What Does FV need for the future?"

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

OK, I will start the new thread.

Thats a start.

I'am curious what some "legitimate" concrete examples would be... instead of everyones perception.

My concerns for FV are mainly parts related. I am at a age where I want to be able to purchase new parts for my race car. I am not a junk yard guy anymore. That is why I like the FST concept. Everything is available at the local buggy house.

So, to answer your question, other then the spec tire and addition on 25lbs of weight, my concerns for FV are below in order of importance:

1. Brake backing plates (availability)
2. Upper and lower Turkey legs(availability)
3. Pistons and Cylinders (availability and cost)

I don't have years of parts sitting around the house like many of the long time FV guys.

[problemchild]

Spec tires!
Spec long boxes .... don't care about 3rd gear .... leave it open.
Increase minimum weight!

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

Since we have started a new thread I also have some additional ideas that are probably not going to go over very well but here they are anyway.

• Wheel base and body length rules. As one of the few people that actually builds FV's and FST's why can't we increase the wheel base and body length? When you design a car from scratch you will quickly see that it is very hard to design a sexy FV because these limitations. The proportions just cant be made to look right. FF has no wheel base or body length rule, thus, they have sexy looking cars. Does any one really think there is a big advantage in a longer wheel base? I don't. Besides, it might actually get some people inspired to come up with new designs which only helps build enthusiasm for the class. This class has lost it's inspiration. It's the same old same old........

• Fan shroud profile rule. Same argument as above. The cars look old fashion IMO.

Hate to keep pointing to FST but they did eliminate the fan shroud rule, lengthen the overall body to 140" and gave an additional 2" of WB to work with. As a car designer this inspires me to be creative. It has inspired others as well.

OK, I will duck and cover now......

[budawe]

First let's make a distinction between consumables and crash damage. Short of a wreck, you are not likely to need two of the items Scott mentioned.

Rear backing plates for later models, that will fit all swing axles, are still available new. Fronts are in limited supply but could be made; either from scratch or converted rears. H beam part availability is virtually the same for both styles of front ends. Most folks don't realize that ball joint front ends and long boxes, were made in smaller quantities. Yes, they came from later models, but the number of units produced during those years were less than the heydays of the early 60's. As mentioned before, pistons and cylinders can still be purchased in qty and from Germany. Several engine builders have P&C available and for sale. The Chinese are out there, but have some issues. Some will not agree, but many of the part issues, like engine cases, carry the same problems for both FV & FFirst. Aftermarket race stuff is much more available for the later and bigger engines, but the other stock stuff is getting rare. We're talking about 40 year old cars, if you think VW is bad, try buying a part for a 50 year old Toyota.

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

I don't think that I have ever had a FV without at least one semi bent backing plate that I tried to straighten. And then if I do have a straight one then the spring detents are busted off and my star adjusters for the brakes then back off during the race and I loose the brakes. I did not know that the rear backing plates are still available new. I will be ordering some ASAP.

Brian, this is racing. Crash damage is going to happen. Maybe it's just going off track and bumping the wall, maybe it's hitting another car. There needs to be replacement parts, readily available, at fair prices for the class to thrive.

[BLS]

Wheelbase. I would love additional wheelbase. Even the 2 extra inches available to the FST cars is restrictive. I have been working on a design and the wheelbase just makes it difficult if you are a 6'4 type. If I had 4 more inches to work with... Body length should at least be proportional to any wheelbase increase. Personally I would just do away with the restrictions or make them long enough to have no real effect.

Weight. I have spent a lot of time getting the weights of all the parts of the car. Add that to a 220 pound driver and 1025 is very difficult, but doable if you leave the driver side protection package at a bare minimum (meaning, it's gonna hurt). With no other changes that would effect weight, another 50 pounds allows the bigger guys to have a chance without driving an unsafe car. Even 25 would help.

Those are both design considerations. After that, parts issues etc. that I am not qualified* to comment on. I might have a wish list, but it is not really a well informed list. I do think we need parts that can be bought "off the shelf" if the class is to survive and attract the same level of devoted drivers that it has enjoyed in the past. When I first started, parts were easy. I bought a bug for $200 bucks to get started, bought another one later. That is not really possible anymore for the vast majority. There are parts that we cannot get new.

