Originally Posted by S Lathrop
Gaurantee them 40 cars and you can have anything you want. Including starting grid girls in bikinis. I have talked with NASA, they will do as much with 20 cars. (allthough in our age group the girls could be dangerous and of little real value.
Steve,
We've been to Regional weekends with just over 40 cars....... for the entire event! These days most SCCA Regions start to drool at bringing 10 cars in single class.
Froggie is right, it's a two step process. First you tell them how many will attend, then you absolutly have to have that many show up.
Bill Bonow
"Wait, which one is the gas pedal again?"
10 cars won't get much attention at a track like Road Atlanta or Barber.
Usually somewhere between 20 to 24 is the break even point.
That's why i said it is important to get a 'sugardaddy', or collect real money weeks in advance. Somebody has to cover the nut.
The problem in the past has always been that most FV guys love the Run off's. Any race that does not get them qualified for the runoff's has held little interest in the past. When I was involved with the "Valvoliner Pro Vee Series" some years ago races that did not offer national points were a hard sell no matter how much money you gave away.A race with $10,000.00 purse and no entry fee was a hard sell when you competed against 12 National points some other place. In the cendiv today I doubt you could get 10 to 15 vees to a regional with a good run group on the same day as a local National. If we could get 10-15 cars to regularly come to the same double regionals as the Hoosier tire "It" series we would have an awsome run group and regions that run these racees would love us. We could negotiate lots of perks such as dictating our race group to be convieient for people who make longer tows,perhaps our own (and hopefully speedier) registration and tech lines, reserved paddock space,etc.
Butch
butch deer
Good point Butch.
I guess folks would have to decide whether they want to race 4 or 5 high quality, very intense double race weekends. Or drag around to races with mixed classes to be able to go sit at the Runons for over a week.
I know how some folks in other classes have decided to vote.
In a dream world the Runoffs would be open to the semi-pro guys that did x number of pro events.
Sounds like the only way to do this is to have one of these events at a Rational then so FST, or the "it" class, can run with FV & be able to count for Runoffs.
Did I get this right? If so are there any events on the schedule that makes sense.
Steve Bamford
Yes, but......
'Round these parts (where "it" is popular) Rational is a 8 letter bad word. Not likely to happen.
However, this year the "it" series race is the feature "Showcase" race during the Western Michigan National at Grattan in August as a Restricted Regional. And as we all know, you can only mix Regional and National classes at a Rational.
Bill Bonow
"Wait, which one is the gas pedal again?"
Three things to make FV successful:
1. Clone Mike Rand,
2. Design every track so we never have to change gearboxes,
3. Raise the minimum weight to 1040 and mandate weight can only be added to wheels.
ChrisZ
Seriously,
1. Spec longbox with 1:26 3rd,
2. Spec tire with Hoosier 60 compound or equivalent
3. Organize within regions to promote high participation
and
4. Regional rules could increase weight but I don't think it would be critical if 1,2,3 were adopted, but not hard to do. Could even do a gentleman's agreement and weigh cars yourselves. The guys at NHMS could try that for one weekend next year. Cars would have to start race at 1050 - should easily finish race over SCCA spec.
Virtually no increase in cost once tires available.
This thread is a bit of a moving target, but to back track a little...
I initially turned to fv because of the economics behind it. I'm a very practical man and I can only afford a limited budget at this point in my racing career. That said, being inexpensive can attract some new interest, but a little sexy can go a long way... Just look at Britney Spears, I mean, Really?...
Here are my 12 cents...
1) My vote would be to go with a spec tire. nothing too crazy though, if you slow the cars down too much they become less sexy. People want to go fast on a budget, not slow on a budget...
2) I am not adverse to adding some weight to the fv. I already have a chunk of ballast in, but i could always put more protection in, and maybe a little more ballast. Again, moderation is key, I don't want to slow the cars down significantly... Faster is better, that's a lifelong opinion. If I wanted to go slower, I'd drive a golf cart...
3) I would throw out the fan shroud rule in a heartbeat. A car with a thin waistline is much more visually appealing than a car with a thick waistline.
