Steve. Total agreement here. Mike and Al, did a great job in innovation, prepardness and driving.
If it were a $50 dollar item or even something that improved longevity, etc. no change would be in order. But this one adds a lot of expense to an area that gets hit once in a while. Not a good idea for the class.
I don't disagree, but I would contend that the SCCA has done a less than stellar job enforcing that spirit. Historically, the sanctioning body has not been very proactive in keeping ahead of these kinds of things. The SCCA should have a more formal process to review and enforce its own rules beyond waiting for or hoping that a competitor will file a protest. Most other sanctioning bodies that I am aware of have a process where they can step in and change the rules at their discretion.Originally Posted by Steve Davis
A class as large and established as FV should have some formal governance closer to its competitor base than the CRB. It could start by empowering a committee like the FVAC with more official status and power.
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
banned stuff
They banned the side pods on Noble's Caracal in 81 right away.
Maybe a better SCCA then.
Two issues:
Legality and spirit of the rules.
Tough to protest on Spirit of the Rules when we have no fan shroud, modified beams and spindles, etc.
As far as legality - in the SCCA that is handled through the protest system unfortunatley. If no one was willing to protest (I believe the Stewards can request an protest - got to get my GCR out) then no one can complain.
Another reason I used to keep my old GCRs, I thought there was a part about bodywork not being able to be attached to unsprung parts. But I don't see that. If I had the time I would review all the sections that could apply, but I don't see any right now that would restrict these covers.
ChrisZ
This is the problem with every one of these threads. The members are the sanctioning body. So the members are in fact the ones who are supposed to step in say no. If the BOD went ahead and just made the change then we would just have another thread yelling about which one of them has some kind of agenda.
Then the problem becomes numbers. If you look at the total number of vee drivers across the country how many does this really matter to. Most are not going to worry about the next trick part because they aren't trying to be at the very pointy end, as they don't see the value in it or just view it as an unreachable location for them to play. So then they don't write a letter. So that leaves the small group that does make the tow every year. Problem is now if they write they just appear to be a few people with a complaint. So then we get the ?? they made a rule change with only 4 letters thread.
The next question becomes do you as what class you drive have the will to look your fellow competitors in the eye and say yes I know you spent a ton of money figuring out how to make that work but we are gonna make it illegal now. I'm not sure a club where everyone has a say will ever have the will to do that. Hence things like the crazy price to buy a piece of pipe to attach a carb to only a 70 year old engine design. The membership as a whole just doesn't have the will to put cats back in bags.
And of course perhaps being a newer member to the world of club racing I'm just watching a dead horse get beaten agian.
Mark Swick
" but I would contend that the SCCA has done a less than stellar job enforcing that spirit. Historically, the sanctioning body has not been very proactive in keeping ahead of these kinds of things. "
Ah... How short the memories are - or how unwilling too may people are to consult the older class members.
30 years or so ago, the FV community basically told the Club to keep their hands off the class - the class members would police the class themselves. The Club has, for the most part, honored that demand. To those still in the class who were there at the time, that philosophy still holds, even if it has been somewhat invisible for a while.
Rather than bitch about what the CRB has or hasn't done, try actually letting them know as a group what you do or don't want.
You might be surprised at how receptive they will be.
The club has a Board of Directors and members from each division elect a representative to serve on it. Why couldn't the FV community elect a representative of the class from each division to serve on a FV Board of Directors that would have similar governance powers over the class?
Richard, even if what you are saying is true, that doesn't mean the class can't improve its self-governance process.
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
"You might be surprised at how receptive they will be."
Indeed I would be.
After they blew off a 70+% positive response from the class members on the question of a move to a spec tire, indeed I would be...
.
.
.
.
.
Surprised if they were responsive
Matt:
The class can indeed "improve", depending on what the definition is, and the people best suited to sort that out are the class members themselves, BUT. they need to present a unified message - something that has been lacking for a lot of years.
..................................
As to spec tires - come up with a tire that will actually do what you want, AND not be a royal hassle for each division to police, and the Club might be receptive. So far, neither of those requirements has been even remotely met.
I agree in 'spirit' - but in fact, "SCCA" is not in the tech shed, nor on the BOD, nor on any Committee. It is PEOPLE that are there. The "other sanctioning" bodies that can change the rules on the fly are true DICTATORS of their sport. We (SCCA) are not. Might it be better the other way ?? Possibly, but that is not the principle of the club.
Maybe we should try to change that ?? Maybe not.
