New class? CFV 'Club FV'

[rickjohnson356]

Initiated on the events thread regarding the ARRC schedule. A class listed as 'CFV'

Haven't heard anything about it, though. Bill Bonnow indicated that Lee (?) in ATL and Stevan Davis are trying to define some rules for a regional only class for FV guys that don't do nationals.

Something about spec tires (hard) and higher min weight.

Nothing was said about limiting it to non zero-roll suspensions, though. Seems to me that particular innovation marks a significant point-in-time that defines a major improvment in technology. Similar to the DB1 in FF moving the suspension inboard.

Any comments or thoughts are welcome for discussion....

[FVRacer21]

A few years ago we tried a Club Vee class - rules were simple - hard compound tires, stock VW front shocks (or steering dampers). Everything else was per National Rules.

Right there we cut costs way down.

I guess you could add stock VW brakes and mandate a long box, but that does not change much for a lot of effort

Raising the weight to 1050 would even out the field- again at little cost.

Maybe a standard FV Hanford Device

Too many of the true non-zero roll cars are running in vintage and will not come out. Remember the D13 was zero-roll and that dates back to 1972?

ChrisZ

[rickjohnson356]

I guess I forgot about the D-13, but I bet DaveW hasn't forgotten!

non-zero-roll cars are mostly in vintage, aren't they.

I'm not so sure I agree with just adding weight-- that will just slow the cars down further--- antithesis of racing.

Harder tires, ok. similar to CF tire rules.

use of stock shocks or steering dampers (I remember when that was the hot setup!) would be an equalizer and not expensive to do for this one race.

I would not want to go thru the hassle of changing to a long-box for just one race, though.

require fan shroud, gutted generator and belt?? or would that take too long to switch over for one race?

[Keith Carter]

Formua First = the new FV?
CFV = Everything else

[rickjohnson356]

sounds good to me, we really don't need another class to add to the mix (or detract from a specific class).

Like any other area, adding classes or sub-classes really just dilutes the number of entries in both classes overall. Initially, I was skeptical when FST first appeared, but I kinda like your concept that FST is a more modern FV entry level class for the younger group of drivers- may attract new members who might disdain the original FV concept/technology.

Being and old FV driver both in age and 'time-in-class', I have a very fond spot for the original FV, but certainly understand the advantages of having access to newer technology for which parts are readily available and easier to maintain (stock 1600 engines, disc brakes, inboard front shocks).

I also understand the reasoning behind allowing older FV to upgrade in order to increase numbers quickly, but wonder if the updated cars are really competitive with the specially designed chassis (Evolution). Maybe Bill Bonnow will add his observations about that question.

Still, one of the main issues (for me anyway) in SEDIV and probably SOWDIV is the fact that air-cooled engines (without fan housings and fans) is the heat generated just on the grid, waiting for the pace lap to start. One has to really time it well to minimize the damage to the engine during that time.

[dd46637]

A converted Fv can be every bit as fast as a purpose built FST. As long as it is put together properly and set up correctly a conversion car will be as good as a new one.
Many of the FCM Series races have been won by converted FV's but it comes down to driver ability and experience more than anything else.

[rickjohnson356]

Well, isn't that the original idea of FV (and FF). Keep the cars equal in capability so that it is the driver that makes the difference?

Glad to hear that the conversion cars are competitive too.

Really saves $$ if a FV person wants to move to more modern equipment without having to buy a whole new car.

[wagnerla]

Hello all,
The current CFV idea has grown out of the annual debate over having a longer lasting spec tire. I know this debate goes on in probably all classes that have open tire rules. The idea is to see if there is enough interest to create a class in the SEDIV that has a few rules aimed at knocking some cost and also leveling out some variables (tire degradation and weight). We've seen that changing FV rules is out of the question.

Butch Kummer presented us with the option of running the ARRC if we could come up with a set of rules. Kind of use the ARRC as a kickoff for the class. So far this generated much less interest than I anticipated.

I too struggle with what would define success if CFV came about. If we turn an average 6 FV regional field in the SE into an average of 4 FV and 4 CFV is that success or is it a negative because FV is down? What about 3 and 3 but the 3 CFV guys are having a better time at a slightly lower cost?

Does anyone know what the CF guys feel about their class? I talked to someone at Hoosier and he seemed to feel it failed in reaching it's goal.

I welcome any discussion or ideas.

