It is indeed all about choices. If you go out and buy a $35,000 FF and a $10,000 Ford Focus, Is that any different than the guy who drives a $45,000 Lexus and skies in the winter and golfs in the summer? Probably spending the same on hobbies and vehicles. :-)
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
Can't finance a racecar nor should you.
I agree you should not . . . but you'd be surprised how many racers do finance their race cars. More's the pity.
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing
'Cause there's bugger-all down here on earth!
"It didn't have the "bling" of faster more expensive cars but the bang for the buck was unsurpassed."
I am relatively new to FV and congratulate Mike on the win, it was an exciting race to watch. I don't have a dog in this hunt and can see/argue both sides and appreciate innovation. Per the quote above though, I think the cost issue is not addressing the comparative costs to other racing options. I bought a $8000 car, put a $7500 engine in it, need to buy a big manifold, $1000, need Penske's $2000, need good exhaust $600, new set of tires every race, $etc., $etc.
All that is fine and is "racing" but at some point, a point I am at right now and I'm sure other new FV drivers come to, the question becomes do I want to spend $20k plus trying to be competitive in vee racing at 90-100 mph with race groups of 3-5 cars (on good days in our region) of whom I am one of the younger ones at 43 or spend the same money, buy a formula mazda, FF or whatever, have similar number or more cars and race at higher speeds and better performance? Compared to other classes FV doesn't have the performance, looks or "sex appeal" so what does/did it have? Reasonable costs to be competitive compared to other classes. As that cost differential gets narrower that advantage is lost.
I love to tinker and work on my car but not to the point that the dollars become greater than the comparative experience.
I wouldn't expect many young adults to join FV in the future, even if they can afford it. The cars are just too un-appealing to the young generation. Drum brakes, carburetor, beam suspension etc.. Unless they have a father or good friend that raced FV, they'll be lost to SM, NASA Spec [insert car], karts or F600. The 2nd problem is the lack of correct marketing.
It is a bit different, yes.. I just bought a $20,000 Mazda2. I can pay for it in 4 years with 0 down and 0% financing. It's also insured against just about anything that might happen to it. I expect it to give me +10 years of reliable, comfortable transportation to and from work, etc.
If I had bought a $1000 Volvo 240, that doesn't mean I could afford to buy a $19,000 FV.
Maybe being in Vancouver skews my idea of what the average Joe is. I read something yesterday that said it's basically impossible to afford living in Vancouver with an household income of $86,000 or less. Seems like I'm getting hints from all sides that I shouldn't be racing, and I'm more and more inclined to take the hint
I don't beleive in financing anything other than a house.
That's a question only you can answer....no right or wrong answer. Give me $15K to spend on a car and I can go a whole lot faster than a FV. I could also buy a decent SM and race in larger fields almost anywhere in the country.
You can pick any two: fast, competitive, cheap. No class/car is going to give you all 3.
I have a new business manufacturing carbon fiber through more cost effective methods of processing. Someone make a drawing and lets proliferate
Josh
847-513-3649
Of your choices I'll take competitve and cheap but those aren't even possible in FV. I've spent a lot of money in FV and have had a ton of help from experienced FV friends and family only to be turning laps by myself at $800 a weekend because I don't have a big manifold and the other two cars in the race are walking away on every straight. As much as I like driving around watching my mirrors trying to stay out of the way of FFs it probably isn't a recipe to attract new people to the class when your only hope of even seeing another vee is on the off chance someone spins out and you can "race" them for a little until they pull away again or spending $20k+ on your first FV out of the gate. All that being said I'll still keep working at improving my driving and keep hoping that someday I can spend enough to be able to race with the leaders. As I understand the arguments above that is an ever increasing amount.Maybe thats why Chump car is getting more new drivers than FV.
My exact concern. Well said.
FV used to be close to achieving 2 of the three: Fast, competitive, cheap.
Relative to other classes, fast is out of reach.
Every technology step the class takes puts cheap further and further behind us. As the fields thin we loose more of the only one left, competitive.
In my opinion the ONLY thing FV has to offer that other SCCA classes don't is cheap. We lose this and we all lose.
We disallowed "basket handle cars", we disallowed "Monster-Mani's". Why? Bcause we decided it was not good for the class. Both were legal per the rules of the day, but a decision was made that it was not good for the class and was disallowed in short order. I wasn't there, but would guess that the concern in the case of the basket handle cars was "everyone will have to do it and it will hurt the class".
It seems reasonable, NOT punitive to consider this issue now and make a decision.
FV has a number of "loopholes" in it's rules still. In FF, bodywork must be attached to the chassis (which is defined as the frame), not in FV. In FF, carbon fiber is not legal for bodywork, in FV it is.
Did the wheel covers alone give Mike the victory? Of course not. Did they help maybe just a little. Quite possible. Did Mike violate the spirit of the FV rules? I say NO.
Should we make a change to the rules to keep cost down in a place we can do it with little harm to anyone? My opinion is yes.
Daryl said above that he worried more about the $100 hot trick that really worked than the $1000 one that only made a small difference. His concern: that once everyone had it, we were all just paying more to end up in the same place at the finish line. I couldn't agree more, except that I don't agree with the economics. I'll take the $100 trick thank you.
I guess cheap is too subjective...
I'd suggest if you are running "by yourself" you are spending too much to do so. Cut your weekend budget to $500...you'll probably slow down enough (depending on where you make the cuts) to have somebody to race with. After less than a season you'll have enough money for the big manifold...meanwhile at least you'll have somebody to race with.
I would love to slow down and would be happy with anyone to run with but it seems I'm the only one in our region who isn't running a big manifold/new tires every race so when your running last, slowing down doesn't bring me back to a slower group. And the $800 a weekend is just for track fees, fuel and camping at the track so I can't really stop spending that unless I stop racing all together. Don't get me wrong I really enjoy the class and the people and I'm not saying any of the above as "poor me" it is for the sole purpose of expressing the point of view of a newby and giving insight to frustration that I think any person new to this class would have so that maybe it can be taken into account in the discussion of how every new cost for competitiveness may be driving FV out of the competition with other classes. My $.02.
Please enlighten me
I guess I must be missing something.
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]GCR. 9.1.1 C.9.E:[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]"E. Any bodywork forward of the center of the torsion bar tubes shall[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]have a maximum width of 31.75 inches (80.645cm)."[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]Since wheel pants to achieve their intended purpose seem to need to be "bodywork forward..." then how on earth can they be legal according to the rules?[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]My understanding is they are being called "bodywork" and not some form of "backing plate covering".[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]Seems that there is a great deal written in the rules to prohibit excessive "streamlining" efforts---like prohibitions regarding the shock tower and the width of bodywork in front and behind front wheels. So the spirit of the rules seems to discourage the temptaton to take our cars to the windtunnel in order to be competitive. [/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]What happened to the governing rule?[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]
"Formula Vee is a [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]Restricted Class. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]Therefore, any allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]IF IN DOUBT, DON’T[/FONT][/FONT]
Without this rule, there are many, many clever and creative people, with lots of time and other resources who will come up with all kinds of ideas that will probe the edges of the GCR to gain advantage.
[/FONT][/FONT]
Last edited by stroutmail; 10.05.12 at 11:57 AM. Reason: Clean up unintended "SIZE" prints
It looks to me like he ends his front wheel fairing at the centerline of the beam.
yes - all discussed thoroughly earlier in this thread.
Steve, FV80
Maybe
http://wedgeracing.com/2012/wheel_pants.html
The rule says the CENTER of torsion tubes--picture does not provide for perfect measurement but sure seems like it MAY be to the edge of the tube, but past the CENTER of the tube.
First: The wheel pants are behind the beam centerline, so the rule regarding width does not apply. Look at the pictures, the pieces never go in front of the beam.
Second: The if in doubt, don't does apply - but to SUPPORT the legality of the piece in question. It says "any allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein." Well, herein these rules is the description of bodywork behind the beam having to be inside the centerline of the wheel. Since it is inside the centerline of the wheel, as described in the rules, it is legal.
The argument of legality is long settled, these are legal parts, and I believe very clearly within the "spirit" of the rules as written today.
When in doubt, don't. Well, there is no doubt that these pieces comply. The question at hand is whether a rule change should take place to make them illegal.
How would you change the rules to make these pieces illegal without taking out all the hardwork of others.
Ban carbon fiber and you have just parked several Womer and Caracal's who have carbon bodywork.
Ban bodywork not attached to the frame and you have banned all the racers who put pieces in between their axle and trailing/leading arms to clean up the aero in the back.
We're talking about bodywork for crying out loud, why all the fuss? If I come up with a new sleek air scoop for my cylinder head cooling that is more aero and saves me a tenth of a second will you want to ban that too?
This is a simple case of people crying foul because they didn't think of it first. If Mike had made them of aluminum or fiberglass (or made them really ugly) I'll bet nobody would have thought twice.
If Jim at SR had stamped them out of aluminum and was selling them for $129.99, would we be having this conversation? Heck, we spend that on offset shock mounts on the front beam and call those a "fastener".
Good post. Stephen. End of thread..
(But my stamped aluminum pants are $149.95. )
Thanks for clarification
If in fact they end at the CENTERLINE of the torsion tubes than I can see why Tech interpreted them as within the rules for bodywork and agree that MV's team should be congratulated for their creativity and innovation.
My understanding is that this device was questionable and a request was made that tech check it before the race. IF so, it was "IN DOUBT" and many of us "engineer types" would not even have tried it---in the remote chance we had thought of it. I still say without this "When in doubt, don't" rule, there are many, many clever and creative people, with lots of time and other resources who will come up with all kinds of ideas that will probe the edges of the GCR to gain advantage. Most of the ideas would probably be "legal" but will signficantly increase the cost of racing in FV. Its a "tip of the iceberg" thing.
Personally I have no objection to this form of "car design" competition (so please don't flame me for expressing my opinion) but it does seem to give a big advantage to participants with time, engineering knowledge/training, and/or money--diminishing the relative importance of driver skill, car preparation, and racing strategy. And, it will undoubtedly lead to fewer entrants as the "barriers to being competitive" increase.
I like FV because driver skill, car preparation, and racing strategy usually trumps the attempts to gain advantage by design advantage or the expenditure of excess time and/or money on a "hobby". I think those that want to compete on the basis of enginering innovation and the spending of a lot of resouces should probably pursue professional racing.
Should we ban test days too? I would be willing to bet that hiring a driving coach, engineer and a couple private test days would provide FAR better benefit than a carbon fiber whizzy bit would ever.
There was NEVER any 'doubt' in Varicin's mind that the design was within the letter of the rules. What he feared was an interpretation, outside the letter of the rules, by tech that was swayed/biased by political pressure.
'In doubt, don't' is a completely ineffective statement in the rules.
This is a political decision now, for better or worse.
Brian
As it is in every sport or competition except roulette.
I like FV because driver skill, car preparation, and racing strategy usually trumps the attempts to gain advantage by design advantage or the expenditure of excess time and/or money on a "hobby".
I think those items are still by far the things that put people on the podium..
Jim
It's not money--it is about the uncertainty and politics
It has always been acceptable to "train" harder than the other athletes you compete against. Testing, practicing and coaching to improve your skill as a driver and car preparer seems to me as acceptable to club racers as it is to olympic athletes. Such activities do not require any "interpretation" of the rules and is not restricted. There is no politics involved in such activity. FV is a restricted class, not a spec class, that allows some creative design activities, but with limitations. Probing the edges of the rules and limitations is the issue that seems to bother some as it tends create an escalating vicous cycle rather than a virtuous one--and as Brian points out--exposes the whole FV community to political turmoil--as is evidenced by this thread. Clearly some think winning by being more clever in car design is good, some do not.
Brian,
The intrepretation of words by men/women and creation/enforcement of "rules based on words" is always a "political" process. The whole GCR was created by a "political" process. By, the way, you are one of the very clever people I refer to--out of respect by the way..
Certainly it is not wheel pants that created the need for this discussion as they clearly were not the reason MV won the race. It is the principle of whether FV rules are static or dynamic and changing--subject to intrepretation and expansion. How many would have ever thought that the definition of "bodywork" would include a wheel fairing/air duct attached to the backing plate on an open wheel car? The fact that it did indicates there are many other yet undiscovered loopholes--as evidenced by the need to describe the piston design now being addressed. In that case, why is "identical" not a sufficient description? The "principle" of When in Doubt-Don't and "judges" in tech who enforce that priniciple is probably the most effective way of limiting unexpected change.
On the other hand, if unexpected change is something good and to be admired, let's just say FV is "a 1025 pound car, based on a VW beetle with a beam axle and a 1200 cc engine" and let innovation flower and be rewarded.
I agree with both sides. I love seeing the innovation and the tricks people come up with. On the other hand, I feel FV should not be the place for that and that it will drive people away.
Those that say all is well because FV is still the biggest open wheel class should take a good look at the average driver's age. I would be very surprised if it hasn't been going up by approximately 1 year.. every year.
1) Identical to what? And how identical is identical?
and
2) Somebody got a whole boat load of pistons that weren't "identical" to what others had and decided something needed to be done about that.
This is a specious argument. It's been done plenty of times in the past in the perceived better interests of this class and others.
And probably some Vortechs and Mysterians and others. Maybe in this case precedent says to continue to allow it. Still, I've always chucked that it's legal in FV but not in the much more expensive FF. And this, only because someone saw fit to change the FF rules years ago and "we" in FV didn't. Now we tout CF as a way to reach minimum weight so we can avoid raising the minimum weight...
Fine. Mine are gone as soon as that is the rule. $10 of aluminum, a couple hose clamps and a few zip ties wasted along with a couple hours time down the drain. No big deal as long as we are all in the same boat when the green flies. My biggest problem with this would be finding something else for Bill (chief wrench at the track) to work on between practice and qualifying.
First, bodywork, its rules and implementation IS a big deal in almost all of automobile racing.
Second, you are already the proud owner of two scoops that do exactly that. So is every other Vortech owner. Apparently that is the kind of evolutionary innovation that almost all in the class expect. On the other hand it appears that to many in FV, the wheel covers are a more radical step away the status quo and quite possibly an unnecessary extravagance in a class expected by many of its competitors to remain "cost effective".
As has been stated before, Mike did not invent these, he just showed their potential in a way no one had before, just as Brian wasn't the first to over-size the bends in a manifold. But of course Brian paid a dear price for being the one who raised that loophole probing to a new level and then shouting it to the rooftops. That got everyone's attention and something was done about it.
Jim says $149.99 (each?)
I suspect by the time he actually tools up to do it it will be more like $499 each with a bit of wiggle room for profit. And at that price he'll have the tooling paid off by about 2030.
Not anymore. We have codified offset shocks as legal in the rules so we no longer have to play word games to justify doing it.
Bruce
Last edited by Bruce Livermore; 10.05.12 at 5:05 PM. Reason: Bad Grammer...
To the best of my knowledge, pistons conforming to VW's original drawings were supplied by Mahle, KS and Metal Leve (now part of Mahle) and for the 1200cc engine there were only one set of specifications. Problems started when these original suppliers quit making the pistons and pistons were sourced from aftermarket producers who made them according to different specifications--specifically with different ring sizes and placement. (Using the same set of ring groove dimensions for a 1200cc as used in a 1500cc for example.)
My contacts with one of the original three suppliers told me that they were not interested in making the original pistons as the market was too small.
The piston issue in the short run is probably at this point a matter of cost rather than performance advantage but the realization that many engines were being built with "non-identical" aftermarket pistons and the possibility of really high priced custom pistons being made justifies a rule clarification. Without the rule clarification, perhaps pistons with an unacceptable level of design modification and performance advantage might enter the system with the claim of being identical--simply because they are made from aluminum and are the same diameter as the originals.
My identification of the piston issue is simply as an illustration of evidence of people pushing the edges of the rules and a need to discourage that practice. Rather than using the non conforming pistons, it would have been better if the rules were changed long ago to accomodate and address the need for a low cost equivalent--without forcing everyone to use OEM pistons produced years ago and stockpiled for profit by some.
I suport the words of the GCR regarding FV:
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]"to provide a cost effective, highly competitive class that,
[/FONT][FONT=Univers]through consistent and tightly controlled component and preparation[/FONT][FONT=Univers]both the competitiveness and cost effectiveness of the class."[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]rules, emphasizes driver ability rather than technological development[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]of the car. Today, as throughout its long history, FV is one of the most[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]highly subscribed classes in SCCA. The goal of these rules is to maintain[/FONT]
Any action that is inconsistent with this (maintaining competitiveness and cost effectivness) by competitors or officials make FV less attractive to me.
My votes is wheel pants NO--reasonably equivalent lower cost pistons produced on a current basis YES. Wheel pants do not increase competitiveness but do increase cost, even if by only $100. Cheaper pistons, according to a reasonable set of detailed specs defined, available from a willing/capable supplier, does not change competitiveness, but does reduce cost.
Regional FV, FST, and F1200 Canada sometimes seem to be operating more closely to the FV goal than National level FV is. Just one old man's opinion.[/FONT]
Help please
Bruce Livermore stated :
We disallowed "basket handle cars", we disallowed "Monster-Mani's"I haven't followed FV closely enough to know what disallowed car features are being referenced above.
Pictures or descriptions appreciated.
Thanks,
Rick
To add to the list of major changes, way back when, over 100 cars were outlawed, including a couple national champions, by a clarification of the floorpan rules. The cars had morphed (the Bobsey in particular) to where the floorpan was being wrapped up the sides to the top rail, essentially creating a semi-monocoque. The new rules are the basis for your current floor rules and how they can be fastened.
Most also forget that up until the Glossary was instituted as an official means of interpreting the rules (10 years or so ago ) it expressly could not be used for interpretation before then, and with it's own definition as to what constitutes "bodywork", no one would have ever considered wheel covers to be "bodywork" - they would have been wheelcovers, and since there was no allowance for them in the rules, they probably would never have been considered.
Under the current rules, coupled with wording in the Glossary, these covers would be perfectly legal.
Whether or not it is advisable to let them continue is a different matter all together, and something that probably should be looked into.
The "basket handle' cars had a token strip of bodywork shaped to the outside silhouette of the fan shroud, allowing air to easily pass by it. It literally looked like a basket handle back there! The rules change is the basis for your current engine cover and fan shroud requirements, as well as the ducting restrictions.
Last edited by R. Pare; 10.05.12 at 9:28 PM.
An intake manifold that was larger than what was customary before, yet still met the letter of the rules dimensionally in areas that the GCR controlled.
From another post here on ApexSpeed when talk was hot about outlawing these legal manifolds. Brian Harding wrote:
What allows me to make a bigger (ID) manifold is the fact that I do selective etching of the inside of the manifold. 10-15 years ago they decided not to measure the OD of any of the bends because there was some difficulty. We now only measure in specified straight areas. These are the only areas I etch. Having a min weight to comply with, I take all the weight NOT removed from the bends and do extra etching in the straight areas. A stock manifold is .040 wall thickness, std prepped manifold etched to .030 everywhere, and a Monster Manifold is .020-.018 in the measured areas. The ID that is .020 bigger is of some flow benefit.
The bends represent 50% of the manifolds length/area. Having NOT been etched OR being measured, I'm now able to enlarge to unheard of size. In theory the bends should measure about .994, the rule for the measured area, but way before me the guys started making the bends larger because they knew there was no controls in these areas. They slowly approached 1.050 which is the limit before you start cracking the tubing of an ETCHED bend. Remember, all other manifold makers etch the complete interior of the manifold. Having much thicker (non-etched) tubing to work with, I can expand (ball) the bends to about 1.120. 1.050 (std manifold) vs 1.120 (Monster Manifold) does make for an improvement in flow.
Generally, my manifolds test at least 1 HP better than the very best Kochanski manifolds which are very limited and sell for about $1000. My manifolds are readily available for about $1200. They take about 3 days to make if you consider process losses from failed manifolds. I need about 8 hrs to sand out the steps that form internally from the masked acid etching. These manifolds were designed and processes developed to take maximum benefit of the rules as written and INTERPRETED by the officials and other manifold makers. These manifolds were engineered to be "good". There is no luck involved as was the case in the past.
I enlarge the bends to whatever I want because I'm the only one who CAN!
Thank you both
But not with the way SCCA race events are administered. Where does a new FV participant develop an understanding of the class 'principles'? How does a new participant develop an understanding of the 'judges' interpretation of the FV 'principles'? Who is the 'judge'? Will he be attending every SCCA event? The average tech person does not even know the FV min weight, and you expect them to be familiar with the FV 'principle'?
It is not even viable at the Runoffs with say Fred Clark as the 'judge'. How does one prepare for that event when they do not have knowledge of his precise 'current' interpretation of the FV 'principles'? Remember Clark did introduce the enclosed cockpit Caracal.
You are dreaming. This is simply not possible within SCCA racing.
Brian
Last edited by Hardingfv32; 10.06.12 at 2:27 PM.
Your are not correct about my 'shouting it to the rooftops' causing my demise. The wheels of change were in motion long before I said anything. I just toke the opportunity to brag about my skills after I was certain that all the other manifold makers had decide their response to my product was to have the rules changed. It was having fun.
Bruce, you failed to respond to Varacins:
"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?"
What is the difference??
Brian
Last edited by Hardingfv32; 10.06.12 at 3:35 PM.
I am still at a loss to explain how carbon bodies and Ohlin dampers are fine and dandy but inner wheel covers are somehow bad because * they * are to expensive ? Also not sure where the prices for the covers being quoted came from as they are also available for FF and FC and they cost less then half the 1200.00 number being quoted here for the FV pieces. Of course the others cant be carbon. They also arent a must have in the other 2 classes to run up front.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Runoffs 1 Gold 3 Silver 3 bronze, 8 Divisional , 6 Regional Champs , 3x Drivers of the year awards
It would seem that the 'principles' or 'philosophies' of FV are a little vague. Someone observing from outside the very 'friendly' FV community might view the subject as a political method of manipulating the competitive landscape. There current approach of dealing with the competition at the FV National level is to change the rules. This is the 'politically correct' method of the current FV majority.
Brian
I still run steering dampers on the front of my car and think that droop limiting shocks, radios, data acquisition, are against the "spirit" of the class.
On the other hand, if a set of good gauges is $300 and can be replaced with a digital dash of $300 because of technology, I can't argue with that. Cost equal technology to stock parts is okay.
Allowing spring adjusters on front ends is a good thing because it makes it easier to adjust the car for a novice without playing with bending springs, resulting in better competition. But if the adjusters cost $1000.00 ........
As someone brought up, other classes have addressed some of problems that we have ignored until it is too late. One thing that the SCCA (and us in FV) should have addressed is that rules should be consistent across all the Formula classes as much as possible. For example there should not be different definitions of bodywork for different class and the carbon fiber bodywork should have been addressed. If there must be differences, they should be based on the position of the class in the pecking order, so if FF can't have cf bodywork, then FV or F5 certainly should not. The problem is we are each our own entity, there is not real overlord.
ChrisZ
Basket Handle?
Holy crap! That thing is SEXY! We need to make our cars more like that... Seriously, I'm not an advocate of the "fan shroud" rule, our cars would likely be much more viscerally appealing without it, but I can certainly live with it.
Mike
Problemchild
FV#21
I should have made it more obvious, but go back to message #70 - the underlined text are links that some people might have missed. Good pictures and good reading.
ChrisZ
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