This thread started from the spec tire discussion. I would love to see a spec tire that would reduce the cost. I also highly value the opinions of some of the long term succesful drivers that chime in. Perhaps there is a middle ground. A spec tire, slicks, with better grip than our Canadian friends have, but longer life than we currently have. If they only lasted twice as long it would still be useful for those on lower cost budgets. Cost was always an issue years ago for the majority of drivers. There are those that love the FV class and have funds available. More power to them. But there were always those that chose FV because it allowed for a lower budget. Attracting younger drivers requires reasonable costs and parts availability IMO.

* I've not driven a car in 30 years. I have spent a considerable amount of study and design work to get myself prepared for another go at it.

[Bill Bonow]

Hop into my "Way-Back" machine kids. Here is a little something that was written 10 years ago.

It covers:

*Spec Tires
*Single Gearbox
*Longer Wheelbase
*Increased Weight
*Parts Availability

Amazing how it still holds true today

[problemchild]

Increased wheelbase and body length can obsolete cars, if only in perspective. Actual evolution needed to happen 30, 20, even 10 years ago. Too late now.

Spec tires, spec longbox, and increased minimum weight obsoletes no one while reducing cost and making the class more accessible.

[sracing]

First let's make a distinction between consumables and crash damage. Short of a wreck, you are not likely to need two of the items Scott mentioned.

Know of any Vees that haven't crashed? That haven't worn out a beam?, etc.

Fronts are in limited supply but could be made; either from scratch or converted rears.

More junk yard searches. Then sand blasting and painting. If you are lucky. Or got a quote for having a plant stamp out a few dozen backing plates. You would need to make 300 to pay for the die.

H beam part availability is virtually the same for both styles of front ends.

Not even CLOSE. Not to mention the price is TWICE for the Link Pin. And the BJ stuff is NEW.

As mentioned before, pistons and cylinders can still be purchased in qty and from Germany.

In Quanity for ~3 times the price.

but many of the part issues, like engine cases, carry the same problems for both FV & FFirst.

Cases, yes, but there are aluminum aftermarket cases that can be had with a simple rule change and (in the case of FST) the additional weight is not a major issue since we are all running ballast.

1600 Cranks, etc (new and used) are readily available, and will be for a long time. The streets of SA and many other countries are full of Beetles. (1600 Beetles with disc brakes.) S.A. and China will not desert that market. They have long since deserted the 1200, LP beam and how long will drums, brake cylinders, etc. go on?

Aftermarket race stuff is much more available for the later and bigger engines, but the other stock stuff is getting rare.

What stock parts in a 1600 engine are getting rare? Not to mention the aftermarket still making stock and I beam, and H-Beam Rods. (At prices less than available prepped 1200 rods.

When we build a 1600 engine here (FST or street VW), we build them with EVERY PART NEW and at 1/2 the price. (Carb to Clutch)

The ONLY worry I have about for the next 10 years in the FST concepts is the transaxle. I wish we had found a decent way to upgrade that. BUT we did allow aftermarket trans cases in FST. (and if the gears, etc. did become a problem, it would be a helluva lot cheaper to have them contracted aftermarket than any of your suggestions above. (I can even make them up here..)

Brian, There are lots of reasons not to like some of the FST concepts. (culture, famililarity, your own spares, initial conversino cost, etc.) But the price and availabilty issue is not even a rational considerable.

Butch once asked someone at the run-offs what would happen in the un-immaginal circumstance that 10 new kids people ordered turnkey FV's. The market would be hard pressed to even deliver that year. Be careful growing a class that we can't even support.

I or most any VW retailer can give you EVERY part for an FST tomorrow at 2/3 the price. (and NEW) The only reason it wouldn't be 1/2 the price is that the fire system, steering wheel disconnect and gauges are the same price in FV or FST.

[Matt King]

Front disc brakes, spec tires and maybe a few extra pounds for the minimum weight would be a step in the right direction for FV.