Lee ( NC Region in Hickory, NC)

[rickjohnson356]

Lee:

From what I can tell, the CF guys are happy with the fact that they don't run with DB-1 and newer (pushrod/pullrod/rocker FF). Most everyone (with the exception of EYE) seems OK with the harder tires also.

It was initially established as a 'trial' for a year or so. Maybe it is time to re-evaluate the CF tire rule among the active competitors in SEDIV so it can be implemented (if change is desired) at the 2009 SEDIV mid-year meeting.

SEDIV used to have a CFC class, but due to lack of participation by CFC-eligible cars, it was eliminated and the cars were assimilated back into FC.

The ARRC has a CFC class for 95 and older in order to attract the NEDIV (CFC still active up there) guys to the race and also the folks with older FC cars. Cendiv uses 1990 as the cutoff for CFC, I think.

From a participation standpoint, I would rather see 6 FV rather than 3 FV and 3CFV. We just don't need the further degradation, IMHO. hard to quantify 'seem to be having a better time' as being a step forward. Just means everyone get a trophy?

SEDIV CF participation seems to float around 5-6 cars per event. Kinda sad when you think of the number of race opportunities are here in the south.

I just got back from a trip to Seattle, WA and went to an IRDC event. They had something like 18-20 FF/CF with 14 of them being Crossle 32/35/45. They put on a good show, too.

However, they don't really have enough cars for a separate FC class, so the ones up there run in 'FL'-Formula Libre with FE,FS,FA,FB (like SCCA's FS class-> run whatcha brung)
I saw Rickb99 and his son Jeff in a reynard FC running at a good speed, and one other guy in a VD (who was slow enough to be holding up the fast FVs).

My 2 cents, which since I don't have a running FV (yet) counts as zero.

[problemchild]

I think some people are overthinking the CFV concept. As I understand it, it is a way to bring cheaper operating costs (like spec tires and fuel) to the regional level without having to upset the top National racers or the tire companies. While there is lots of life left in FV yet, there is a major philosophical difference between top National FV guys spending 10s of $K per season and the average regional FV guy spending 10s of hundreds per season. This sub-class allows people who struggle to buy tires once a year to keep racing FV (with CFV). Those who want to buy tires every weekend also get to keep racing FV. Same cars ..... same race group ..... less cost and hopefully a few more entries! Because any FV can be eligible for CFV, with time, CFV would become the primary regional FV class in many areas.
Cheers!

[wagnerla]

Rick,

Hey, your opinion's worth as much as mine. All food for thought.

"having more fun" may not have been the best way to describe it and this certainly isn't oriented toward creating a class so more trophies can be given out. I too despise the popular idea that everyone's a winner.

The hope is that we can cut some costs, get a few more people out and run close together. Allowing pump gas was one of the rule ideas which would not fly in FV. My thought was why add expense just to protect the ability to catch people breaking a rule. If someone can't abide buy the rule of no additives then they probably won't abide by engine specs either.

Talking to Fred Clark this past weekend, he has the opinion that so many events is one of the problems currently. The worker side of it is one issue but the drivers also have to pick and choose their weekends. We pick different events and we end up with thin fields. He also pointed out the loss of race weekends feeling like they are special events. Just another weekend. Along these lines I think the FST guys are on the right track with their FCM race series. Bob Tupper in the DC region (I think) with his drawings/giveaways is doing the same kind of thing by concentrating attendance at select events. That might be a good idea for any class struggling with car counts.

Lee

[FVRacer21]

BTW - I should have included this with my previous post:

http://pages.cthome.net/czracing/FVspectire.htm

This was origionally written in 1998, but it could have been written in 1988 and here it is 2008!

ChrisZ

PS - If anyone has Hoosier make some VROCS, count me in for a set!

[Bill Bonow]

Lee,

My ..... Your best bet to get CFV going is just as you commented. Put together some simple rules and put on a simple series within the SARRC series. Pick a small number of events and get all of your CFV competitors to show up (manditory to make the program work). A focused effort will get you good sized grids. Regions will see that and will request you to come to their event (like EWC, FCM Series, ARRC, ect.). Regions hosting events like entry numbers, more is better. Remember to make the series fun so your competitors will want to return.

[SOseth]

Formua First = the new FV?
CFV = Everything else

????
SteveO

[Frank Varano]

The rules are a great idea, and I would like to see a spec tire become part of our national rules, but don't split the class.

