[Mike Allison]

Butch, I'm good with the rules as stated. I don't know enough about the '85/'86 chassis to vote on a cutoff year. Probably won't be able to please everyone, but I appreciate your effort.

I will be there with both cars. Me as Driver #1, Driver #2 TBA.

See ya,

Mike

[Michael Rand]

I suggest we go with the Ontario Formula Ford Challenge rules as they are established and have proven successful.
They state: Class A, Cars built in 1985 and later, therefore our CFX would be true tweener cars, cars built before the Swift influence was felt, which the VD RF85-6-7 were Brit "copies" to some degree.
They further state: Class B, cars built up to and including 1984.
Pretty straightforward.
And, as in the OFFC, everyone runs to the same rules regarding tires. That being the choices we have established, unlike the OFFC where everyone must run Dunlops.

[James Lee]

Butch it should be 84 and older except Swift DB1.

[flat broke]

I suggest we go with the Ontario Formula Ford Challenge rules as they are established and have proven successful.
They state: Class A, Cars built in 1985 and later, therefore our CFX would be true tweener cars, cars built before the Swift influence was felt, which the VD RF85-6-7 were Brit "copies" to some degree.
They further state: Class B, cars built up to and including 1984.
Pretty straightforward.

Makes sense Mike. Good to encourage the "tweener" cars before all the 82-84 Reynards migrate north of the border.
Just curious as to why there is oppostion to adopting the OFFC weight minimums. There should be some benefit in running an early "outboard" CF if you are hoping to blend the later "inboard" cars into CF over time. Granted, that the advantage is mosly theoretical.

Tony (1977 Ferret)

[GT1Vette]

See the changes as updated above (post #59).

Unless I hear major screaming in the next week, this is what I'll submit to the ARRC Committee.

BK

[mblanc]

If one wanted to, they could put down a good lap in the first session, then use the second to scrub off the stickers and use the newer tires for the race. .

RE: marking tires. I still think this is a waste of time.

The hard compound tires don't see a big diff in being new or not, and lots of people have stated they think they're faster if they're a few cycles down anyway.

Also, it can penalize the guy with the puncture, or slow leak found on way to the grid, or replace a pair of flatspotted tires, plus it also keeps you from running your 12+cycle set in qualifying, and 3 cycle set in the race, which can be another way to keep rotating tire sets to increase their life.

Let me state it another way, The tire compounds are soo hard, there is not an advantage to be had to save a cycle during a qualifying run. (unlike a soft tire).

We've never had a tire marking rule in the EWC, nor in Cen-Div for the last decade, and haven't had any issues(always running the spec H R60). The additional work and policing, and odd situations where you could penalize somebody for not having the correct marked tires, (that isn't going to gain an advantage) is a bigger downside than any possible gain from marking them.

It's a great rule for soft tires, a waste of time for these compounds. IMHO.


marc

[GT1Vette]

I'd like to hear more opinions from folks that have actually USED these tires (unlike JRII <g>). Obviously I'd like to not have to mark the tires because it's easier on our Grid/Tech people, but we can do it either way y'all decide.

BK

[J.D. King]

If you state "race what you qualify on, except in case of flat spotted or otherwise damaged tires replaced per tech chief's permission" you'd have to mark the tires. Otherwise, no sense in making the "race on what you quali'd on" a rule at all.

[Michael Rand]

OK, dumb it down, just say no new, as in fresh sticker tires, allowed on the grid for the race.
Kind of guarantees the tires are at least one heat cycle old it seems to me.......

[GT1Vette]

The "stickers start at the back of the grid" is what we use in GTA and it appears to be working for us so far. And if the hard tires really work better with a few heat cycles (which someone said back in the beginning) then you'd be a fool to bring stickers to the grid.

Again, we need to hear from guys that have actually raced on these tires. We also don't need to decide this today.

BK

[jgaither]

I'm in agreement with marc, JD and Mike. As long as a hard luck story for flats, etc. can be bought by the chief of tech., then I'd say go with the no sticker rule & simplify life.

jg

[John Robinson II]

Now that there seems to be some consensus let me make another suggestion. THe tweener cars should be 84 or older, include them in CF, period. Now make a spec FF class that requires the use of the harder tires and really open this up for more entries. It should also serve as a good comparison to see if the harder tires really does even things up.

Butch, I do have several years experience with the hoosier 60s. Enough that I have to disagree in as much as stickers are faster regardless of the compound.

Based on the results at Savannah, the current SE competitors in db-1s could not beat Brooks in his true CF VD.

John

Spec FF, by requiring the use of hard tires, would be a regional only type class and fit in with the ARRC class structure.