I'd also like to see some discussion on the idea of a plan to eventually merge FV and FST into a new spec somewhere in between the two, keeping open as many options as possible to minimize the conversion costs, e.g., allow either the 1200 or 1600 with weight adjustments, either style beam, spec gearbox ratios for each engine, option to run discs or drums, etc. I think a concept like that could go a long way towards addressing both supply issues in FV and make the combined class an even more attractive entry level class.

[lawyerbob]

Ok, I'll jump in. I have a bias toward FST, but am back in FV because at least for the next year or so need to restrict my racing to "local" tracks and I'm lucky enough to be less than two hours from Blackhawk and RA.

My comments are also in consideration of the other thread going on related to class proliferation.

Do we really NEED two VW Based air-cooled open wheel formulas? I realize one is National and one is regional, but still.

I realize that many of the current FV folks have a large investment in spares and knowledge they don't want to give up, but that doesn't help build the class or attract new blood.

I know I'm repeating things that have been said before, but why can't serious discussion be had concerning "alternate" power trains, "alternate" wheel and tire packages, etc etc. I can't imagine that we don't have a few guys who would be smart enough to calculate weight (or other) equalizing "penalities" to level the field.

If Fomula FORD can become Formula F and bring in an alternate power source how is it we can't?

Allowing the 1600 motor (per FST rules) as an alternate, with a higher weight minimum and maybe a mandated transaxle might be an option.

Not ready for wider wheels and tires - ok, how about putting a spec tire mandate with the bigger motor? Apparently the AAR's are already slower . . . just say'n

I think there are more than ample solutions, and they can be accomplished in such a way that the people who have been the class loyalists aren't screwed over.

Obviously (per Bill's post) we keep having the same conversation over and over. At some point those that are left will be standing around wondering what happened to the class that was once the largest open wheel class in SCCA.

Now the truly wild idea. If FFord can become FF - and if we really REALLY want to stay with a 1200 cc air cooled motor. I know a well regarded motorcycle company here in Wisconsin that makes a killer 1200 V-Twin that probably puts out as much or more HP as a good Natiional motor, very plentiful parts, HUGE aftermarket performance network, five speed sequential gearbox, buckets full of torque . . . . . With all respect to out northern neighbors, F1200 has nice ring.

and no, I'm not joking, but I know I have a better chance of winning the lottery than ever seeing that happen.

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

I would like to see this thread stay focused on how to improve FV rather then comparing FV to FST. That has been done plenty of times before

[Mark Filip]

Sounds like the title of this thread should be changed to FST vs FV

I think most FV drivers don't want to switch to FST is for a few reason that have been mentioned. Most people have spares wheels, 2 gearboxes, spare backing plates, spare beam, drums and so on if they have race a year or so. Also some regions don't have any FST cars so why would anyone want to run one if they are racing alone? Every FV driver I know races because they love the close battles weather it's up front or out back you can find someone to race. I know these are a few things that would keep me away.

Now I don't think there is anyone out there that would say FST cars are bad. Most racers like the biggers tires and disc brakes they look cool. I don't know really anything about the engine deal I'll leave that to the experts that build engines. Steering rack is cool, I'm a big driver and having bigger cars with another 25-50 lbs would help but adding that much weight to some of the cars with little drivers may be difficult.

I like Matt's idea on maybe combing FV and FST somehow I'm not sure how but if they were closer in speed (I have no clue how much difference there is) and they could run together it may be easier for drivers in regions that don't have any FST cars to try and run one and not be just racing alone.

Biggest thing for me is having cars to race with. If there was 1 FV in my region I would sit home because I will not race a SM

[Steve Bamford]

With all due respect to those that wish to combine FST into FV I think you will end up killing both classes. There are lots of FV cars sitting not being run that for one reason or another that we need to find a way to get them back on the track. If you merge the classes you will have some sort of disparity & the guys who want to remain at the front will end up spending money one way or another. The FV class needs to make sure spending money is kept to a minimum overall. Spec tires as discussed before will help this.

As far as the Formula F series & the Kent vs. the Fit engine this has taken a few years to get it where it is accepted today. Both engines had very, very similar power & torque curves. I can't speak for the 1600 engine used in FST vs. the FV 1200.

Also Formula Ford cars are easily double or triple the price of FV's & many people had issues with the Fit or conversion costs, I can't imagine this in the more budget friendly FV.

