Wheel cover ban

[Charles Warner]

Matt,

Is saying screw all you who can't afford wind tunnel time, or new tires every weekend, or $10,00 motors, $30,00 cars go play somewhere else, going to help increase our numbers.

Al,

To presume the antagonistic attitude of "screw you" to those who are more able and/or inclined to spend on their chosen avocation is not appropriate.

We want to attract the younger set, but the average 30-35 yer old (Google again) makes around $34, 000 per year. How do you sell $30,000 car , Trailer spares +++and $1500 a weekend to a market that makes less than startup investment and a years worth of racing in salary in one year.

As has been said often before - you don't make the sport attractive to those who really can't afford it. Poor marketing policy. FV was spawned when it was very inexpensive to go racing. All racing was inexpensive then. Unfortunately times change. I'm surprised that FV still exists when FF or FF2000 can be bought and campaigned for the same costs. One interesting question might be:

Would the stifling of technological development in the class chase away more competitors than the allowing of those technological developments would?

And, for those who continue to describe those having the where-with-all to spend as they wish on their hobby as having an "unfair advantage" the line starts on the far left.

[stroutmail]

Based on the comments I've seen, I've come to the conclusion that National FV racing will be more expensive than I originally thought when starting again in 2012, both in terms of time and money--and that costs to win will be escalating. It appears to be a professional level activity with very little prize money and little chance the activity being a stepping stone for Indy, NASCAR or F1. I make no judgement that this is good or bad, but I do know that as costs go up, participation tends to go down. To some, that might be desirable.

When there is wide disagreement like I see on almost everything, regulators tend to go with the status quo, hence--no weight change to negate the need for CF and LIon batteries, no long lasting spec tires to reduce tire costs---no restrictor plates to reduce engine costs and rules that allow creative interpretation leading to the adoption of expensive components and "research" budgets looking for that next "trick".

Because of cost, many National guys are only running the minimum 4-5 races required to qualify so we not only see less participants, but less total participation, except for the Runoffs. This is not a good trend for FV specialty parts supply houses, specialty parts manufacturers like Carbotech, and FV engine builders as business volume declines.

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl,

How can we not see that the axle and locating arms are covered?

Al

What does "covered" have to do with faired-in? My point is that the rule requires that the components not be "faired-in" (whatever that means in GCR terms) AS WELL AS viewable from the side. In my opinion the class has decided the only real test is that the items be viewable from the side.

FWIW, I think FV needs to remain inexpensive (relatively) to be remotely attractive. In my opinion water will seek it's own level--so to speak. If it doesn't offer enough bang for the buck people will drop out, if it does, people will flock to it. Why not just toss out the rule book and make everyone submit last years' 1040 ? How much of ones' annual taxable income should we be allowed to spend on racing?

[Amon]

I'm not as concerned about those of us who are already racing since we've
made the investment to race. But looking forward, we need to attract more
drivers who are hopefully younger and will enjoy the class for many years
into the future.

Mark

[stroutmail]

Why not just toss out the rule book and make everyone submit last years' 1040 ? How much of ones' annual taxable income should we be allowed to spend on racing?

Well said--let's not make the winner be the one with the most income--let's everyone submit their brokerage statements, 401K balances and Net Worth statement.

There will always be those that will be able and/or willing to win by spending more than others, but "restricted" classes like FV were created to limit the effectiveness of that strategy. The debate is not whether FV should be "restricted"--it is already--the debate is how much restriction is appropriate and desired. Nobody is talking about taking away anybody's freedom to spend money--only the need to do so in order to win. If somebody wants to build a 20,000 sq foot shop, equip it with an engine dyno and hire a crew of mechanics to prepare his FV--he is welcome to do so. He will probably lose to a guy working out his home garage. But when he makes the guy working out of his home garage have to buy wind tunnel time, carbon fibre components and other expensive items just in order to be competitive, that is something completely different with different repercussions.

[grapefarmeral]

Stroutmail,

Well said...Al

[smsazzy]

What does "covered" have to do with faired-in? My point is that the rule requires that the components not be "faired-in" (whatever that means in GCR terms) AS WELL AS viewable from the side. In my opinion the class has decided the only real test is that the items be viewable from the side.

Faired-in does not mean out of the airstream. In order for the rear shock to be considered "faired in" it would have to have a fairing on it. Inside the body work is not the same thing as faired-in.

So a zero-roll is both not faired in and visible from the side.

The "Airfoil" on the front of Mike's car is not any different than the ones on the Citations, or McCarthy's car. It is a single airfoil that is for streamlining, not downforce creation. Many other cars, such as the Vortech have twin-fairings on the beam. Provided they are not a "wing" which the GCR specifies as an airfoil creating downforce anmd instead are an airfoil for streamlining, they are 100% legal.

I have no idea what was being referred to in the "locating arm" argument.

[smsazzy]

Well said--let's not make the winner be the one with the most income--let's everyone submit their brokerage statements, 401K balances and Net Worth statement.

There will always be those that will be able and/or willing to win by spending more than others, but "restricted" classes like FV were created to limit the effectiveness of that strategy. The debate is not whether FV should be "restricted"--it is already--the debate is how much restriction is appropriate and desired. Nobody is talking about taking away anybody's freedom to spend money--only the need to do so in order to win. If somebody wants to build a 20,000 sq foot shop, equip it with an engine dyno and hire a crew of mechanics to prepare his FV--he is welcome to do so. He will probably lose to a guy working out his home garage. But when he makes the guy working out of his home garage have to buy wind tunnel time, carbon fibre components and other expensive items just in order to be competitive, that is something completely different with different repercussions.

There are plenty of guys at the front who work out of their garages and have small budgets for FV racing that have had a lot of success. Ask Nuby, Brian McCarthy, Stevan Davis, etc. Those are multi-medal winning drivers that build their own stuff. Nuby does his own engines, Stevan and Brian both built their own cars. Brian McCarthy lives in California which means he spends so much on gas and taxes that he has to build his own car, engines and trannys! :-)

[iamuwere]

There are plenty of guys at the front who work out of their garages and have small budgets for FV racing that have had a lot of success. Ask Nuby, Brian McCarthy, Stevan Davis, etc. Those are multi-medal winning drivers that build their own stuff. Nuby does his own engines, Stevan and Brian both built their own cars. Brian McCarthy lives in California which means he spends so much on gas and taxes that he has to build his own car, engines and trannys! :-)

Should those guys be penalized because they can do it on their own for less money? Should the home builts have a cap on spending? Seems unfair that they can make their own custom parts or maybe have a trick to the engine others don't.




As to the argument "this is a restricted class", most of the classes in the formula book say this, at least all that I have been in.

[Jnovak]

I no longer have any kind of a dog in this fight as it has been about 35 years since I raced an FV. FV is a very serious and a very tough class to race at the front, or 10th or 20th. I have a huge respect for FV and I am saddened that it has fallen on harder times as the cost to race at the front has escalated for all classes including Vee

I do see both ends of the arguments for this discussion, however I always try to be on the side of the "innovator" as long as the "innovator" is not going to destroy the class. It is my opinion that the problems that Vee is having with few new entrants and dwindling existing entrants has nothing to do with the rather limited innovation that is slowly creeping into the class, and certainly the "wheel covers" will not or should not drive competitors away due to cost. There are many MUCH more expensive things that you must have to run at the front in FV.

Let's be realistic. There are plenty of pictures of the covers available. If you think they make a difference then make some yourself. Make them out of sheet aluminum or flat fiberglass sheet with radiused leading edges that you put on them.

Now admitedly I have a great shop with lots of tools etc, but I could get enough aluminum sheet or other materials for about $20 and make up a set in my spare time next week.

So could you, make it happen.

Respectfully .... Jay Novak

[Daryl DeArman]

Faired-in does not mean out of the airstream. In order for the rear shock to be considered "faired in" it would have to have a fairing on it. Inside the body work is not the same thing as faired-in.

So what is the difference between a component inside the body work and something being faired in given the GCR definition of a fairing?

Fairing – A covering intended to divert airflow in a specific region of a car, to reduce air drag.

[smsazzy]

Inside the bodywork means inside the body work. Faired in means it has a fairing on it.

Think of it like this - You are familar with a roll bar fairing I assume. That is a fairing.

This roll bar is inside the bodywork: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbonvouloir/5183745348/

[Chris Elwell]

This thread is getting pretty stupid. This is motorsports, not an elementary school soccer game where every kid gets a trophy. It's supposed to be difficult and challenging.

I personally hope a lot of people add aluminum or fiberglass wheel covers to their car for next year. The added unsprung weight will not be offset by any straightline aero gains in my opinion.


Chris

[Daryl DeArman]

I'm just arguing semantics given the GCR definition of a fairing; bodywork is fairing all components inside said bodywork....unless you are going to argue that the bodywork is just there to hold up the SCCA required graphics

No big deal, move on. I think the wheel pants are fine. I don't care whether you spend $30K on your FV or $3K. $1MM or $100K on your DSR. If the market decides it's too much to be competitive then the numbers will dwindle and those at the pointy end won't spend as much to win. Personally, I've tried to never spend more than it takes to win---but then I'm not selling parts, coaching, or prep services where my performance contributes to my livelihood.