[wagnerla]

Chris, Good information. I hadn't seen that before. I've got no problem with using Hoosier but it's going to take a promise of 25 sets to get that going. At some point if there are enough people that think it's an idea worth trying then we need to move past convincing the others. To Frank's point, perhaps we just go underground. Drop the pump gas idea and race as FV. Setup some kind of series not confined by SCCA organizational lines.

IMO the only way forward is with a class ... above ground or under ground. We aren't going to talk our way into GCR changes without an example. I don't know that I really care if there are ever GCR changes. There's no campaign to force anyone into anything.

Discussion is good!

Lee

[dd46637]

You don't need to be in the GCR, you just need like minded people who agree to abide by the same rule set. You won't find CFF or CFC anywhere in the GCR but they are still classes that you can find at regional races across the country.

[Bill Bonow]

I don't think Lee is thinking of a new GCR class. I think he is talking about the idea of starting a divisional "grass roots" class (much like CFF) to get data/proof/examples and see if it will grow.

Again, small and below the radar is the best way to get started. Butch's ARRC offer is a golden opportunity to get CFV going. Put some simple rules together so that 5 to 10 guys agree on and run the '08 ARRC. Now you've got history and some form of leverage to get SARRC Divisional recognition to build a very simple series in '09.

The concept is good and the opportunity is there. I don't see this as splitting a class. Look at the EWC FF/CFF. It brings out cars that would no longer enter races and they race in the same race group

[wagnerla]

Yeah, sorry. I probably shouldn't have used the term "GCR" but it was in reference to Frank's phrase of "national rules". I was just trying to make the point that IF someone were to want to try to change national rules that they would need some successful examples to convince others since this seems to be a fairly polarizing issue.

I'll repeat, there is no national rule end game here nor is there any desire to set something up that forces others to comply.

Lee

[Frank Varano]

The ARRC would be a good place to display if a spec tire would work. I know many in the FV community are worried that it could slow the cars down too much. I also think a CFV class would be a good idea in the SARRC for a year and offer a few loaner sets of tires for guys to try. The end result sould be to make people conform at a national level!! A spec tire is needed in our class. Look at NASCAR, IRL, Grand-am, and Formula 1. All have a spec tire. Not to mention the 2 big SCCA classes Spec Miata and Spec Racer Ford. I just bought a new front suspension last season with all the parts needed to prepare it minus shocks for $500! Thats less than a new set of tires.

[butch deer]

Where did you buy a new front suspension? I have not seen a new torsion arm, spindle, or back plate for 15 years.
Butch

[Bill Bonow]

From looking at the latest proposed ARRC schedule, my guess would be that the inclusion of a CFV concept class has fizzled out?

[Lucien j LeBlanc]

From looking at the latest proposed ARRC schedule, my guess would be that the inclusion of a CFV concept class has fizzled out?

SOVREN a vintage sanctioning body in the northwest has adopted a set of rules for (vintage) club formula vee for all formula vee cars built prior to January 1, 1984. You may want to visit their web site to look at the rules to see if the concept can be extended to SCCA regional racing in other parts of the country.

There was a message about this adoption of rules by Sovren earlier in the year.

[Matt Clark]

so what is different about the SOVREN CFV rules, other than the specified chassis, fans & no disc brakes?
kinda seems like they are too similar to normal FV rules to me.

[Lucien j LeBlanc]

so what is different about the SOVREN CFV rules, other than the specified chassis, fans & no disc brakes?
kinda seems like they are too similar to normal FV rules to me.

Basically, you are correct the vintage SOVREN Club Formula Vee class rules are intended only to provide a place for those cars that are no longer competitive for SCCA racing, that do not meet Monoposto rules for Vintage Formula Vee limiting cars to those built prior to 1976. While not specified directly in the rules offset shock mounts are not allowed same as Monoposto rules as being not period correct (pre 1984) the same goes for later aero friendly body work such as that some Caldwell FVs got in the 90's.
We have a spec slick tire and rain tire same as current SCCA national rules.

I think the idea of a Club Formula Vee is a good one. I see there are groups in the east that have gone to different wheels and tires (are they threaded?) successfully and have great car counts. By contrast, the West coast is in bad shape few FV cars left limited to a few old veterans like me. The north west would be in the same place if not for the folks from Canada who presently are not coming south because of the Virus.

As far as disc brakes go if you are not into vintage there is no reason not to take advantage of disc brakes like those EMPI are selling which are excellent,, available, and not too costly.

Hope this sets the record straight for you.