There are lots of FV cars that could be bought as a rollers for very little, I don't see the parts issue near as big as has been made out on this thread.

With that said, no sense changing the wheelbase or create a new design, what is already out there works & changing that will change the class again.

We should get back to looking at how to make sure we keep the current status of FV affordable & do not introduce new rules that get people to look at spending more to be competitive.

[Bill Bonow]

I would like to see this thread stay focused on how to improve FV rather then comparing FV to FST. That has been done plenty of times before

Scott,

I didn't think this was aimed at me, but my post was simply to point out that improvement suggestions for FV have been out there for a long time.

I would add that "it" is the only improvement suggestion that I know of to go beyond a keyboard and turn into a respectable Regional series....... Now starting it's 8th season

Mark,

Here is a list of lap times to give you a comparison:

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...06&postcount=1

[Matt King]

As far as the Formula F series & the Kent vs. the Fit engine this has taken a few years to get it where it is accepted today. Both engines had very, very similar power & torque curves. I can't speak for the 1600 engine used in FST vs. the FV 1200.

It seems to be working in Australia, where both engines are allowed in their FV class with weight adjustments. I have no idea if anyone there actually still runs the 1200--maybe it is like the Cortina engine in FF. But it does indicate it is possible to have alternate engines in an AC VW based class.

[Bill Bonow]

Matt,

CAMS (Australian version of SCCA) runs them as two separate classes FV 1200 and FV 1600. Each with a separate points score and championship.

They do run in the same race group.

The FV 1200 is still running, but FV 1600 is the popular class by 4:1 (In New South Wales, 29 to 7)

[Matt King]

With all due respect to those that wish to combine FST into FV I think you will end up killing both classes. There are lots of FV cars sitting not being run that for one reason or another that we need to find a way to get them back on the track. If you merge the classes you will have some sort of disparity & the guys who want to remain at the front will end up spending money one way or another. The FV class needs to make sure spending money is kept to a minimum overall. Spec tires as discussed before will help this.

It's going to take a lot more than a spec tire to get those kinds of cars out of garages. Guys who park their cars for years on end don't do it because they couldn't afford to buy a new set of tires. It's usually a combination of burnout and the totality of the expense of racing, and simply old age in many cases. IMO, there is more upside to creating a set of rules that will create demand for moth-balled FV chassis among new entrants. Right now an outdated, uncompetitive FV is nearly worthless except as a spare parts donor for another FV.

The only way to get those cars out of mothballs is to create new demand for them, which is why I suggested a plan that does not require a full conversion to the FST spec.

[lawyerbob]

Like Bill, I wasn't trying to make this FST vrs FV either. But lets be honest - if we are talking about "improving" FV, then we have to give at least a passing glance to "modernization" (if that even applies to a car based on 50 year old technology).

My suggestions were not "turn FV into FST" but rather, formulate rules that will allow the migration of some of the FST improvements as alternates.

I think Bill, Matt and I are all basically saying the same thing.

As Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?"

[Amon]

since you asked:

1.) Raise the min. weight to 1050lbs. I'm 6'1" / 200 lbs. and my Protoform P-2 /92'
was 28 lbs. over min. weight at my last National (Nelson), and I'm only 20 lbs.
above my high school weight 33 years ago so guys my age need a break!

2.) Allow 1600 motor with restrictor plate similiar to FST motors but allowing HP. to
be similiar to current National 1200 motors.

3.) remove fan shroud rule.

4.) Spec tire similiar to Hoosier R60 compound which is available to Club Ford and FST racer's!

5.) Longer wheelbase for us taller driver's etc.....

6.) Disc brakes...loved them when I drove FST's and there easy to work on!

That's it for now!

Mark

[sracing]

Lots of comments here:

The Spec Racer Renault to SRF change would never have happend without Ford coming to the table. If not, the drivers would have never reached an agreement on the changes. The change was dictated. Input was ignored.

The FF / FF(Fit) would never have happened without Honda coming to the table . They took input but it was a done deal and input was ignored.

In the case of FV (VW, Ford or Honda) is NOT coming to the table. This change is up to the members.