[Michael Rand]

John, what you are suggesting is a fundamental change in Club Ford rules. Since each region or regional series has established their own rules, there are some variations across the country. CF being a Regional only class it is not governed by the GCR per se, rather by the SARRC or NARRC or MARRS etc etc committees.
The ARRC being a one off event it is relatively easy to rewrite the rules for this one race. I suspect altering the rules for the SARRC, or any other regional championship series, would not be anywhere near so easy.
If you are suggesting another sub-class within the FF community, Spec Ford [SF] , as exists in California, or did when they had big fields anyway, then that is a subject for discussion among the various regional series administrators after a proposal from the competitors. I can bet that the current guys running CF would object to allowing full inboard cars into CF on a regular basis. They might, correctly or not, see their currently competitive equipment suddenly becoming back markers.
I also think further splintering an already shrinking pool of entrants into another sub-class is not in the best interest of the class as a whole. While I agree a well driven CF can be competitive with a less well driven FF at many tracks, I think until we see the results from both the MARRS initiative to open up CF eligibility as well as this new format for the ARRC we might just want to take a deep breath and take one step at a time.
I also agree with you completely that regardless of compound , Goodyear 160's or 600's, Hoosier 35's or 60's, stickers are faster. Period.

[John Robinson II]

Mike I was not suggesting this as a fix all for FF or for regional series. Being as how the ARRC is a one off race it would be a good testing ground, at least in my opinion. Plus it would help to settle the hard tire equalizer debate.

It could be a really good way to end the year and maybe a prelude to the 40th festival that I know you are working on every night and day...lmao.

I have even been considering having my car homologated as a FS to run the hard tires against you guys.

John

After reading your post again, I think you might be objecting to 84 or older as a CF, but as your research has shown, there are not a lot of them out there and we can always be like the France series and change the rules at any time we see fit.

[andyllc]

Mike

Have there been any thoughts to run two classes in your Hankook series? A FC class as you have now and a FF class as well? Do you think you would see good participation numbers? Completely off topic to this discussion but I was just curious...

[se7en]

There are a good 2-3 dozen of these here in remote wilds of the Pacific Northwest, mostly Crossle''s. SCCA seems to a cussword to some of these old codgers, but at the ICSCC and IRDC races there are at least a dozen or so "regulars" that show up from BC, WA and OR. Last year at SIR, there were eight of these "regulars" who qualified within 0.1 sec for an IRDC race. RA seems so far to go when there is so much fun to be had locally. BTW, the "spec" tire way up here is the "wooden" American Racer, 133 compound.
Ken

[Michael Rand]

John, I guess I misunderstood what you were proposing. On re-read it seems you are saying , for the ARRC, create another class, Spec Ford, to boost the overall 1600 entry. I can certainly agree with that concept on a trial basis for this event. I agree it could get us all some good information about how various cars react to the hard tires.
And you know, for a low budget regional guy buying soft take offs with most of the good life sucked out of them already and then adding multiple heat cycles, like a few weekends worth, the hard tires may well be a step up in grip.

Re the 40th, yes, Steve Beeler and I are flogging away on it and expect a significant announcement within 30-60 days. Stay tuned. Great track, long lead time to plan, enthusiastic partners, it's all looking good right now.

Hey Se7en, are the Crossles out there mostly 30-32-35-40-45 series cars ?

Andy Brumbaugh, regarding a 1600 class within, or alongside, the F2000 series. Complicated issue. I have used up several legal pads trying to make the numbers work and so far have failed.
Several factors come into play.
One of the most significant factors in the success of the F2000 series is the single class racing and adding even a dozen 1600's is contrary to what we are offering the 2 liter gang. Anyway, with high 30's entry levels-- VIR started 37, Road Atlanta May 10-12 looks to match if not exceed that number-- we have close to full grids already.
Secondly, the finances need to make sense for everyone, the track/sanctioning body/club we coat-tail on the weekend with, the racers themselves as far as entry fees and other expenses, and obviously the series organizers.
Getting additional track time on any of these already packed weekends might be able to be done, but at what price ? The cost of the track time alone might make it a non-starter. There would be certain economies of scale with staff but without very real guarantees that a 1600 series would be supported by at least mid-20's entry numbers willing to pay a premium for double race weekends I would not even consider it. And we all know there will be much enthusiasm voiced here but whe the time comes to write the check will everyone do it ?
The financial side of our sport is getting harder and harder to make work for everyone involved.
I have not given up, but my pitiful dinosauer brain can only deal with so much, so a 1600 series is pretty much back burner right now.
That is, a multi-weekend series is back burner, the 40th deal in 2009 is front and center.