Personally, I think a SMALL Committee for each class (maybe 3 -5 people) .. all made up of CURRENT ACTIVE DRIVERS should be the "ruling dictator" for all classes (INCLUDING APPEALS .. at least for vehicle legality issues). It sure would keep things simpler and avoid the extreme apathy of the vast majority of the competitors. In my limited experience, the members of the appeals board generally have not the SLIGHTEST knowledge of the car/class/issue at hand. Very few have been in or worked on a car (in ANY class - much less the one in question) in MANY MANY YEARS .. if ever.
What it comes down to is that MOST of the competitors appear to really not CARE what the rules ARE ... as long as they can KNOW what those rules are. Responses to 'requests for member input' are pitifully small. Responses to polls are pitifully small compared to # of participants.
Yes - tech can prepare a CSA and the CS can back it up. The car/issue could be declared illegal and be appealed and be confirmed as ILLEGAL... HOWEVER, there is *NO SCCA PROCESS* to force a resultant change in the *RULES*. Therefore, the exact same car, with the exact same "issue" could come to the Runoffs the next year - receive a CSA and WIN in appeals ... still with no change/confirmation of the actual GCR wording. Sad but true.
...and obviously, the same holds true for a competitor protest.
Steve, FV80
Last edited by Steve Davis; 10.01.12 at 1:04 PM. Reason: added last sentence.
An appeal board with no 'knowledge of the car/class/issue at hand' is what is required to get a fair and unbiased hearing. The members have no preconceptions.
Brian
Okay guys, since we are looking at at least two months before the start of the 2013 season, have at it:
Appendix F - Technical Glossary (who knew you could have rules in a glossary!)
[FONT=Univers-BoldItalic][FONT=Univers-BoldItalic]Active Aerodynamic Devices [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers]from within the cockpit. Adjustment of aerodynamic devices may only be[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]No active aerodynamic devices are[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]permitted. These include, but are not limited to, those that allow any[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]degree of freedom in relation to the entirely sprung part of the car[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers]
[FONT=Univers](chassis/monocoque), movable or hinged skirts, or that can be adjusted[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]made by mechanical changes performed from outside the car.[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]I love - "but are not limited to" - I guess that means "I know it when I see it"[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]ChrisZ[/FONT]
[/FONT]
One could argue that the since attitude of the wheel cover in relation to the airstream is controlled by the direction the wheel is pointed, which is controlled from inside the cockpit of the car through the steering wheel, it becomes an active aerodynamic device.Appendix F - Technical Glossary (who knew you could have rules in a glossary!)
[FONT=Univers-BoldItalic][FONT=Univers-BoldItalic]Active Aerodynamic Devices [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers]from within the cockpit. Adjustment of aerodynamic devices may only be[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]No active aerodynamic devices are[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]permitted. These include, but are not limited to, those that allow any[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]degree of freedom in relation to the entirely sprung part of the car[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers](chassis/monocoque), movable or hinged skirts, or that can be adjusted[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers]
[FONT=Univers]made by mechanical changes performed from outside the car.[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]I love - "but are not limited to" - I guess that means "I know it when I see it"
[FONT=Univers]ChrisZ[/FONT]
[/FONT]
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
So if you use aero tubing for your steering arms, I guess those are aerodynamic devices too, by your definition above. I don't think that is going to do it. I think everyone needs to accept that they are legal today as the rules read. If someone wants to try to have that changed, follow the rule change process.One could argue that the since attitude of the wheel cover in relation to the airstream is controlled by the direction the wheel is pointed, which is controlled from inside the cockpit of the car through the steering wheel, it becomes an active aerodynamic device.
It doesn't really matter to me if they are legal or not, just making an observation based on the wording of the definition in the glossary. However, simply because someone has done something similar in the past does not automatically A) make it legal or B) make anything similar legal in the future. Most of these things become accepted because no one formally protests them when they first show up and there is not enough interest to get a rule change to address it. Then 10 years later people say "Of course it's legal; we've been doing it for 10 years."
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
if you tried to argue along those lines, you would lose very quickly - you forgot what the Glossary defines "Aerodynamic Device" to be:
Aerodynamic Device – An attachment to, or an integral part of, a car
intended to generate atmospheric downforce by the action of air flowing
through or around the attachment.
However, you could try to use the following:
From the FV Bodywork rules:
B. The rear bodywork shall enclose the engine by surrounding it from
a point no higher than the lower edge of the intake manifold and
extending from the front of the engine to its rear on each side.
C. The rear bodywork must have the ability to enclose the original
Volkswagen fan shroud mounted in its stock location (see illustration
in Section C.12).
While it could be argued that these covers do not have the ability to enclose the fan shroud since they are not part of the bodywork that actually does enclose the shroud, you'd probably be shot down.