A 1200 to 1600 equalization is NOT possible. I can give you the same peak HP (at different RPM points), But torque/hp curves will NEVER be equal. You COULD technically get them to perform equal lap times on a particular track. But the hot setup will be different on every track.

(It couldn't be done on the Renault/Ford. It was CLOSE on the Ford/Fit only because of near displacement equality a restrictor and ECM.)

The disparity in VE, multple ports, displacement and several other things make the 1600/1200 comparison problematic. You will never make them equal on all tracks. Thus the hot guy will need 2 (or maybe 3 engines to swap for each track.)

There aren't any good slow growth migration paths from FV to FST while keeping any equality. We have thought about ALL of them. You end up with re-work, thrown away dollars, etc.

Maybe someone can think of something, but about 5 of us have been looking at it for 10 years with dozens of engine and chassis dyno tests and track time. I would have to assume the Aussies did the same thing and they simply went to 2 classes.

IMO, the ONLY real solution is to mandate a ~5 year term on the existing FV. At the end of 5 years you mandate the end solution (whether it be FST or something close.)

(Another opinion: 15+ cars have been testing all of the FST concepts for several years here in the US in the FST Championship Series. While certainly someone could dream up another solution and throw away the hundreds of testing hours, price comparions and driver opinions that have shown the complete FST package to be excellent, IMO it would be a terrible waste. Any other package will need to go through another many years of trial and error.)

Certainly I would allow the FV with its existing rules to continue to run regionally after that point.

Trying to make partial changes really messes things up. For example a 1600 in an FV would be far faster than a current FST. A 1200 FV with FST running gear (BJ beam, tires etc) would be far slower than an existing FV. The deeper you get into it the worse it gets.

Not to repeat myself, but a dictatorship will be needed to make any worthwhile change to the FV.

A five year mandate gives drivers 5 years to buy/collect new parts and to save up for any costs. (Allthough my push would be for a 3 or 4 year plan max.)

Again, many of the drivers in opposition to any changes won't even be racing in 5 years.

The only other viable action is to do nothing. FV costs remain the same (or continue to escallate) until it simply goes away.. I suspect the class can remain relative for another 5 years.

BTW, there is NOTHING wrong with that solution. No one expects a class to go on forever. Vee has had a pretty good run. The US FST solution was one to keep the Vee chassis, trans, etc. viable.

P.S. Why does everyone want to try and keep it from being a FV/FST issue? Call it anything you want, but we are talking about addressing the same things that FST tried to address and has tested. If it feels better just call it "that other class." We all know what we are talking about. Does anyone think a MC engine solution or DOT tires, or a winged car or link pin beam with disc brakes will be the end result? We ARE talking about FV vs. FST.. NOT as a winner or loser, just the final solution.

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

Scott,

I didn't think this was aimed at me, but my post was simply to point out that improvement suggestions for FV have been out there for a long time.

Bill, It was not aimed at you but rather Jim. I understand Jim was just responding to Brian's comments but that comparison has been posted for years and I think it gets under the skin of many people and then the thread turns into a pissing match. I happen to like both classes and want both to be successful.

There seems to be a pretty strong feeling that the minimum weight needs to be increased and a spec tire should be considered. Additionally, as I have said earlier in this thread I think the wheel base should be increased. If for no other reason then to allow taller drivers to fit more comfortably. I am 6'-1" and my son is 6'-3" We have a tough time fitting into a Vee. I don't think adding a couple of inches to the WB of a FV is going to make the shorter WB cars obsolete. If I remember correctly a converted Lynx FV won many FST races this year at the shorter FV WB.

One other note, all of these new safety rules are not helping the participation levels. To make your car legal now you need a H&N restraint system. I have been using a Hans for several years and I have had to do extensive fabrication to my cars to make it fit and work properly. Not everyone can do these modifications themselves, consequently, there are additional cost involved. If I had a old vee sitting in my garage for the last 5 years and wanted to bring it up to 2012 rules I would be looking at spending at least $1500.00 just in safety equipment. Not to mention freshening up the engine, new tires, etc. etc. No wonder these cars are sitting...... Maybe us average Joe racers are slowly getting priced out of the market ????

