Matt,
You may be correct, but I would be much more inclined to move towards racing
in the growing Vintage Vee series than continue spending $600 for a set of tires
with a short life span. As Diamond said, what's to lose by moving in this direction?
If it doesn't work, then move back to the current tire formula, however doing
nothing will continue the inevitable.
Mark
Originally Posted by Diamond Formula Cars
I can think of a few downsides to increasing the minimum weight. First is you run the risk of upsetting all those who have been working hard and spent all the time and money to play by the current rules.
Second, you open and set a precedence to make it easier to alter more rules. It can create the attitude that if some people are having a hard time with a rule, no worries...we can lobby and get it changed.
Third, it will put more wear on our tires. True, probably a negiligable amount, but when people are already complaining about it, why make it worse.
Fourth, it still will offer those already adding weight an additional advantage for balancing and lowering the CG.
Fifth, what happens with all current and modern era track records and statistics?
Sixith, there are some people who will have a hard time finding places to safely add the weight.
Give me time and I'm sure I'll think of a few more - those I just rattled of the top of my head.
Mike,
We're not neglecting the negatives, but in many peoples eyes, the positives out weigh
the negatives. You seem to ignore the direction this class is headed and seem to think
that "staying the course" will magically cause our numbers to increase. Those driver's
who have stopped racing have spoken by not showing up thus leading to our current
decline. Unless we individually polled each driver who quit, no one is entirely sure why they left, but I'd bet it was due to increasing costs, and one way to control those costs is the implementation of a "spec tire". This class has been declining for the past ten years, so the poor economy can't be solely to blame, and I think it was J.Schings who has a graph showing the decline over those years etc.
Mark
I feel for people who would like the rules to remain status quo & I see & hear their points which all make sense to me. Many of them are people such as Michael V who is running at the top of the class for years & spent considerable time working to get there.
We are in a sense asking to change some parts of the class that people such as this have excelled at & also parts of the FV racing that they probably also really enjoy working on.
It might be a bad choice of words however we are asking to make FV racing easier then what it is today. Save people three plus hours of flipping & arranging tires prior to a weekend as an example by moving to a spec tire. Saving money is the main reason though. For some that will greatly help.
Weight issues should pretty much be a wash as now the people who have figured out how to save the last 25 lbs already can figure out where to add it as an advantage based on C of G. Yes there is upside to that as well for some not just negatives.
I hear both sides of the discussion, I just see more potential (& that is all it is "potential" as there are no facts to support it) by moving in a new direction & adopting some changes.
Last edited by Steve Bamford; 01.26.12 at 2:35 PM.
Steve Bamford
I can think of a few downsides to increasing the minimum weight. First is you run the risk of upsetting all those who have been working hard and spent all the time and money to play by the current rules.
Change never makes everyone happy. The point is would it be good for the overall health of the class?
Second, you open and set a precedence to make it easier to alter more rules. It can create the attitude that if some people are having a hard time with a rule, no worries...we can lobby and get it changed.
Sorry, but that just not buying that one. Changing rules in this class takes an act of congress...............
Third, it will put more wear on our tires. True, probably a negiligable amount, but when people are already complaining about it, why make it worse.
As you said "negligible" I would say none. Plus your tires never last to the cord so what difference does will a little wear make?
Fourth, it still will offer those already adding weight an additional advantage for balancing and lowering the CG.
Hey we Agree on that one......... I am willing to accept that perceived disadvantage.
Fifth, what happens with all current and modern era track records and statistics?
Good point. I don't really care about track records. Winning races is what matters. Track records have way to many variables in my mind to be really relevant.
Sixith, there are some people who will have a hard time finding places to safely add the weight.
Sorry, but don't agree. Vee guys are pretty resourceful. A new 14ga steel belly pan weighs 25 lbs. I know because I put one on my FST to make weight.
Give me time and I'm sure I'll think of a few more - those I just rattled of the top of my head.
I will be waiting .....
Scott
Weight
I haven't read the entire thread, so if I'm repeating what someone else has already said, my apologies.
I, for one, like 1050.