4) I would not be adverse to a longer wheelbase being allowed. A couple reasons for this, firstly, I suspect different wheelbases would be better at different tracks so there would be no single hot set up. Second reason would be the extra length would allow more room for taller drivers. third, the extra length would allow for more deformable area in a hard impact, and could improve safety. And fourth, sleek is sexy! If you want to attract a suitable mate, pheromones will help, but physical beauty will reach a wider audience faster... Again, think Britney... We need to attract younger members that we can sink our claws into and keep for another forty years...
5) I would allow a couple more inches ahead of the H-beam. The reasons being, added crush structure for safety, you can make a nicer looking car that way, and it doesn't necessarily require a lot of work to the car.
6) Allow some sort of splitter. They just look sweet, and could easily be fitted to most cars without great expense...
I'd very much like to build a car someday, a little more leeway than the current rules allow would be much more interesting to me. I have also considered the new f600 for the very reason that the cars will be fast, and can also look good...
Anyway those are my thoughts, looking forward to see if anyone else feels the same way...
mike
problemchild fv #21
From a newbe's perspective.
1. a spec race tire I love what F1200 has done but I'm really a race tire kind of guy.
2. increase the weight to 1045 and yes I'm a bigger guy 53 over weight and wanting to race.
3. the fan shroud rule creates a bulbous rear end if you go with the min frontal area up front some cars resemble ants thin up front and a buluous backside, maybe a min width rule?
4. the cooling air ducts rules are not my favorite thing. Just let us cool our "air cooled" engines properly!
JMHO
G.
G. Brian Metcalf
72 AutoD MK4
1991 Mysterian M2
2014 ALR73 FV/FST
As a Canadian, Never having raced SCCA "yet", don't feel it is right putting my 2 cents worth on what is right or wrong for the series. But sitting back and reading all the posts I wanted to add my thoughts, in general.
1. There has been more action on the previous 2 threads in the past week, then there has been all year. That means everyone is looking for something to change.
2. Many of the points keeping getting repeated, spec tire, weight, future, car counts.
3. Money...At the end of the day, thats what it is about. Canada or the US, this is a amateur sport, not a job.
4. One thing I have not seen much mention of? Where is the new or next racer coming from? Getting car counts also involves getting more people interested. In Canada we promote our series to the Karters who want to move up as well as to those in the mid-30+ who have a bit of dispossable income. Racing is not cheap and never will be.
5. At the end of the day, the governing body NEEDS to make a descision on what best for the group and it's future, but they need to understand change is required. By the number of posts, from a small portion of the group it is clear everyone wants something to change.
6. Someone has to take the bull by the horns.....
Again this is from an outsider looking in, not understanding the politics behind everything. I would personally like to see some sort of cross border series. The fact our 2 countries have such a vast geography make is difficult..
BTW, I an 225lb, 6'2 and squeeze into a lynx B.
I know this was like 2 pages ago, but..
And what happens when the weight is increased and they're still not competitive?These drivers are also frustrated that they cant get close to minimum weight, thus, in their mind they will never be competitive so they loose interest and their cars sit in the garage.
Anyway, my suggestion is for a vote and lets do whatever the vote tells us. I'd like to see a good spec tire, and whatever else the majority wants. I'd love disk brakes, but I realize it would introduce costs that most people don't want. Whatever, I just want people to race with, whatever makes them happy to bring their cars to the track, I'm down for.
I would not say the the Falken 615K's are not a race tire. Just because they have a DOT cert.
Don't forget, we do not need to purchase, or transport a 2nd set of rain tires and wheels.
Street Legal Motorsports and DOT Approved Track Competition Tire
NEW & IMPROVED TREAD COMPOUND that effectively maintains grip as tire tempuratures increase
MASSIVE SPORT SIDE SHOULDER BLOCKS deliver motorsports level grip and unsurpassed durability
THREE HIGH VOID/LOW TURBULENCE GROOVES increase maximum wet weather speeds and by reducing hydroplaning tendencies
SOLID CENTER RIB significantly reduces wheel spin by reducing contact patch void ratio under heavy acceleration
OPTIMIZED AQUA TUSK POSITIONING reduces tread squirm while delivering flagship wet grip
"Formula Vee Diet and Driving Program" coming to a track near you....I know this was like 2 pages ago, but..
And what happens when the weight is increased and they're still not competitive?