N. The bottom of any bodywork that extends below the frame
members shall be on the same flat plane as the undertray (ref. C.8)
and shall not deviate from that flat plane by more than 1 inch front
to rear effective for any newly registered cars after January 1,
1983.
This one would be harder to argue against if claimed - in roll or cresting rises, the covers almost certainly drop below the undertray plane by more than 1 inch, and their bottoms most certainly are not on that same flat plane as is required when in roll or cresting rises.
Good point -now we have to see if streamlined tubing is allowed, while the wheel covers have already been ruled bodywork.
ChrisZ
Hello -
I just got back in town and have been catching up on this thread. I will post a few general comments when I get a chance to read things through more.
However, I wanted to address the last comment - our car has a very low ride height due to the inclination of the motor / transmission, meaning the frame rails are close to the ground. With the droop limiters, low ride height, and height of the tires, the covers do not fall below the bellypan. With our rear suspension and biscuts used to control roll, the inside wheel cover never breaches the rule. We already reviewed this issue to make sure we would not be caught out by it prior to the runoffs.
To those who have sent me private or public messages in support of what we have done and / or accomplished, we thank you very much.
Again, when I get a chance to read the entire thread I may post another reply.
Thanks,
Michael Varacins
from the beam back
Some one said in one of the posts the aero is free to the center of the tire from the beam back the wheel cover is also in front of the beam if it covers the whole wheel?I know I saw a scoop in the inside of the fearing, Or cover, Again was hard to see in the speedcast shot. was the open part of the wheel in front of the beam not enclosed? I am just asking a question here. I don't believe the cover made any real difference. Iam affraid that everyone will perceive it to be a must have item if left alone. and just add cost. Peter E. Cheney fv#06
That is correct, the cover stops right at the beam as required by the rules.
This was posted by Stevan Davis on the other forum: http://wedgeracing.com/2012/wheel_pants.html
Last edited by smsazzy; 10.02.12 at 5:12 PM. Reason: adding link to picture
I thought they were only fronts.
Small photos, but the craftsmanship looks to be top notch, beautiful work. I wouldn't expect anything less from MV/AV
Last edited by Bill Bonow; 08.01.14 at 6:29 PM.
Bill Bonow
"Wait, which one is the gas pedal again?"
I have a question.
Why does everyone spend time moving the shock, and leave a big honking nut there? Why not just use the threads that are there?
Chris Z
Another question.
The body cannot extend beyond the centerline of the front and rear tires/wheels? When you turn the wheel, doen't the panel extend beyond this plane? If something is not fixed the how can it be measured? Does not go for the rear of course.
Chris Z
Seems a lot of people forgot about these
Maybe we are a stepping stone for F1
http://m.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/215...-to-be-banned/
Mark Filip
Doug brings up a very good point and racing is expensive. Compared to the other classes FV is still cheaper in many respects.There are classes with cost controls—they are called spec classes. Try FE or SRF. Then again, some of those at the pointy end spend an awful lot, too. Even those show the guys who have the deepest pockets.
Racing is expensive, and so are Formula Vees. You can race a lot of classes on the cheap, but you won't ever be at the front of a National field. Guys at the RunOffs in any class complaining about the cost of racing (or potential cost creep) is downright comical. Complaining about a smart item that may or may not be a performance gain because you don't have it is childish.
These fairings are perfectly legal, and the odds on seeing them on every car at the RunOffs next year is slim to remote. How many cars did you see at the RunOffs this year in FF using those Aerotek wheels that Jongbloed made that were on the Bill Kephart Vestal from a fee years ago at Heartland Park? One? Anyone remember the stink those things caused? "Everyone will HAVE to have them, they should be illegal."
People talk about the "good of the community" and the wheel pants. Now everyone will have to go out and spend big money to get them so they should be banned. So following the same logic.. expensive item, everyone will have to have it.. maybe we should ban the high dollar manifolds. After all, it's a "cheap" class and it's for the "good of the community".
Instead of spending the money on wheel pants and spent it at the gym, most of us myself included would probably be a whole lot faster (and healthier).
Just one mans thoughts on the whole issue.
Reinventing the world, one wheel at a time.
Racing is expensive - why should we make it more?
Look at it this way:
$75,000 Atlantic -$1,000. Hans device
$8,000 FV -$1,000 Hans device
Mandatory safety device - but whose wallet takes a bigger hit.
Now apply same logic to racing parts.
Now if a FV was $1,000 iin 1963, maybe a $20,000 FV in 2013 (50 years) may be okay.
But all costs need to be in proportion. If cost climb 10% per year in FV, they may only be climbing 2% in Atlantic. Which is going to affect car count?