I consistantly ran 1052-1057 in my Caracal C when I was a SKINNY 200 pounds (I'm 6'3" & 220 is healthier at my age.).
If the lighter guys don't like it, they could look at it as an opportunity to add ballast stratagically in their cars to attain better front-to-rear weight balance.
As for wheels, I'll follow any rules as long as we all are required to run identically the same.
OK...I'm done.
Thanks.
Maybe rather then thinking
"what can formula vee do for me"
we should be thinking
"what can I do for formula vee"
Scott
I can't figure out how to do all the fancy colored text, so......
Yes, right now changing the rules does take an act of congress. That's kind of my point. The more rules changes we make, the easier future ones will be.
I do actually run my tires down to the coords more often then people would think I do. Besides, it's not just about the amount of rubber - it's the amount of heat that builds up in it.
Changing a belly pan can be an expensive and labor intensive project. Why should someone who has already done all the work to make it light now have to go back and do it all again to make it heavy?
As for the decline of numbers in our class, I'm not sure the sky is falling. The last graph I've looked at didn't indicate any more rapid loss in our class then in SCCA's classes overall. The problems aren't with our rules.
See post #127
Mike,
This could go on forever, I respect you opinion so we will just have to agree to disagree. Besides, both of us probably should be getting some work done......
Scott
Mike,
You wrote:
"The last graph I've looked at didn't indicate any more rapid loss in our class then
in SCCA's classes overall."
If that's the case, then why did FV slip from 2nd to 4th in overall numbers recently?
1 & 2 are SM and SRF. STU beat out FV by 2 cars total and STU counted 1 additional race.
FV is 4th and still the top Formula car class the club has. Mike's point is valid. The club as a whole is losing participants.
SteveO
Maybe other classes gained?
It doesn't matter if we are gaining or losing or 2nd or 4th or whatever. What can we do that will increase class participation?
Good luck on the debate - let me know when it's time to write letters please.
STU and SM double dippers by any chance?
STU
I don't know if a Miata in SM trim and STU trim are identical but 9 out of 24 STU entries at the Runoffs were Miata's. At least one guy ran both STU and SM. Again I don't know if it was the same car.
SteveO
Rule changes may be slow but they are not new to SCCA. I have a near original 1963 Formcar FV in my garage. It does not really resemble a modern FV nor meet the current rules. SCCA has made lots of changes in the last 49 years. A 25 lb. weight adjustment would be minor compared to changes made ovet the years. Besides safety updates I believe these were the major ones. Allow free exhaust systems,remove the fan and generator and allow aftermarket oil filters and coolers,weight calculated with driver,and allow modifications to intake manifolds.
Butch
butch deer
STU is a catch-all class that was recently elevated to National status. The fact that it has overtaken FV in the top three doesn't concern me too much in the grand scheme of things. It's not the same as if a new class of car was created that all of a sudden started pulling new racers off the street or out of other classes, like SM did. STU is just an opportunity for people who already have a car to race it in another class.
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
I agree with CraigS, let me know when it's time to write the letters. Anything else
appears to be a waste of time.
Mark
If I understand, and, and correct me if Im wrong, the primary objective of this proposal is to bring back people that have left the class because they felt they could not be competitive at the lower weight, and without fresh tires on a regular basis. and again I may be missing the entire point here, But what's going to happen when these people return, and are still not competitive because others are still working harder to make the new rules work to their advantage, as they did with the old rules. Not trying to kick the bees nest, but after all, this is racing. Dale
I'd like to hear some answers to that too. The vibe seems to be that everything else is fair game except weight and tires because those are "easy" fixes.
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
The primary purpose of all of this is not to bring back people that have left the class, they are gone, most likely for ever.
IMO the primary purpose would be to:
- Bring back former racers that have cars sitting in their garages.
- Help current racers that compete on a regional level and are frustrated with the escalating cost, availability of parts, and in many cases the unreachable minimum weight.
I can be competitive on a regional level even at 1070. I can't be competitive on a national level at 1070. So what incentive is there for me to spend ten times as much $$$$ to run nationals just to get my butt handed to me simply because I weigh more then my competitors? I can't be the only one that feels this way......