[Bruce]

To those that constantly compare FV to FST We all know your arguments since you constantly mention them. The original proposal to convert FV to FST is well known, but outside of where you race there are hardly any. I consider it as a failed class, but I don't want it to be eliminated or need it to be brought up every time FV is discussed. The demise of FV has been going on since as long as I can remember, that is since I've been involved, around 30 years. It will never be like it was, like spec miata is now. Eventually it will evolve or desolve, but it is a long process and discussions here will do nothing to change them.

The FV class is done democratically, not with a dictator. Every year suggestions are brought up and submitted. You can vote for or against. You can even organize yourselves into like minded groups, it is all about whether or not you want to take the time. You only lose if you are complacent.

[Steve Bamford]

Lets not keep talking about having FV convert to FST, can't we just let people who want to convert do it on their own instead of insisting the end is 3-5 years for FV. FV, the last time I checked is still a decent subscribed National class & FST is a still regional class. FST sounds like a great concept to me however it is a different class & lets leave it at that. This is posted in the FV section so lets try to leave it as that.

Spec tires seems to be something that is repeated. Have the tire manufactures come up with something, test it this year & have them bid on the business to keep the costs as low as possible. Use the same rims to not add costs.

Increased weight is another issue that comes up that can be easily addressed & implemented easily. Add 25 - 50 lbs & everyone should be able to be come in at or clost to minimum weight without having to buy carbon fiber body parts.

Increased wheelbase for taller drivers is one I don't understand though but that is just lack of knowledge more then anything. I am six feet, 200 lbs & have more room in my Mysterian that in any of my Formula F cars. There are others I see in our region race Protoforms & Lynx that are an inch or two larger then I am & some over 230 lbs. Is this a matter of comfort or is this simply that people just don't fit in many of them? Race cars aren't always comfy but if we need to change wheel base so people do fit based on different body make ups & there is no performace differences I am not against it.

The biggest issue I see though is the fact of mixed race groups which goes to another thread on Apexspeed already. If FV had their own run groups I would bet numbers would grow. Take a look at the F1600 Pro Series as an example. 29 FF's in one field. Purple Frog has said in another thread that he feels for the FV group but the issue the Pro Series sees for FV is that competitors in FV don't want to travel or spend the money to run a FV series (or something to that extent). Found his quote "I feel for the FV guys. They are the oldest formula class in SCCA, and have the highest participation numbers year after year. Yet they get to drive around with both eyes constantly on their mirrors hoping not to get run over. Unfortunately they also run on the lowest budgets, so they are the least likely to travel long distances and have enough numbers to go semi-pro. "

Quebec has a regional Formula F series with average car counts in the 30's running a spec tire with a Pro & Masters class. Masters class is for drivers with an increased minimum weight, age isn't a factor. Both series have their own run groups & large fields as pointed out.

Need to keep costs in line & if anyone could figure out how to come up with our own run groups at least in a few regions that would help out HUGE!

FYI, when people post stats about the decline of FV compared to the past, I think you can look at almost all formula car classes & note a decline in participation due to one reason or another. Don't use those stat numbers to say FV is done, as you may as well say all open wheel racing is done at the same time then. Rising costs, inflation is a way of life, poor economic climates does not help racing in any class. Keep FV as economical as possible as I believe that is what has kept the class in class in place for decades.

[lawyerbob]

& if anyone could figure out how to come up with our own run groups at least in a few regions that would help out HUGE!

I think it's backwards - bring the cars and we will get our own run group. Which takes us back to the original question - what does FV need to do for the future. My interpretation of the question and some other threads is "What do we have to do to gets cars out of the garage, attract new cars, and keep the class the from declining"

I'm not sure how this is a democracy since so far no one has told me where to vote. I understand there's an Ad Hoc Committee, but I don't believe we all get a "vote" - only the opportunity to voice our opinions, and the best avenue for that seems to be in a forum like this.

Formula cars based on the old aircooled VW technology ARE relevant and have a place. For someone like me who is just learning a lot of the mechanical skills it takes to own a race car, it's much more manageable than say cars with wings and computers and infinately adjustable suspension.

Having spent a fair amount of time with the FST guys, I think I can safely say - they dont' actually concern themselves with FV and are not out to convert FV to FST. They are building a class and contrary to Bruce's comment, are far from a failed class.