Anyway, my suggestion is for a vote and lets do whatever the vote tells us. I'd like to see a good spec tire, and whatever else the majority wants. I'd love disk brakes, but I realize it would introduce costs that most people don't want. Whatever, I just want people to race with, whatever makes them happy to bring their cars to the track, I'm down for.
Don't ask hard questions like that! Wouldn't want to insult anyone.I know this was like 2 pages ago, but..
And what happens when the weight is increased and they're still not competitive?
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
Re Min Weight
For those who don't think weight makes a difference, add 25 lbs to your car in between practice sessions & see how you do. Or for those who find it too hard to add more weight, & have ballast then take 25 lbs out.
I crashed one of Mysterians in practice & had to use another Mysterian that is heavier by 40 lbs or so. We even changed over the engine & exhaust from one car to the other. In the races I lost the lead pack & had a few cars behind me which I was able to stay ahead of. After giving everything I had I saw I could not catch the lead group as they were pulling slightly further away. I had one car pass that had won a few races previously & was able to stay in his draft & within a lap we were up with the lead pack again.
In my main car I had never experienced this before as I was always able to catch up to them within a lap or so. Now this was same chassis design, exact same engine I was running in my other car. There is some variables there but not a ton of them.
To address the question will the weight difference will make ALL others competitive, the answer is no of course the slow guys will still be slow but some people will see a difference. It does however make it a more level playing ground & takes away the excuse from many that I will never win because my car is too heavy.
This is about getting more people out & running. Also as mentioned earlier think about people entering the sport with little knowledge, if they hear they are 25 or 50 lbs over weight from the start I would imagine it may cause them to look at other options...wouldn't you?
Last edited by Steve Bamford; 01.16.12 at 12:19 PM.
Steve Bamford
I'm to heavy and I think thats what hurts me but when I win everyone tells me I have more grip
weight is a killer
Mark Filip
I'm sure some people will take offense to this, but my point was that guys who are 40lbs overweight are probably not in the best of shapes anyway. Raise the weight limit so we're all at the same level, but some guys will still be huffing and puffing and having trouble moving their arms around. What do we do next to make sure these guys are competitive too?
Sorry guys, but I agree with Matt on this one. Give me all the exceptions you want, the majority of guys that weigh 220lbs are not olympic athletes or hitting the gym 5 times a week, they're just overweight! One of our local guys was just another "big guy" that had trouble fitting a vee. Then he decided to get rid of his extra body ballast, lost a bunch of weight, looks better, healthier and a hell of a lot faster. The extra room to move his arms around probably made him much faster than the loss of car weight!
All of that said, I'll still support raising the minimum weight to whatever the majority feels is right. Being one of the scrawny kids, I already need 40lbs of ballast, but I'll find room for more.
I am not going to argue for or against the changes that are being advocated. But I will give my opinion on what will be the results.
1. Adding weight will help equalize the acceleration rates but may exaggerate the advantage to the light weight driver in cornering as the placement of any ballast is optimized. This can make a significant difference. The more the weight is increased, the bigger the advantage.
2. Lengthening the wheel base by 2 inches may not seem like much but again it will make a difference. A longer wheel base will result in improved cornering potential, especially when it comes to slow speed cornering. The principal is that the further the tire is from the center of mass of the car, the more leverage it will have over the mass of the car and the less the load transfer to that wheel will be in cornering. Again the advantage will go to the light weight driver and the light weight car and its ability to place the added mass.
3. Spec tires are way better in concept than reality. For the pro FF series we have a fairly hard tire. This has resulted in a significant development process. We are changing shocks, ballast position and suspension geometry. For 30 years FV and FST (recently) have been developing the cars around tires that are softer and achieve way more grip than what you may choose as a spec tire. The guys who will take the time and spend the money to do the development work are going to be out in front and possibly by a bigger margin than before.
The above three changes may be desirable in the long run but they may be more painful than most think. The real issue is to have events that more people want to support. That is going to take collective action on every ones part.
I am interested in seeing FV thrive because I have a new car that may make it to the track this year. I also think that FV is probably one of the best classes in SCCA. It delivers the best bang for the buck of anything in SCCA. It also has a history of giving drivers the very best foundation if they decide to advance to higher performance cars.
Thanks for the post, Steve. Your thoughts mirror mine.
