Let's fold FST into FV

[Stan Clayton]

I finally bit the bullet and sent this letter to the CRB.

With the CSR/DSR/S2 merger into P1 and P2, and the proposed merger of F5 and F6, I request you merge FST into FV effective 1 January 2015.

Formula Vee participation has been fairly stable in recent years, but in my opinion FST's growth has been hampered by its lack of national class status. Now FV is considering allowing disc brakes (Yes!), link-pin beam parts are getting hard to find and the one remaining source of 1200cc cylinders and pistons has quit making them. Meanwhile, over in the 1600cc world there are many sources of all parts, and they are less expensive than FV parts.

SCCA now has years of experience watching FST. The class has a mature set of rules. Nearly 100 cars are built or converted. We know how fast they are at every track in the country, and adjusting them pack to the pointy end of FV is a simple matter of reducing their inlet restrictor slightly.

For instance, at Road America the FV race record is 2:41.4, while the FST record is 2:39.1. All that would need to be done is reduce the inlet restrictor from 32mm to 31mm or 31.5mm. Jim Schings at SR Racing could tell you, as he is the guy who developed the FST engine package.

I recommend keeping the FV name. Just divide the FV rules into two sets called (for instance) FV-1200 and FV-1600. The current FV rules would form the first section, with the current FST rules forming the second (with the smaller restrictor). No other changes need to be made to either set of rules.

Thank you and keep up the good work!

Stan Clayton

[Agitator]

From everything I've read, the founders and followers of FST have repeatedly stated that they are not interested in being a National class. Other than that, your proposal is the most sensible thing I've read in a while.

[Bill Bonow]

.....are not interested in being a National class.

I think most of us stated that because otherwise we would have never made it into the '09 GCR.

I think if you took a pole now, the "Regional Only" position may have changed a bit.

I think opinions really changed after hearing of the change in SCCA National/Regional racing. No difference any more other than the Majors program.

I think parity through restrictor plates will be difficult, but hell, If it means access to more races and building class/race group numbers, why not.

Note: I hope I'm not needed in mod mode on this thread

P.S. Thank you Stan

[Stan Clayton]

I think parity through restrictor plates will be difficult, but hell, If it means access to more races and building class/race group numbers, why not.

You may well be correct, Bill. I really just wanted to start the conversation. In addition to an inlet adjustment FST might need a weight adjustment, and....oh....allow short 'boxes like FV does, too. Maybe even other tweaks. The key is that FST is a "known" entity, so parity should be fairly straight forward.

[G.B.]

The trouble is the size of the restrictor plate or the weight penalty required to get parity between the 1200 and 1600 cars would differ for each track and that’s assuming the wind direction stayed the same.
Restricting 1600 cars so they could run with 1200 cars was tried in Ontario many years ago and ended in acrimony. It’s not as simple a restricting the 1600s so the lap times are equal. The 1600 have more torque and get out of the corners better, but then run out of puff at the end of the straights. In Ontario this led to the 1600 cars blocking to stay in front. Eventually, the 1200 and 1600 factions fell out completely and the 1600cc cars were thrown out of the class, which ultimately led to their demise.

[rave motorsports]

We currently own 2 cars that have gone through homolgamation into FST's. One car we will be converting into an FST this winter. And we are picking up a brand new Evolution FST this weekend. I would welcome the " National " status change in regards to the availability of races next season. The minimal number of Regional races in the Midwest, Southwest, Rocky Moutain division forces us to develop our own racing series. I would like to invite any and all drivers to Gateway this October 19 & 20th as we race side by side with what Race Officials are saying will be 8 FV's. I'm sure Jim Schring will have rental FST rides available for that weekend.

[Stan Clayton]

The trouble is the size of the restrictor plate or the weight penalty required to get parity between the 1200 and 1600 cars would differ for each track and that’s assuming the wind direction stayed the same.

Yes, that's why I added that additional adjustments might be needed. In SCCA the 1600 cars already have to weigh 100 lbs more than the 1200 cars, but that delta might have to be changed.

I think it's important to recognize that many drivers have a lot of experience in both cars, so a thorough discussion should lead to a consensus about how to proceed.

[jhenn4716]

I like Stan's idea, of course much discussion will need to take place to figure out if this will be feasible. As Bill pointed out, next year the racing format will change. With no more nationals or regionals, we will all be racing together. With one joint class, we would have stronger turnouts, potentially leading to our own run group. No more racing with SRF or other open wheel cars.

[B Farnham]

Maybe things such as manifold/exhaust length and how much the heads are ported on the 1600's could be adjusted in a way to reduce the torque that they make in order to avoid the situation that occurred in the Canadian series. Maybe an engine builder could chime in on this.

[smsazzy]

You manage the torque with weight. Slows acceleration and deceleration. This also negates any advantage of disk brakes. It is easier than some make it out to be.

I would think it would be best to make a hard cut over date to the 1600 somewhere down the line. Like 5 years out.

Tune the class so the must-have engine is still the 1200 with a hard cut over date that you convert by is the way to go. Then you are giving people ample time to get their hands on a motor and not obsoleting currently competitive cars.

That's my opinion anyway.

[Steve Davis]

To me, it seems like the logical thing to adjust on FST is WEIGHT! An additional 100 .. or maybe even 150 lbs would counter the low end torque, but not affect the top end speed very much. We already know FST and FV are pretty close on the top end.

One of you FST guys with some background could load another 100 lbs on your car and see how it affects it (I hear it's really EASY to add weight ).

Steve, FV80

Saslow and I are thinking in similar terms ...

[rave motorsports]

Just told my wife I have to get off the diet and add the pounds. Some bodies gotta do it! Ill take one for the sake of research!

[Steve Davis]

Just told my wife I have to get off the diet and add the pounds. Some bodies gotta do it! Ill take one for the sake of research!

Probably need to UP the beer consumption as well, no?
sd80

[rave motorsports]

Wow that's gonna be tough but if I have too. Lol. What I'm really worried about is my son-in-law's car. He only weighs 122 lbs and drives the light weight Jacer. If I have to get him yet another 100 lbs heavier I'm gonna have to find an old rear-end from a forklift and weld it to the frame of the car.

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

I am not in favor of any rules changes in FST to try to make it equal to FV in performance. That is just ridiculous. Even though the two classes can run similar lap times depending on the track everything about FST is different then FV. Engine CC's, Power Band, Brakes, Hard Spec Tires, Wheel width, Aerodynamics, etc, etc. Put a sticky Hoosier tire on a FST and see what happens, it will be another 2-4 seconds a lap faster then a FV.

What I think needs to happen is that FV needs to continue to be a separate class for the next "X" years and incorporate a transition plan to FST rules. FV should be FST. It's long over due and makes total sense. I think many of the FV guys are finally seeing that. FST is the future FV, The current form of FV is dying.

FST is FV, not sure why people don't get that.

[jhenn4716]

FV should be FST. It's long over due and makes total sense. I think many of the FV guys are finally seeing that. FST is the future FV, The current form of FV is dying.

FST is FV, not sure why people don't get that.

To you that may make total sense, it doesn't to others. And I would argue that many would totally disagree with you. But I don't think that is what Stan is trying to suggest. With the other mergers that are taking place, the merger of FV and FST could be a beneficial one. A stronger class, more numbers, better racing in the long run. Stan is proposing something that's 2 years away. What happens to FV and FST in 5, 10, or more years away is anyone's guess. Does one evolve into the other, who knows. But for right now what can we do to improve what we have? Certainly a discussion of the merits isn't a bad option.

[rave motorsports]

I totally agree, open communication, a long range plan ends all the instability and promotes long term investment in the sport. We all have lots of time and money invested in this. Lets figure out a way to make our class ( air cooled VW formula car racing) the affordable, enjoyable, class it was meant to be.

[problemchild]

To you that may make total sense, it doesn't to others. And I would argue that many would totally disagree with you. But I don't think that is what Stan is trying to suggest. With the other mergers that are taking place, the merger of FV and FST could be a beneficial one. A stronger class, more numbers, better racing in the long run. Stan is proposing something that's 2 years away. What happens to FV and FST in 5, 10, or more years away is anyone's guess. Does one evolve into the other, who knows. But for right now what can we do to improve what we have? Certainly a discussion of the merits isn't a bad option.

If they are always going to run in the same run group, what does it matter whether they are one class or two? Unlike the FFs or F5/F6, FST was never created to be on par with FV.

Call them FVA and FVB, or FV and FST, or FVX and FVY, and have them run together, even at the Runoffs. Everybody is welcome and included without being forced to do anything to convert, conform, or adapt..

Lets put all the positive energy into inclusion of people, rather than waste all that energy fighting over equalization formulas that will never work, certainly not within the lifespan of the current FV class.

[Agitator]

"Put a sticky Hoosier tire on a FST and see what happens, it will be another 2-4 seconds a lap faster then a FV."

I've never driven a FST, but do you really think that a stickier tire is going to make THAT much of a difference? There ratio of tire/power/weight already seems pretty high, but maybe that's just coming from years of running on skinny tires.

Greg, I totally agree with you on the question of why change the name if we'll be running in the same group. I think eventually (5, 10, 15 years??) they will merge, but I think achieving parity may just rock the boat too much for both classes. Good to see the conversation is staying fairly civil. I think that we all want what is best for ANY VW powered, low cost, open wheeled class. We all have a lot invested.

I'll be back in my car next year after a long layoff. Refreshing (and buying a new back up) engine is daunting when I hear some of the recommendations for the class(es).

[Daryl DeArman]

I am not in favor of any rules changes in FST to try to make it equal to FV in performance.


What I think needs to happen is that FV needs to continue to be a separate class for the next "X" years and incorporate a transition plan to FST rules. FV should be FST. It's long over due and makes total sense.

I am with you Scott. Leave FST alone. If you want to merge the two speed up the FV's.
If you castrate the FST and keep the FV1200 package the same, you've done nothing to help the FV situation and done everything to hurt the FST ruleset.

Make the FST the desireable package. Let the FV package evolve. If the FST package is dominate it won't take long for people to convert.

[dd46637]

So far this conversation has been far more civilized than I expected and I would love to be able to race at events like the June Sprints or the Runoffs. In that respect I would welcome the inclusion of FST as a "National" class.

I really have a hard time with dumbing down the performance of FST to try and create parity with FV. In the end one group or the other is not going to be happy with how it works out.

I have seen all the complaints that the FV drivers have about parts shortages, high dollar brake parts and all the rest. It seems that people are wanting the benefits of what FST has to offer but not all in one big chunk.

I would support a 5 year plan for FV to be absorbed into FST as it is right now. Starting to fiddle with the FST rules is not the way to go. The rule set in place now was crafted carefully to ensure that cost is controlled for the average racer who wants a stable package that he can race year after year with out major upgrades or have to have whizzy bits that drive up the cost of what we are really all after. Having a good time racing our cars.

If this is not a viable option for FV then leave it as is and give FST national status and let the chips fall where they may.

Dave

[Stan Clayton]

If you want to merge the two speed up the FV's.

Is that even possible?

If so, how could it be done?

[dd46637]

"Put a sticky Hoosier tire on a FST and see what happens, it will be another 2-4 seconds a lap faster then a FV."

I have done this in a private test a couple of years ago at Gingerman. I used a set of R35 take offs from a FF. I was able to cut 2.2 seconds off my best time and I only ran one session with them. There was probably another 1-2 seconds but it was getting dark and the session ended.

Dave

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

Is that even possible?

Stan,

Actually, it is quite easy. Just ad a 1600 engine with a restrictor, disc brake kit, ball joint beam, 6" wheels, and Hoosier R 60 tires. Then the Vee will be equal in performance! (-:

[Stan Clayton]

Stan,

Actually, it is quite easy. Just ad a 1600 engine with a restrictor, disc brake kit, ball joint beam, 6" wheels, and Hoosier R 60 tires. Then the Vee will be equal in performance! (-:

[Speed Sport Engineering]

I'm not sure where the impression has started that FV is dead and should be turned into FST. Current FV drivers have had 10 years to convert to FST, and hardly any have chosen to do so. What makes anyone think they want to convert now? Heck, they're still free to do it. Why does it need to be forced?

FV is not dead. Period. It's still a thriving class among SCCA. Without looking, I believe it was 3rd in participation last year? What more could someone want? Fix SCCA first, not the third most popular class.

There is no logical reason to combine the two classes yet. FV and FST are just starting to live in harmony together, with both sides accepting the existance of the other. Yes, there are parts shortages on SOME parts of FV. So we throw out the whole class because of a couple of parts issues? Give me break. The sensible thing to do is attack the parts problems head on, one by one. We keep hearing about how FV is out of parts....just exactly what are we out of? Can someone provide a list of pieces that are un-obtainable? Perhaps the smart thing to do is look at the list and form a battle plan around that list as opposed to giving up. I thought that's what the committee was supposed to be doing. So far the only parts issue raised by the committee has been pistons and cylinders. If that's the only issue then what's the big deal?

I think the biggest issue with the parts is the lack of knowledge on where to go for them. Gone are the days of the FV supplier. First DRE left, then LRE, now SR. The hardest part for a FV driver, most importantly a NEW FV driver is finding a source. The same will apply for FST once SR is out of the picture.

With the loss of regionals and nationals, there is no more regional or national classes. There are now majors classes and everything else. I don't believe the FST has shown the numbers to be considered a majors class, so beyond thats it's designation doesn't really matter.

This whole topic is getting a bit old. It was finally at rest, with both sides happy, until a recent comment by the FV committee expressing the desire to look into disc brakes again.

I don't think FV is going anywhere. While I've come to accept and support the existance of FST as a class, I can not support a plan to force the merger of the two at this point.

[problemchild]

Stan,

Actually, it is quite easy. Just ad a 1600 engine with a restrictor, disc brake kit, ball joint beam, 6" wheels, and Hoosier R 60 tires. Then the Vee will be equal in performance! (-:

If you have decent FV parts and put some work into selling them, the net cost of the conversion parts will be minimal. If your FV parts are not decent, then you needed to spend some money anyway.

[sracing]

1. You will NEVER be able to get FV and FST competitive on all tracks. Weight penalties, restrictors, etc, etc. It CANNOT be done. I will be happy to argue the physics of this offline with anyone who chooses. A simple power to weight issue ALMOST works on a drag strip within certain bounds. It will NOT work between FV and FST on a road course. Dead issue..

2. FV guys stop saying FV is dead. No one in FST has said it, so why do you keep defending this non-accusation? For anyone who want to spend the extra money, keep changing rules to insure parts availability, finding expensive aftermarket manufactures, trolling junk yards, etc. it can easily(?) exist for another 20 years. I THINK most people would prefer to buy less expensive parts, off the shelf new and far safer ones. You asked what FV parts are getting hard to get? LOTS and the prices are going up and many of those parts cannot be made competitive and/or are un-safe. Mike/Al, you may have 20 years of parts in the garage and the ability to fabricate some. This is NOT the case with the typical racer. He wants to call one, or a selection of vendors and buy a new part off the shelf with decent prices.

3. Why FST didn't take off so fast? Well, it certainly has considering it is a non-national class (and even non-existent as FST until a few year ago.) It was built/developed in the middle of a recession when open wheel has taken a plunge. Considering this and our counts and sales of many FST kits that are under construction now it has done quite well.

4. Re: The FV vendors going away, true. Not so with FST. There are more than a 2 dozen vendors selling parts for FST (all new parts). With competitive pricing and availability far into the future. While existing FV chassis' can be used, there are 4 active FST chassis vendors able to sell cars with an order.

So yes, this is a stupid argument. Actually a NON-argument. Let FV run its course. Let FST continue on as is. Like FV used to be, it is a grassroots, entry level car with a perfect plan and design. (I say perfect since one of the criteria was to be able to feed it with FV conversions. If we did not plan for that, FV's would be come obsolete at some point in time.) All that should be considered is a 3 to 5 year plan. FV's should be converted to the FST package at some drop dead date. How many FV parts will be usable in another 5 years other than one that are taken off the FVs sitting inactive. (and those parts are 40+ years old.) If you like going to swap meets, reforming metal parts, cleaning, sandblasting, expensive tires, and magna-fluxing, FV is certainly fine.

Whether and when FST should become a national class is another issue. (actually the Reg/Nat class thing makes little sense now anyways.) I prefer our current Venue (FFDA Series). We have lots of sponsors, happy drivers and great events, with the flexibility to act quickly re: rules if needed. (and so far not much has been needed.)

So keep racing Vee's I will continue to sell parts as long as I can find them. Leave FST alone. In the group of 30? or so FFDA members we have always reached consensus with a common direction. That doesn't seem to be the case in FV. (No one in FST has ever complained about weights, tire prices, longevity, parts availability, or lack of fun. With the exception of Transponders and harness renewals all brought to you by the SCCA.

[sracing]

Re: Speeding up a Vee. Sure you can do that, but only via the induction system, which means you move the peak Torque/HP points up in RPM. With the existing gear box you will be shifting normally at 7200 RPM. So that leads to some other issues.

To make more HP in a given size cc engine, you have to increase volumetric efficiency. That can only be done (on a vee) with Compression ratio, intake flow (carbs, manifolds), valves, cam, etc. BUT that ONLY moves the power band up in RPM. A current Vee is on the edge of destruction now.

[P3FV]

Good grief!

A few people would have 120 active FV owners convert their cars to match the specs of 10 active FST drivers?

Really?

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...ation_JUNE.pdf

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...ional-0806.pdf

When there are as many FST as FV then we should talk about who needs to change what.

Neil Cox

[Mark Filip]

2. FV guys stop saying FV is dead. No one in FST has said it, so why do you keep defending this non-accusation?

Above post states

The current form of FV is dying.

I believe this is a FST member

Please explain if I am seeing this incorrectly

Thank you

[Stan Clayton]

The sensible thing to do is attack the parts problems head on, one by one. We keep hearing about how FV is out of parts....just exactly what are we out of? Can someone provide a list of pieces that are un-obtainable? Perhaps the smart thing to do is look at the list and form a battle plan around that list as opposed to giving up. I thought that's what the committee was supposed to be doing. So far the only parts issue raised by the committee has been pistons and cylinders. If that's the only issue then what's the big deal?

Isn't that a fairly big deal?

I spent a decade on the Club Racing Board and the Formula/Sports Racer Advisory Committee, and for that entire time the Formula Ford guys would accept no changes to that class even though they were out of 1 piece of the engine...JUST ONE (the block). In that decade the price of a FF Kent engine doubled to $14,000+, and at the end of it the class teetered on collapse. The only things that saved FF was Honda introducing the Fit engine, and finally Ford of UK casting replica blocks for the vintage market.

It took that combination of events to spark some movement because there were so many FF competitors who had an extra junk yard engine sitting in their garage as insurance against them personally falling afoul of the parts shortages. Sound familiar?

[sracing]

Above post states


>>The current form of FV is dying.<<

I believe this is a FST member

Please explain if I am seeing this incorrectly

Thank you

You are seeing it incorrectly . He did not say FV is dead. The CURRENT FORM of FV is dying. (See Stan's patient vital signs post below) It is not dead. FV is not growing and they have to start changing rules to continue on. No where did he say it was dead. You can throw all the money at it you want to keep on going. It makes sense to me to convert to a tested venue that has more life left.

[sracing]

Good grief!

A few people would have 120 active FV owners convert their cars to match the specs of 10 active FST drivers?

Really?

Yes, it makes perfect sense. Your numbers are off, but I won't even cover that. When SR put their 5 year plan from SR to SRF in place, there were NO SRF's in existence. But they saw the writing on the wall. It was major $ conversion and went successfully and the SRF's still fill the tracks. No SR's became obsolete and no one lost their investments. In five years FST may still not be as big as FV is currently, but FV will be a shadow of itself with NO new drivers or cars. FST brought in 20+ cars and about 12 new drivers even given we were only located in one geographic location.

Your argument is Non sequitur.

[Stan Clayton]

I wouldn't say that FV is dying, or I would not have bought one!

That said, it has certainly declined from about a decade ago.

[Mark Filip]

I wouldn't say that FV is dying, or I would not have bought one!

That said, it has certainly declined from about a decade ago.

Can you show a graph of every other scca class I bet they all log similar and in most cases worse

[sracing]

Can you show a graph of every other scca class I bet they all log similar and in most cases worse

Not so with FST. But I don't know where the regional stats are found.

BTW, there are more FST's out there than we even know about under construction. We built an EVO this month for a customer that has not made its debut yet, and we sold 2 complete FV to FST conversion kits this month. So something is happening. (That included FST restrictor plates so I guess they are planning to race.)

[Daryl DeArman]

Is that even possible? If so, how could it be done?

Absolutely and fairly easy....just loosen up the rule book. I will give some specifics below.

So yes, this is a stupid argument. Actually a NON-argument. Let FV run its course. Let FST continue on as is.

Re: Speeding up a Vee. Sure you can do that, but only via the induction system, which means you move the peak Torque/HP points up in RPM. With the existing gear box you will be shifting normally at 7200 RPM. So that leads to some other issues.

I have got to respectfully disagree Jim. First, we don't need to look at only the engine.
A transaxle with better gears....something that doesn't offer 2 gears with a 25-30% drop between them could make a significant dent in lap times.

A 50HP/Liter engine that spins 6800rpm isn't exactly producing great BMEP or VE numbers. Higher compression ratio, longer duration cam, better intake system and carb don't require more than 6800rpms to make more than 50HP/Liter. I'm confident that 80HP is attainable with a 1200cc ACVW at 6000rpms if you toss out the rule book.

A few people would have 120 active FV owners convert their cars to match the specs of 10 active FST drivers?

When there are as many FST as FV then we should talk about who needs to change what.

Actually, you'd rather have all '10' active FST drivers cross the bridge to your side of the river then X number of years down the road all 130 of you can cross the bridge back over to the other side. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

Leave FST / FV alone if you want. As FV numbers decline you can look for little tweaks and fixes here and there to keep it alive. Don't be too shocked when you end up with a package very similar to where FST is today.

[Mark Filip]

Not so with FST. But I don't know where the regional stats are found.

BTW, there are more FST's out there than we even know about under construction. We built an EVO this month for a customer that has not made its debut yet, and we sold 2 complete FV to FST conversion kits this month. So something is happening. (That included FST restrictor plates so I guess they are planning to race.)

With 10 active cars there is no place to but up

[Steve Davis]

...A 50HP/Liter engine that spins 6800rpm isn't exactly producing great BMEP or VE numbers. Higher compression ratio, longer duration cam, better intake system and carb don't require more than 6800rpms to make more than 50HP/Liter. I'm confident that 80HP is attainable with a 1200cc ACVW at 6000rpms if you toss out the rule book...

Makes me really wonder what that SPEC MANIFOLD might have done for us five years ago.... at least FV would have been "a little" faster....

Steve, FV80