Right now National FV is doing okay, and Regional FV is probably down a little. Overall the picture looks good, until you realize we used to have 30+ cars at regionals and 25+ at Nationals! Remember the reason we have 40 cars at the Runoffs is because we can - it used to be only top 3 from each division. Look at the spec miata fields if you want to see what FV used to be.
FV was always supposed to be entry level racing. You were not supposed to stay in it for life. You were supposed to move up to FF or the like. Now the cost are so dramatic in that class that the jump is tough to make. So the people who would have left the class now want to have the best of both worlds. Is this a sustainable model or the reality of 2012?
Our choice.
Chris Z
Chris,
I disagree with your premise for the origin of FV. It was built so that the "everyman" could go race. Was it intended to be an "end all"? - I think, YES - emphatically so. The original concept as I understand it was to allow "the average Joe" a way to get a car and go RACING. It was assumed that "the average Joe" would not be able to afford to race ANY OTHER WAY and it was a resoundingly successful formula. It was based on CHEAP and available parts. It didn't have the "bling" of faster more expensive cars but the bang for the buck was unsurpassed.
The majority of the issues today are, for the most part, based on the MYRIAD of options available to the younger people out there .. As discussed in other threads, they get their jollies in other (FAR FAR Cheaper .. and taking less WORK and EFFORT) pass-times today.
All we can do is to try to attract the attention of that relatively small minority that is still interested in doing something PHYSICAL that requires BRAINS
Steve, FV80
I’ve caught up a bit on this thread now. First let me say thanks again to those who have offered their congratulations and kind words regarding the runoffs as well as the design and finish of the parts in question.
FV is defined as a restricted class, not a spec class. There is a set of rules, the same rules that each and every competitor has access to, to which we are allowed to design and innovate within. If innovation and technical progress wasn’t part of the class, we would all still be driving Formcars and there would be no designation between current and vintage. We all innovate items on our cars to gain a competitive advantage. Most, if not all of us, do our own prep work. We are handy with tools and shop equipment. How many can honestly say they haven’t re-worked, modified, or created something on their car in hopes is gives them an advantage? Even just setting the tire pressures is done in hopes we found a better setting then the next guy. That’s called competition, the backbone of racing.
So I’m a bit confused as to why this has caused so many complaints. I find it a bit hypocritical that some of the same people outspoken against them are big innovators themselves. Bruce L, you have spent hours and hours completely reworking the back half of your Mysterian. New rear chassis, new suspension, ect. Why is that acceptable innovation and these wheel pieces are not? There were two cars running Silver Bullet bodies that had strong showings at the runoffs. Why are those bodies accepted innovation and these wheel pieces are not?
The rules are in place to control what is accepted innovation. These covers are within the rules, just as countless other innovations that have taken place over the years. The irony of this issue is these wheel covers are one of the few innovations on my car that are obvious and visible. That makes them the easiest and cheapest to copy. I would think those that care would look at them and say, “hey, that’s a good idea…I need to see what I can come up with to match that”. But in todays internet age it’s much simpler for people to band together and cry foul rather then rise up to the challenge.
These kinds of challenges are also part of what helps the class thrive. The reason being the satisfaction that occurs when one conquers the challenge. I play about one video game a year…usually in the winter. I have a collection of video games never completed because my character became strong enough the game got too easy. The challenge, thus the satisfaction, was gone. So did the interest.
If this precedence is set – that the committee can decide what is accepted innovation – then I ask them to please define the term accepted innovation. Otherwise, there will surely be others who see their hard work challenged and disputed even though it fits within the current long standing rules. It will then become safest to get changes and modification pre-approved by the committee – and that is a very scary concept.
Michael Varacins
Last edited by Bill Bonow; 10.03.12 at 7:51 PM. Reason: font
Very well said.
First - Congratulations on your win and the quality of your car. I know you still have some development in the car that people have not figured out yet - and I am sure that it is due to hard work and no trick parts.
The next part is not personal - it is philosophical. If you have studied FV, you know not every innovation is accepted. You get beltless cooling, but you do not get the Razor car. You might get zero roll, but you lose the Laser (in its original configuration) and get the fan shroud and ducting rules. You get to modify your spindles but more restrictions are put on your manifold. You might get the wheel chaps, cover whatever, but you loose the MIT pushrod front end (how many remember that?) You get 1500 rockers, but no drilled accelerator pump jets. I am sure that I probably have missed many that never made it to the track. It is before my time, but Bobsy Vega pushed the limit and was banned. These were all innovations that the person or persons thought were legal, but the rules were changed to restrict them. I will bet there is not one sentence in the origional rules that is exactly the same as say 1965, and there was a reason for every change.