FST seems to be a tender spot for FV though, and perhaps that's telling.

As I said before, I don't think we can have a serious discussion of "what does FV need to do for the future" without a discussion about modernzation. It doesn't have to be a full blown migration to FST, but I'm pretty sure spec tires alone aren't going to get the cars out of the garage.

Perhaps we should do some market research - serious market research - to find out what newbies are looking for and what makes them decide on a class. Perhaps getting some samples of FV, FST and F1200 cars together (local malls, car shows - someplace where the public is) and get the impression of the general public as to which they find interesting.

If we really want to grow / improve FV it needs to be PROACTIVE - not preserve the status quo

[Steve Bamford]

You have your modernization, it is called FST. Those who are looking for that have FST as a great option.

I keep coming back to controlling costs as what has helped FV over the years, changing it up will only cost drivers money IMO.

Having cars brought out to shopping malls, kart tracks, etc can only help overall as it brings awareness to the series & can potentially make it easier for newbies to gather information.

You also bring up a good point as where do we actually vote on any changes?

Too bad no semi-pro options aren't available as I think it would have a posibility to work.

[Mark Filip]

[QUOTEThe biggest issue I see though is the fact of mixed race groups which goes to another thread on Apexspeed already. If FV had their own run groups I would bet numbers would grow][/QUOTE]

Here at NHMS we run FV and F500 in 1 group and most times there is only FVs and 1 F500 (which he should sell and buy a FV and race with us) and it seems to work out great. We have 15+ cars every event I think high this year was 23 and we get a few new drivers each year. I think this attacks people to FV along with everyone being great people and promoting the class as much as we can.

I can say when I run test days and I'm on track with anything other than a FV it sucks worrying about weather or not your going to have a faster car dive in you can not even drive because your eyes are in the mirrors every 5 sec.

[Bill Bonow]

Steve,

I don't think FV will ever get its own race group again. FV had one for a long, long time. It got mixed in with other classes due to gradual lowering numbers. The mixing certainly did not help, but with less than an average of 10 entries per race (both National and Regional), FV will be hard pressed to get a solo run group.

I started using the term "it" as to not offend anyone by using that god awful three letter class designation in the FV forum. "it" was conceived as one possible concept of improvements and to date, no other ideas have been brought to life.

I think it's difficult for the "it" crowd not to mention "it" when the subject of FV improvements come up. Not all, but certainly a large percentage of "it" concepts are being mentioned as potential FV improvements.

That being said, I don't think anyone here ("it" crowd or not) ever mentioned FV was done. What has been mentioned is "What does FV need for the future". Posts go up with a number of "it" concepts and bingo, the "it" crowd makes "it" comments and the "it" comments are received as FV vs "it".

[Bill Bonow]

Too bad no semi-pro options are available as I think it would have a posibility to work.

The Hoosier Tire US "it" Championship Series, Now starting our 8th season

Some of our contingencies are better than Rand-A-Palooza

[Steve Bamford]

The Hoosier Tire US "it" Championship Series, Now starting our 8th season

Some of our contingencies are better than Rand-A-Palooza

Had to fix my quote, but I think you got what I meant. Too bad semi-pro series "aren't" available as I had are available. Opps.

[Steve Bamford]

Steve,

I don't think FV will ever get its own race group again. FV had one for a long, long time. It got mixed in with other classes due to gradual lowering numbers. The mixing certainly did not help, but with less than an average of 10 entries per race (both National and Regional), FV will be hard pressed to get a solo run group.

I started using the term "it" as to not offend anyone by using that god awful three letter class designation in the FV forum. "it" was conceived as one possible concept of improvements and to date, no other ideas have been brought to life.

I think it's difficult for the "it" crowd not to mention "it" when the subject of FV improvements come up. Not all, but certainly a large percentage of "it" concepts are being mentioned as potential FV improvements.

That being said, I don't think anyone here ("it" crowd or not) ever mentioned FV was done. What has been mentioned is "What does FV need for the future". Posts go up with a number of "it" concepts and bingo, the "it" crowd makes "it" comments and the "it" comments are received as FV vs "it".