The point that everyone seems to be missing is the regional racers (aka average Joe) are the backbone of this class. As they go away, so does the class.
Last edited by Diamond Level Motorsports; 01.26.12 at 6:41 PM.
Scott
Real Dilema
I like that there is concern about the class, but the real problem is what to do with the declining numbers and they are declining. All I could find with a Google search was the participation numbers for 2011, 2008 and 2007 and we've lost 21% since 2007. When I started in the mid '90's the number was around 1000 (please correct me if the figure is not correct) We were number one or two for a long time, but we've been surpassed by guess what? Two SPEC classes; SRF and SM (and STU). Must be something to SPEC classes, plus all three seem to be promoted like hell by the SCCA. I agree that changing rules, tires and weights might not make a difference and the numbers wont increase. On the other hand, the current status is not producing result. The only way to compare the Canadian series to the US is not by simple numbers, but a comparison of how many F1200 cars there are in relation to how many show up to race as a percentage and use the same criteria for the US. Yes they have a limited selection of tracks (three for 2012) but how many active tracks are there in Canada compared to the US. Their season in 2012 will have 18 points gathering races. We can blog and post forever, but if nothing is done it will be a real shame to see the longest and BEST class in SCCA go by the wayside.
Al
A little to think about, in 1988 When Ron and Butch published their catalog (black and white one) Hoosier tires were $90 F and $95 R each. Adjust that for inflation and what?
In the day those tires would not hold air and you struggled to keep your car on the track. Today's tires last longer, and are competitive many more heat cycles as compared to the older tires.
Looking at that old catalog and adjusting prices for inflation we have nothing to complain (WHINE) about. Yes many parts are not available new but are available.
I would suggest dealing with one of the sponsors on this board or the FV Exchange they know what parts you need , they stock them, they are knowledgeable and will not sell you junk. I think you will find them very price competitive. Personally I quit asking the price from my preferred vendor, I know I will be treated fairly.
If any of you newbies want a scaned copy of Butch's catalog PM me with your Email address and I will send a pdf to you.
Dave
The sky might not be falling
I meant to address the comments about the overall decline in numbers. Not that we don't care what the overall numbers are, we need to be concerned by our numbers. I've felt for the last few years that the SCCA doesn't seem to care about the Club Racers as much as SCCA Pro Racing (except for our dues and renewal fees) . If it's truly a club, why are all the pro races listed first in the schedule and why did SCCA change the way it does the annual report (seems a little harder to figure where all the money goes). Like Butch said, there have been major changes over the years and the class is still around. We cannot remain stagnant or we will disappear as a class. Who know' if we can figure out how to improve our numbers it could be a model for other struggling classes.
Al
Al,
Good post! I guess losing 21% of your class over the last several years means
all is well and the sky isn't falling. This class is the opposite of Reagan's "trickle
Down " theory. New members get their Novice permit, go to school, get their
license and run Regionals, and after achieving the correct # of races to get a
National license. Some head off to run Nationals fulltime but many remain in
the Regional ranks. We as drivers don't head the other direction so if the Regional
numbers continue to decline (faster than National #'s), then eventually the National
#'s will decline due to the trickle up factor. If you want to continue racing with
fewer and fewer cars, then do the same we've been doing the past 15 years..
Mark
DaveB:
Nobody's whining, but rather trying to correct the declining numbers. I also don't care about how much the tires cost in the 1988. Today is 2012 and I'm
concerned about the future of this class and only wish others would quit thinking
that all is well!
That 21% decline statistic does not indicate a problem that things like spec tires or higher minimum weight will fix. FV has been following the same general decline as all the classes in the club. The problems lie elsewhere.
Dave's point about the tire costs were to demonstrate that back when there were huge fields of FV's, tires cost significantly more then they do now, with less life.
The problems that need to be fixed are not tires and weight. The data that we do have points to that. We have more data to support not needing a spec tire or weight change then we do indicating a change will bring more people into the class. There is also no data to know what we will loose with changes like these. An unknown risk.