1) One of my biggest concerns with raising the minimum weight is the ability for those already light drivers to have more fexibility in the location of the weight. Guys my size are already at a disadvantage from a handling standpoint since so much of our body mass is above the CG. Allowing others to put another 25 lbs. in the belly pan just exagerates the difference.
2) I'm tall at 6'3", and it took a lot of work to build a vee I could fit in...2 extra inches of wheelbase would have made a world of difference. But it would also obsolete every single car out there. Give me 2 more inches and I'll build a faster Vee. Not what the class needs.
3) Switching to a spec tire saves money for other development work. Those that have the money to spend will continue to do so on other things...and possibly on ideas that others won't have the same access too.
Just a thought, but if the weight was increased, could a balance limit be put in place? We normally have scales that can measure individual wheel weight, right? Like only X% at the front or rear? Oval guys do cross-weight limits in some budget classes fairly successfully.
~Matt Clark| RTJ-02 FV #92 | My YouTube Onboard Videos (helmet cam)
It's not just a balance or cross weight issue, it's a CG location issue.
True, but I was thinking that might at least help the weight balance by not allowing lead bolted behind the transaxle with a lighter driver, for instance. The heavier guys wouldn't have to deal with such a large front weight %. Keeps everyone closer to 60/40 instead of a few guys at 50/50 front to rear (randomly chosen numbers for sake of arguement). Definitely not a cure-all, but helping somewhat. In my car, I am about 40lbs heavier than the previous driver, who had the lead mounted way further back. I can only imagine the disadvantage of someone with a bigger gap over other guys.
~Matt Clark
Formula One has a variance of 4" in Wheelbase across cars. FV has a variance today of 2" in wheelbase. FST adds a 2" max to that. What Steve has said is in theory correct. But the adavantage (if measureable) go BOTH ways on different tracks. The winner of the FST series last year was in a converted FV with the FV wheel base. IMO, this is the least of the issues to worry about. Considering the other things that already exist in FV. ($100 shock vs. $1000+ shocks, and on and on.) It isnt going to "obsolete" any cars. If one did consider it a major issue, extension of the beam via spacers isn't that difficult.
When the winner of the run-offs has pink shocks, everyone exclaims that they need pink shocks to be competititive.
IMO much ado about nothing..
As Mark said on page 2 of the Tire Brand thread,
"Maybe so, but if you're eventually racing by yourself, who cares?"
Half the FVs in the US are essentially racing by themselves now.
Last edited by problemchild; 01.16.12 at 2:50 PM.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
Steve,
Minor point, "it" has never had soft tires. From day one, the only thing used was the hardest tires Hoosier offers. That choice turned out to be the smartest/best thing about the class. I think its very likely why we're still around.
Bill Bonow
"Wait, which one is the gas pedal again?"
Remember my post when you HAVE to get out of your Racecar bloody quickly in the case of fire/accident......just practice when you get the chance and see how fast you can get out when you look like a sardine crammed into a cockpit...its your life,its like smoking cigarettes..never understood it.Exercising is free,its a drag at times,but when its a bonus at the end...speed/healthy/comfort its worth it.Im 63 and weigh about ten pounds more than i did most of my life,I eat healthy and excercise..I like rum & Coke tho
Isn't it all a perception thing, though? We think we're not winning cause the guy in front spent more on his motor. Then we get a national motor, and we're still not winning. So you buy a protoform.. Nope, still not winning. Crap, he's using brand new tires every session! So you spend the money on tires, and you're still not winning. Must be the weight, it has to be the weight! So we raise the minimum weight, and the same guys are still winning. Hell.. Could it be they're just better at this racing thing?
I support the spec tire argument and whatever else will reduce costs for the mid pack. That's who we're trying to bring back into racing! A small group of people are good enough drivers, with deep enough pockets and a broad range of technical skills that will keep them at the pointy end of the grip no matter what. Like Steve said, I'm sure it won't change who's winning the Runoffs!
The smart thing to do is make it as cheap as possible for everyone else to come along and play. If I'm spending $1500 a weekend to be in the midpack with no chance of ever winning anything, I'll probably get tired of it eventually. But if it only costs me $700-800, yeah, I'll have some nice battles and have a bit of fun.. I might not care as much that I'll never win!
Guys,
For myself, weight has nothing to do with me soley NOT winning this race or that,
but rather it's one component that either leads to a good finish or not. Mix in the
tires, manifold, carb, set-up, competition and most importantly of all, the drivers
current talent level and they all factor into the equation. The Indycar drivers we're
b##ching about Danica several years ago because she had such a weight advantage
over them before they changed the rules. Like Steve said, those that weigh less
would actually have an additional advantage to the weight increase due to 50/50
weight bias that could be achieved.
Mark
"In motor racing I think you either do well or forget it". Aryton Senna
I think a lot forgot it
Mark Filip
Well he wasn't a middle aged fat guy on a budget now was he?
Bob Stack, Hartland, WI
CenDiv - Milwaukee region
I am no longer an SCCA member, but have had both a FST and some FVs. What the guys that created FST did really well is write rules that reduced the penalty for not spending more money. The restrictor plate, spec transaxle and the hard tires make the costs more reasonable than FV. Maybe you can't write rules to keep people from spending money, but you can minimize the penalty for not spending more.
How about using the FST engine and longbox rules with one size Hoosier 55 tires or equivalent on all corners on current wheels and adding 25 pounds.
Can everyone agree that most people will get their engine rebuilt every year or two? The cost to switch would not be much more than a rebuild. Gets rid of the $1000 manifolds and allows stronger, more readily available aftermarket parts. The harder, skinny tires and old brakes take care of the oiling problem that created the allowance of dry sumps. Some work will need to be done for cooling the bigger engine, but the FST guys have already solved those issues. The one transmission reduces overall costs. This also would make the cars faster, addressing the concern about closing rates with faster classes and rules that slow the cars down. The only down side is obsoleting all those $1000 manifolds.
The national guys are saying the Hoosier 60s aren't the right answer for the skinny rims and FST guys say the the 60s are the best thing about the class. The regional guys are saying they can go two seasons with old 55s so they may be the best compromise.
Anyone that looks you in the eye and tells you with a straight face that raising the minimum weight will only make lighter guys more competitive has probably never raced in a Formula Vee that was 40 pounds over the limit. If it's such an advantage, how many of them are adding the weight to their cars now to lower the center of gravity?
Last edited by Bob VanDyke; 01.16.12 at 6:17 PM. Reason: spelling
Te problem is that many people quit because they can't make weight. That is something much harder to change. This is supposed to be a hobby. Not everyone has the ability (or the health in some cases) to run 15 miles a week to lose weight.Isn't it all a perception thing, though? We think we're not winning cause the guy in front spent more on his motor. Then we get a national motor, and we're still not winning. So you buy a protoform.. Nope, still not winning. Crap, he's using brand new tires every session! So you spend the money on tires, and you're still not winning. Must be the weight, it has to be the weight! So we raise the minimum weight, and the same guys are still winning. Hell.. Could it be they're just better at this racing thing?
I support the spec tire argument and whatever else will reduce costs for the mid pack. That's who we're trying to bring back into racing! A small group of people are good enough drivers, with deep enough pockets and a broad range of technical skills that will keep them at the pointy end of the grip no matter what. Like Steve said, I'm sure it won't change who's winning the Runoffs!
The smart thing to do is make it as cheap as possible for everyone else to come along and play. If I'm spending $1500 a weekend to be in the midpack with no chance of ever winning anything, I'll probably get tired of it eventually. But if it only costs me $700-800, yeah, I'll have some nice battles and have a bit of fun.. I might not care as much that I'll never win!
For those that want to win the Runoffs, that might be different. Mike V is a perfect example. He rode hundreds of miles on his bike and ended up with a gold medal. But Joe Racer just wants to have a chance to win a regional or a national once in a while. If he is constantly over the weight limit, he may give up. Now, if minimum weight is raised, he may still not race, but instead of quitting, maybe now he realizes he just needs to spend more on tires , testing, engines or whatever. That's something he might be able to do.
Additionally, there are a lot of older cars out there that were built heavy. Suddenly there is a new market for those cars as they are now in the window of competitiveness.
I put 1800 miles on my road bike since July, so I hope this is true. But I think there was a little more involved.
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
It always seems to be the newby or those with an agenda that advocates for change. Seldom will you see those that have experience or knowledge, advocate change.
I am not a small person and have never advocated for a weight increase, I know some would ask why, but the fact is I still would be in the same position as before, because a smaller person with knowledge would know where to put the added weight. There goes any supposed equalizing I might have gained.
Disc brakes, I don't need the added increase in weight, the increased drag, the cost with my stock of spare parts or lose any advantage I have with my 40 years of experience I acquired on brakes. Besides we are already able to get maximum braking with drums and our tires. There is no upside to disc brakes, looking cool is not a reason to decrease performance.
I agree on spec tires for Regionals, not perfect but they work and are cost effective. I am against for Nationals, I recognize that both Hoosier and Good year have been loyal to our class with both help at the track and contingencies.
Engine change: only if done properly. There is a way to do this but it will require engine builders input.
No to any change that would require added cost to body or frame.
You need to submit to the CRB, if you are serious.
Let us be wild!!!
[quote=lawyerbob;328459]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.
Just imagine going to any H D shop and having great parts and tech support! Just imagine new drivers looking for barn vees so they could get 'out there'. American made power plants........ really do have a greatsound to them Either we change/adaptor we die.
Rob Henley
d13
Bruce,
How many races have you run in the last few years?
Everyone has an agenda. Your rationale above is aimed at keeping a perceived advantage that you believe you have. That's your agenda.
The weight argument is not about an advantage. We have had many national champions that are or were overweight. However, when we have people throwing there arms up and leaving the class because they have no prayer of getting to minimum weight, that is a problem.
I understand your desire to have spec tires for regionals and not for nationals, but look at what it has done to us in NorPac, we have virtually no drivers who cross over and run both. Because neither are willing to buy a different set of tires and go through the setup on the car to run one or two races. If it is not across the board, it just further divides national and regional racing.
Regarding engines, I would love to see an equalization proposal from an engine builder to make the 1600 a viable option. Maybe you could get Ronnie to send something. It would at least be a place to start.
Read those lines together, you'll realize why it's us "newbies" that want a change. Yes, it's exactly because we don't have 40 years of experience and inventory! Being a pretty young fellow, I worry that I'm buying parts and investing in a class that might not be around in 10 years. The money I spend on the car is pretty significant to me, to think there may come a time when I won't be able to race it and it'll be worthless on craigslist. So yes, I do have an agenda to make FV as attractive as possible to other young fellows. It's tough to make FV a desirable class for younger guys while at the same time not alienating the 65 year olds who still want to race for a few more years.
If 50% of Americans are obese, another 25% are overweight, then accommodating some of these people should be the target market for growth. People that are 20-50 lbs overweight can race SM, SRF, FM, FE, and many other classes. They can also drive their boats, snowmobiles, 4-wheelers, off-road machines. They can cruise with their hot rods, harleys, sports cars, etc. They can certainly hunt, fish, or spend Sunday afternoons at the beach, pool, or cottage with their families. All these activities are competing with our insane hobby. How many of our friends, family, crewmembers, are passionate about FV but would never think about competing themselves because of their size? Increasing the weight limit slightly can only make the class more accessable. The cars are still tiny and we will not have to worry about being inundated with nasty obese monsters. Perhaps healthy larger guys like Mark and Scott can be competitive with some degree of car safety. If a few nasty, obese monsters showed up too, would that be so bad?
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
Steve,
Which besides the tire issue is perceived? Besides with the advent of Rationals, it should not be a problem.
A lighter driver can place weight anywhere he wants, more weight added greater advantage. You, yourself have always complained of your weight, but you did something about it, you didn't leave.
Some are lucky, they were born with a driver's body, others just make adjustments. The lighter driver will always have an advantage. Some will never be comfortable in a vee.
It won't be an equalization process, because it does not have to equal anything. Will let you know if idea is feasible.
Tiago,
My experience is in the automotive field. I have acquired a lot of knowledge in that field during those 40 some years. Learning can be taught and is cheaper than buying a brake system that will not let you go faster.
As for the supply, I admit it is a good stock, but it comes from years of collecting. You need assistance, help is always given. Being on the west coast has it's advantages. Talk to the guys up north they know me.
Bruce
Last edited by Bruce; 01.16.12 at 8:32 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