Agreed, I don't think FV will get their own race group again within the current structure of SCCA. It will take something else to make it happen, another series, a promoter, etc. We have our own run groups in Canada which help keep it together, without having this & some other things mentioned earlier I don't think the class would have survived here either.

[Mark Filip]

How many regions have "it" and how many have FV? This IMO is the reason most don't have "it"

I would have "it" if my fellow racers had "it"

[problemchild]

If we really want to grow / improve FV it needs to be PROACTIVE - not preserve the status quo

That needed to happen 30 yrs ago. I certainly did not understand that then. Twenty years ago, it may still have been time. By ten yrs ago, alot of people had figured it out, but not enough .... and FST was created. The commitment has been made. The FST platform is complete and the direction for people that want that.

The status quo commitment for FV was made. Now, the process is managing it within the status quo. Dealing with parts availability, and cost control, are the tools available. I personally think that FV is good for as long as the current SCCA structure will last. If the FV community manages itself well (spec tires), it can continue into the next SCCA phase or move to the emerging race organizations.

[S Lathrop]

Maybe the solution is not to change the rules but the improve the race format. Years ago there was a semi pro series for FV. Why not reorganize that program and follow the lead of Mike Rand & company with FF ad FC. They have 40 car fields of FF and FC at events that are truely fun to attend.

Start off with both FV and FST as a 2 class run group and see what develops. There are certainly enough cars for 50 car fields in FV alone. You could expand to include Vintage FV as well. There is the potential to do 100 car weekends.

Why do we have to wait for a birthday party to have big fields?

Get the participation up and the parts problems will find solutions. More companies will produce stuff like ICP did for brake drums and spindles.

[Matt King]

Maybe the solution is not to change the rules but the improve the race format. Years ago there was a semi pro series for FV. Why not reorganize that program and follow the lead of Mike Rand & company with FF ad FC. They have 40 car fields of FF and FC at events that are truely fun to attend.

I don't think there are many FV competitors with the budget or desire to do that. They will travel once a year to the Runoffs for a big event, but the rest of the year they are really penny pinchers. I know I would be interested in attending some events like that if they were in my backyard, but I would draw the line at driving more than 300 miles to attend on a regular basis. Been there, done that, and don't want to spend the time and money to do it again.

IMO, FV is the kind of class that really thrives when there is a large local group of racers who regularly race together at a few centrally located tracks. They are the kind of racers who would rather spend their money going racing rather than on tires, engineering, and travle expenses.

What we should be doing is focusing on improving the racing in each of our regions rather than trying to fix the future of FV. In Cendiv there are tons of cars sitting around. We could easily have events a Blackhawk, Autobahn, Milwaukee Mile or Road America that draw 20-plus cars from the Chicago-Milwaukee-Minnesota area. The problem is getting them all to commit to attend at least a couple of events a year all together. The regional/national and Cendiv-GL splits don't help matters either.

[Rolling Stone]

RE: WEIGHT.... Some of us older drivers have looked after ourselves and regularly excercise etc,etc and dont have a weight problem,one has ALL winter to loose weight as well,but most just dont bother..height cannot be controlled of course."COSTS"Losing weight doesn't cost a thing plus fitting in the car is a lot easier too. My 2 cents worth.

[Bill Bonow]

I think Greg Rice use to call this the : "fat guys need not apply" response

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

Excellent post Steve.

Rather then FST and FV fighting against each other maybe we should work together.

[Matt King]

I think Greg Rice use to call this the : "fat guys need not apply" response

A year ago I weighed 220 pounds and my car was 20 pounds overweight. Today I weigh 180 pounds and my car will need 20 pounds of ballast, so count me as someone who has little sympathy for the argument that the minimum weight is too low. It takes a similar amount of time, effort and commitment to lose that weight as it does to be a successful racer. Just something to think about!

[Bill Bonow]

Matt,

Don't generalize that weight = fat

Got a guy that will join us next year who is 5' 10" tall and his weight is 220 lbs.

That guy outta put down the chips, get off the sofa and get in shape?

He is an Olympic bronze medal winner in bobsled (2003).

Good thing he'll be just fine in an "it" car.