Cars sitting in barns and garages will not be on the race track because we added 25 lbs. or offered a spec tire.
Unless peoples motivation is for personal gain by spec tires or raising the weight, the effort would be much better spent trying to either find ways to fix some of the underlying problems within the SCCA to make the club as a whole more attractive, or find ways to reach out to others who can buy up the cars sitting in garages. If FV's continue to slip further down the #'s rank in SCCA, then we can debate how to fix the class. Until then, there is no proof we have a class problem.
What is the problem then? Let's here some solutions. If everyone is going about it wrong, tell us how to fix it.
Maybe we can shift this thread over to a new thread surrounding how to bring more cars into our ranks. There is another thread re: promoting the class, maybe it belongs there.
Anyway, I would love to hear some alternative ideas that can help.
Did you ever play the game where on person whispers to another and then another and so on and you see how the message gets mangled in the end. FV guys are the greatest people I know and the best people to race against, but we have to work on reading skills
If you go back to the first post I asked people to make a logical argument with examples, for a change in the weight, based on rules and technology changes. I never asked for a change for competition sake, or bring or keep more people into the class - that will never get past the comb board much less the membership. Now, would an increase be news that could be used in the marketing of our class and show how we are actively trying to keep the class true to our roots? Probably. Might it accomplish some of what we need to grow the class - hopefully.
On Saturday, I will be home and able to publish my spreadsheet on the change of weight through the years. Please hold off writing to the Comp Board until we can hash this out a little longer. I am sorry - I should have waited till I could do that before starting this thread.
Steve and Dave are probably wringing their hands going "There goes Chris again - tilting at windmills". "He should just shut up and race." I do believe this a serious issue and we should be able to evaluate it on a National level. But we have to be realistic. Right now the emotional response is split 50/50 for raising vs staying status quo. I don't believe that is going to get anywhere with the Comp Board. We have to come up with a number we can all get united behind.
Stick with me for a few more days.
BTW - there are a lot of good ideas in this thread and good ideas for both adding and removing weight. Whatever the outcome, everyone should get their car weighted this year, with and without the driver. Don't assume you know, and don't give up trying to safely get down to as much as you can.
ChrisZ
"If you go back to the first post I asked people to make a logical argument with examples, for a change in the weight, based on rules and technology changes."
Watch it. If you use technology changes we may end up with a weight reduction!
Batteries, body parts, starters and other lightweight parts are now "commonly" available.
(Yes, commonly available is arbitrary based on what people want to pay in time and price).
Craig
Last edited by craigs; 01.26.12 at 10:30 PM. Reason: I spell worse than I race
I asked that exact same question earlier. I really don't think the weight increase will change much, but it might give the impression of change. If anything, the guys that are thinking of quitting for being overweight might keep trying for another couple years. I'm ok with that. On tires, although the unwashed masses might not start winning all of a sudden, they'll probably be a bit closer and spending a lot less money. Like I said before, I would only consider spending $1000 a weekend for so long if I wasn't remotely competitive. It would get pretty old to spend that kind of money to finish 7th. But cut my spending to $600 and I might hang around even if I'm forever a mid-pack guy. Hypothetically, of course
EDIT: I just realized how closely this relates to politics. Guess I'm opening a ginormous can of worms, but I bet I could figure out which side of the political fence most of the guys in this thread are by their stance on all this
Last edited by Tiago Santos; 01.26.12 at 10:50 PM.
Mike,
So if a 21% decline in participation since 2007 (5 yrs.) doesn't indicate a problem,
then what amount does indicate a problem in your view? Based on YOUR numbers,
we're heading for a 42% decline by 2017 since the trend has been downward since the mid 90"s. So does a 42% decline or loss of 300 - 400 drivers start to worry
you yet or only if it impacts National participation since that's where you hang?
I'm understand that the economy has contributed to some of the erosion and maybe
driver's will come back if it turns around, but who knows for sure? You mentioned
date supporting your side of the discussion, so please elaborate what the data has
determined, who gathered it etc?? You also mentioned that the problems needing
to be fixed are not tires and weight, if so then what in your view are they? You've
taken the opposing side the entire time so I respectfully ask your opinion on what
fixes are available that will bring back the garage queens.
Mark
Anyone have the average participation numbers for FV and SCCA by class over the last say 10 years (the more the better)? National and regional?
If you do and can't post here for any reason can you PM me and I will send you my email address.
Also, tire prices over time is an interesting study, but unfortunately may not be meaningful. One of my statistics professors once used an example that may fit here. Shark attacks increase as ice cream consumption increases therefore to cut down on shark attacks we should stop eating ice cream. When looking at tire prices and participation numbers we should remember that our first assumptions of correlation may be nothing more than an interesting anecdote.
Craig
Last edited by craigs; 01.26.12 at 11:38 PM. Reason: added last paragraph
Or spend millions of dollars to find out what ingredient it is in the ice cream that attracts the sharks. (insert joke about the government here.....)
Its much easier to blame the economy than try to make things better. In not too distant times, FV had 3X the national entry average that we do now. In that same time, SRF and SM have come from zero to the numbers we had. If this was FA, or even FB or FC, then I could buy into the elitist attitude that we only want the best, most dedicated, athletic, competitors. Gimme a frickin break. FV was a class for the common people. Reducing costs and making the cars more accessible will absolutely slow the decline, by helping keep people enthused and enjoying their racing experience. Guys who are 50 lbs overweight now, will see some light in the tunnel, and lose 15 lbs or replace the floor, and will absolutely improve their performance. If weight is not so important, why are people fighting so hard to keep their advantage. If people got to September, and could do another race without buying another set of tires, they would be so much more likely to do another race or two. None of this is going to show up in data from one year to the next, to show a correlation to change. At this point, affecting change that would result in just 1/4 of the current racers doing just one more event per year, would be a huge improvement and would probably equalize the natural decline (FV drivers retiring/not renewing, die-ing,?).
Other than tires and minimum weight, what can be changed? Its easy to criticize others ideas, and say you're working on your own solutions, but those solutions never come. There is a problem. Why would there be 4 or 5 threads going on for 100s of posts, if not a problem? Quashing the people, who believe there is a problem, by a narrow margin, is not a solution. It just prevents the solution from coming now.
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.
[FONT=Verdana]These threads are getting so frickin lengthy and redundant.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Is there any logical path for any of these recommendations i.e. weight, tires, engines, suspension, chassis, bodywork, grid girls, etc?[/FONT]
If I could be at a track unloading my trailer right now, instead of at work I would not be complaining that much at all....
Greg: Great post!!!
CenDiv20: If you don't like this thread or it's annoying, then don't participate!
Amon, re-read my post..... "Is there any logical path for any of these recommendations"
So, your recommendation is for me to not participate? Brillant idea!
Then give us your solution to these posts and what you see as a way to solve
the declining numbers as Greg mentioned this morning? I agree we need to move beyond this discussion so take the lead and we'll hopefully consider it?
I do not know how to attract more drivers to our class yet... do I wish I had the answer, Absolutely.
I would rather have a field of 20+ cars every race instead of less than 10 cars most of the time. I just don't believe that changing the tires and weight is going to get someone "off the bench". If they have been off the track for that long, they will incur other mandatory expenses... HANS this year, Engine rebuild at least a valve job, restraints, med-physical, license, gear, brakes, trailer maint, trailer registration, etc. Do I agree it's tougher to attract someone new into the class and make that initial investment rather than get someone who has a car sitting... of course. Although that car is sitting for a reason and I don't believe it is because of the GCR.... of course there is someone out there though but I am referring to the majority.
The biggest thing that amazes anyone when they see my car, or picture of.... First question "how fast do you go" Second question "do you get paid to do that". A lot of people cannot even wrap their head around the fact we will go racing for a whole weekend if not longer, drive to another state to earn points and a trophy.
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
Cendiv20:
So explain to me how paying less for something (tires) over a period of a year is not
a benefit for those involved?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