So innovation is not a sure thing - the rules do not have to always move forward - they are allowed to take a step back. We, through the comp board and our club representitived decide what the rules are.
Chris Z
No it isn't. It is personal - although it is not aimed at Michael - it is personal in that several don't want to "have to" spend the money to get the latest and greatest innovation. This is so spurious in that there is not a whit's evidence that these covers actually added any performance. Craig Taylor calls this the "Vicegrip Effect." If Michael had clamped a pair of vicegrips to his upright and gone out and set fastest lap almost every other FV would have shown up for the next session with vicegrips in the same position - and half of them would tell you why the car was faster with the vicegrips installed.
If a competitor doesn't want to spend the money for these magic doo-dads then he shouldn't spend the money. They meet the spirit and intent of the rules. If a bunch decide they should be banned then all should get together and recompense Michael for his time and expense in designing and making them. To continually have the threat hanging over the innovators simply stifles the class and dumbs down the whole situation. If you want to stay in the past go vintage racing.
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing
'Cause there's bugger-all down here on earth!
Great win and great commentary, Michael. Well done.
I think Mike in his comment said if we did not want innovation we would all be running Formcars. From what I understand that was the purpose of FV. It was modeled after spec sail boat racing were there was only one design so that costs could be contained. Then came Ray Caldwell and he changed the face of FV as an open but restricted class. Now, could it have survived and grown as a one design spec class? But if you want to follow you premise to a conclusion, do we need data aquisition? $1000 shocks? Radios? Carbon fiber anything? Do these fit your definition of "the average Joe"? All the development that goes into FV is never recoverable. Ironically. that may be the blessing of FV - you can pick up a deal, as the money that gets poured into a particular car really does not improve it's resale value.
ChrisZ
Last edited by FVRacer21; 10.03.12 at 10:49 PM. Reason: correct link
When you can buy a car capable of winning a National Championship for less money than the average SUV or Truck...yes that's an "average Joe" race car by any reasonable definition.
I don't think most average Joe's can afford $700 sets of tires, $350 entry
fee's and various other expenses involved with racing....
Mark
I disagree. Unless you literally mean average Joe. No average - as in median income - person can afford any racing. However, the average middle class guy could afford to race if it was a priority and he/she didn't have other significant expenses. The average guy that buys a 24 foot boat is likely spending $5000+ a year to own it. You can race a vee for that.
Cost Of Living 1963
How Much things cost in 1963
Yearly Inflation Rate USA 1.24%
Yearly Inflation Rate UK 1.8%
Year End Close Dow Jones Industrial Average 762
Average Cost of new house $12,650.00
Average Income per year $5,807.00
Gas per Gallon 29 cents
Average Cost of a new car $3,233.00
Loaf of bread 22 cents
Bedroom Air Conditioner $149.95
Ready to run FV $2495.
Build your own - Kit $950 parts $500
From June 2009 to June 2012, inflation-adjusted median household income fell 4.8 percent, to $50,964, according to a report by Sentier Research, a firm headed by two former Census Bureau officials.
So if the car is roughly 45% of annual income, then I should be able to afford a $20,000. FV. But I will tell you, it would be a trophy on the mantle - I could not afford to run it.
Figure $6 - 8,000 to run each year - what young adult has that disposable income to race? Maybe the economic situation is part of the problem. Cars are getting more expensive while incomes are dropping. Not a great situation.
Chris Z
Four large frisbees and you have formula car wheel covers, watch the brake overheating though ask me how I know.....
Oh boy here we go again.... looks like its going to be a long winter of bench racing!
I have not even unloaded from the runoffs yet! I would be willing to bet that any advantage these wheel covers make, can be out done at Road America by hanging it out a bit more on some critical turns and a bit of luck.
Jennerjahn set a lap record without them.
Which is why I made the comparison to a very top shelf FV and a new SUV or Truck.....priorities....the same ones who complain about the cost will probably do so from the front seat of their $35K daily driver.
It doesn't get much cheaper to race at the front of the pack, or the rear than in a FV....it costs me more to race a kart in 1991 (13 race season) than my FV (6 "doubles") in 2006.
I'd much rather see a "gizmo" that cost $2000 that's worth a tenth, than a $100 item that's worth a half a second. The later, I'll have to buy and so will everybody else...and we're all right back where we were minus $100. The former; not many will choose to buy, and those that do will have $2000 less to spend elsewhere, and I can afford to spot most people .1 second.
Last edited by Daryl DeArman; 10.04.12 at 3:07 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote