Let's fold FST into FV

[sracing]

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

Easy?

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.

Daryl. They were trying to make the cars (FV/FST) competitive. I can duplicate the PEAK HP, or PEAK torque. You can not make the dyno curves the same on an FV and FST engine. If you use weight as an equalizer. you affect handling and acceleration. Then there is the tire issue. Going to a close ratio gear box could make a Vee faster. But you will be faster or slower than a FST depending upon the track. At best you could get comparable lap times on SOME tracks. (and when you are done you have a Frankensein Vee )

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.

Daryl. to get 80 HP at 6000 rpm on a 1200 ACVW will require OVER 90lbs of torque! The 1200 produces about 60 lbs peak now at below 4000 RPM. Ain't happening.

I could boost it. That is the only way to achieve much more HP at the same RPM. Any non-boosted induction system will only increase HP by moving the peak torque range up in RPM. To realize the HP requires running the engine up to much higher RPM's. Of course you could just completely change cr, heads, carbs and manifold to get HP earlier, but now you really have a Frankenstein with NO VW like parts. Transmission gear changes on a Vee are not trivial and it would take years of testing to find anything that makes the cars equal in lap time across even a few tracks.
And, you would still have a great disparity in speeds on the track. Only lap times could be close. At this point the Vee guys can't reach consensus on a tire and weight, let alone some of the above mods. IMO the simple approach is the full FV to FST conversion when mandated.

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.

Very well stated.

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.

Yep. There is some problems with re-work though. There is no real viable slow growth path to the front BJ beam and discs. Any individual step method causes throw away work at some point.

[Stan Clayton]

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

No, I can't because I don't have the data for all classes. I do have the data for the formula and sports racer classes, though, as well as total entries for each year. That said, it is not possible for total national entries to have remained as stable as they have and for all classes to be as badly off as FV, or "in most cases worse".

[Daryl DeArman]

Easy?

Yes, without a rule book absolutely.

You can not make the dyno curves the same on an FV and FST engine. <snip> At best you could get comparable lap times on SOME tracks. (and when you are done you have a Frankensein Vee)

Agreed. I was speaking only to speeding the FV up a bit. Not attempting to reach parity between the two. I was also speaking without any concern about creating a Frankenstein FV.

Daryl. to get 80 HP at 6000 rpm on a 1200 ACVW will require OVER 90lbs of torque! The 1200 produces about 60 lbs peak now at below 4000 RPM. Ain't happening.

Actually, it would only need to be making 70Ft/Lbs at 6000rpms. It may never need to make 90ft lbs as the torque curve could be a completely different shape.

To realize the HP requires running the engine up to much higher RPM's. Of course you could just completely change cr, heads, carbs and manifold to get HP earlier, but now you really have a Frankenstein with NO VW like parts.

That's what I am speaking to. Get the CR up a few points, put a larger carb and manifold on it, a different cam. The BMEP is so low (100-120psi?) that there is tremendous room for improvement without having to spin it faster if we don't constrain ourselves to VW production parts.

Transmission gear changes on a Vee are not trivial and it would take years of testing to find anything that makes the cars equal in lap time across even a few tracks.

I was just speaking to making the FV cars faster, not trying to achieve parity. On tracks with lots of 3-4 shifts where you are grabbing fourth up hill or low speed corners that are at the low end of rpm range in 3rd would benefit more from better gear choices; tracks that utilize 4th gear at 5500rpm+ almost exclusively wouldn't benefit much at all.

At this point the Vee guys can't reach consensus on a tire and weight, let alone some of the above mods.

Agreed. Just saying it could be done...not that it ever would.

[sracing]

Agreed. Just saying it could be done...not that it ever would.

Ok, yep, thinking out of the box (rules and budget) you could get more HP out of a Vee.

[smsazzy]

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

And cheaper.

[eospeed]

I tried but everyone was full flame on when I proposed that. It would have been sweet.Also IMO there is no way the old guard is going to let this fly.

[nhJohn]

How about this for a different take.

It depends on what your local class paticipation is.....
Why would the FV Drivers in the Northeast, who can have 20 people in their class want to convert to FST? Or want the hassle of the FST being megred into THEIR sucessful class?

And why would the guys in FST land (SR territority) want the FV's to run with them? They only have a couple of FV's anyways? And just because you combine the class, does not mean FV guys from another region will come and race in your region....

Disk brakes in the FV class .... NOT because of parts. It is becasue someone suggested it.
Pistons, plenty of pistons. Cylinders, the motor builders are working on sourcing.

John

[Garry Sharp]

People need to stop inferring that because hundreds of new FST's haven't been built or converted since the class was recognised means that something is wrong with the package. As Jim has said, FST was introduced at or about the time of the housing crisis/recession. The strata or level of drivers getting into the sport that would choose FV, FST (entry level, limited budget, 1st racecar) vanished. While I haven't seen any new FST's in the S.E. Division since I started about 2008, I haven't seen any new FV either, in fact I have seen less. There have been more new $60,000 FB cars than FV or FST because this level wasn't as affected by the economy.

The advantages of FST are not maketing, political, or advertising for a company, they are facts and they are indisputable-the parts that are different are cheaper and they perform better.

Don't get me wrong, I have a ton of respect for FV drivers. I've always thought of FV as a kind of a "mad scientist" class, and I mean that as a compliment. When I was getting in, I was thinking about FV. I went to Road Atlanta to look around. I was watching a FV driver work on his car. He was sanding his brake shoes or fixing a leaking wheel cylinder or something. He said, "you know, it's a hundred little things that make a difference in FV, not one big thing." Well in this day and age, I would argue that most people don't have the time, money or WANT to deal with a hundred little things.

As far as growing this level of racing,put it this way. If you put a state of the art FV and a state of the art FST side by side in the paddock of a race with signs listing all the pertinent information about each one- cost of the car, cost of running, parts availablility, maintenance and performance, which one do you think a potential new, entry level driver, especially a young one, would choose. I think everybody understands the reasons why hundreds of current FV owners don't want their beloved class to go away or change too much, but being a better package for the future is not one of them.

No disrepect to anybody,
Garry

[Stan Clayton]

Agreed. I was speaking only to speeding the FV up a bit. Not attempting to reach parity between the two. I was also speaking without any concern about creating a Frankenstein FV.

What would allowing 1.25:1 rocker ratios do to an otherwise FV-legal engine? Anybody ever do it?

[Matt Clark]

What would allowing 1.25:1 rocker ratios do to an otherwise FV-legal engine? Anybody ever do it?

That's what I am speaking to. Get the CR up a few points, put a larger carb and manifold on it, a different cam. The BMEP is so low (100-120psi?) that there is tremendous room for improvement without having to spin it faster if we don't constrain ourselves to VW production parts.

I was thinking kinda the same thing as Stan & Daryl.... maybe allow the slightly bigger carb and/or intake & cam them up a little. If the "monster mannies" made such a big difference, I would think basic allowances like these would bump the HP pretty good.

Side note- if this is what we're talking about during the race season, I can't wait to see what comes up when we're all bored in December & January!

[nhJohn]

People need to stop inferring that because hundreds of new FST's haven't been built or converted since the class was recognised means that something is wrong with the package. As Jim has said, FST was introduced at or about the time of the housing crisis/recession. The strata or level of drivers getting into the sport that would choose FV, FST (entry level, limited budget, 1st racecar) vanished. While I haven't seen any new FST's in the S.E. Division since I started about 2008, I haven't seen any new FV either, in fact I have seen less. There have been more new $60,000 FB cars than FV or FST because this level wasn't as affected by the economy.

The advantages of FST are not maketing, political, or advertising for a company, they are facts and they are indisputable-the parts that are different are cheaper and they perform better.

Don't get me wrong, I have a ton of respect for FV drivers. I've always thought of FV as a kind of a "mad scientist" class, and I mean that as a compliment. When I was getting in, I was thinking about FV. I went to Road Atlanta to look around. I was watching a FV driver work on his car. He was sanding his brake shoes or fixing a leaking wheel cylinder or something. He said, "you know, it's a hundred little things that make a difference in FV, not one big thing." Well in this day and age, I would argue that most people don't have the time, money or WANT to deal with a hundred little things.

As far as growing this level of racing,put it this way. If you put a state of the art FV and a state of the art FST side by side in the paddock of a race with signs listing all the pertinent information about each one- cost of the car, cost of running, parts availablility, maintenance and performance, which one do you think a potential new, entry level driver, especially a young one, would choose. I think everybody understands the reasons why hundreds of current FV owners don't want their beloved class to go away or change too much, but being a better package for the future is not one of them.

No disrepect to anybody,
Garry

Absolutely ... Let the classes be separate and live on their own merit.
Participation will then determine what happens. Don't force it.
John

[Daryl DeArman]

What would allowing 1.25:1 rocker ratios do to an otherwise FV-legal engine?

I wondered the same thing because it would be a cheaper "fix".

I'm thinking that the higher acceleration rate of the valves would require too much spring and the seats in these heads already have a hard enough time living. Probably a bit tougher on things when the geometry is more aggressive too. I think a camshaft designed with better profiled ramps/rounder nose (longer duration near max lift) intended for use with 1.1:1 rockers would be a better solution as would lighter and larger valves.

[Stan Clayton]

I wondered the same thing because it would be a cheaper "fix".

Yeah, I too was thinking 'cheap fix', which a new cam does not appear to be since changing involves a complete tear down.

What about new carb and/or intake manifold?

Would 5 hp do it?

[budawe]

Here's some regional participation numbers for the past two years.

2013 represents through July only and will increase towards the end of the year. It appears that ALL regional racing is down in 2013 compared with 2012.

FV has had 334 entries thru July and most, 233, have been in the East Coast, NE and SE divisions. Fst has had 53 entires 49, have been in CenDiv and Great Lakes divisons. During the full year of 2012, there were 611 vee entries and 109 Fst entries.

Nationally, FV is up from last year and entries to the Runoffs have hit a 10 year high. No opinions, just raw numbers.

I think supply issues will continue to be an issue for both classes. I think FST has a slight advantage in some areas but over time their supplies will diminish as well. My importer just told me that the last 50 cases coming from Brazil is in transit. Word is that no more will be produced. That will effect both classes. I have, and will continue to help anyone source what ever they need. Just call or email me.

[Stan Clayton]

I think supply issues will continue to be an issue for both classes. I think FST has a slight advantage in some areas but over time their supplies will diminish as well. My importer just told me that the last 50 cases coming from Brazil is in transit. Word is that no more will be produced. That will effect both classes. I have, and will continue to help anyone source what ever they need. Just call or email me.

Aircooled.net are having new "super cases" cast in aluminum. Heavier, but stronger...

[sracing]

What would allowing 1.25:1 rocker ratios do to an otherwise FV-legal engine? Anybody ever do it?

Stan, I have sold probably 5 to 6 sets to the FV guys in Australia. I guess they use them down there. I have never tried them on a FV engine. But we have used them on many 130 to 160 HP (1900-2200 cc's) ACVW's. On those engines they move the HP up by probably 5 to 8 max. And do it by raising the Torque RPM peak points. It is not something I would recommend on a FV since the spring pressures have to be higher and stock aluminum pushrods can't be used. (At least above 5500 RPM)

A much nicer solution would be better cam profiling. Longer duration with better off ramps. But then you really need to use stainless steel EXH valves. (The exhaust valve cools when it is closed and they get a little to hot with lots of WOT and too much duration.)

[Stan Clayton]

Good stuff, Jim...thanks!

[sracing]

I think supply issues will continue to be an issue for both classes. I think FST has a slight advantage in some areas but over time their supplies will diminish as well. My importer just told me that the last 50 cases coming from Brazil is in transit. Word is that no more will be produced. That will effect both classes. I have, and will continue to help anyone source what ever they need. Just call or email me.

"Slight advantage"?

Every part is still available NEW for FST. We haven't even touched the junk yards yet.

Cases? We knew this 2 years ago. While the mag/si alloy is still available, we ALREADY allow aluminum aftermarket cases. (No competitive advantage and they are 10+ pounds heavier.) So you just add an aluminum case and remove 10 lbs of ballast.

By the way, we also allow aftermarket transaxles cases.. Again no competitive advantage, but they are available.

Wheels, at least half a dozen vendors, rotors several, calipers several, brake pads several, cranks several, p&c sets at least 3, tires one _
.

See, FST thought of everything..

[Bruce Livermore]

The Aussies went through this exercise about 10 years ago (trying to match performance between the 1200 and 1600 engines). If I recall, it was part of the reason they developed their "control" manifold. They were also tired of the "new, expensive trick manifold every year" syndrome they were in. In the end, they pretty much killed off the 1200 as a viable engine at their top level of competition. And so it goes...

As part of their package of changes to the 1200, they raised the compression ratio by lowering deck height in vain effort to match the bottom end performance between the two engines. This is really the only possible way to improve low end torque on the 1200. Anything done to improve breathing - cam, valve sizing, manifold - will help most at the top end which is not really the area that will need help.

Another thing to consider is the strength and durability of the crank and rods of the 1200. they work fine for now, but overall, I would be very leery of increasing the loads they are seeing by much. We don't have that many good, light cases left and every major crank or rod failure means one less... The aluminum cases are probably fine in FST due to it's higher minimum weight but I doubt many Vee guys would be happy to add 10# of case to their cars.

I must say I agree with those who do not want to change the FST package to dumb it down to FV speeds. In the long run this is counter productive. If anything, *both* FV and FST need to be faster if they are to be safely grouped with the rest of the formula cars out there.

While it may be strong in the NE, nationally, FV has lost it's "critical mass" that used to allow single class or at worst 2 class race groupings. That these unhappy groupings are causing even further loss of participation is certainly plausible.

The fix? I don't know, but I have long believed that FV has been in decline more that other SCCA classes. I think Stan's graphs prove this once and for all. It appears that the "do nothing" approach of the last 10 years has not been doing anything that has helped.

[FVRacer21]

The fix? I don't know, but I have long believed that FV has been in decline more that other SCCA classes. I think Stan's graphs prove this once and for all. It appears that the "do nothing" approach of the last 10 years has not been doing anything that has helped.

I have been watching this thread with a tired feeling - Since I and a few others gave up 2 years of our own racing to test all the changes - in the mid 90's! We ran street tires, spec slicks, 1600 engines - the only thing we did not test was disc brakes.... I honestly never expected FV to reach it's 50th birthday - but I thought some manufacture would flood the market with its own spec type formula car - wait - Mazda did that with the Miata . (well it is not a formula car but it did affect us.)

The fact that FV is experiencing a rebirth or at least a revival on a National Racing Level seems to have no effect on a Regional Level. So let me throw out my final thoughts on this discussion:

1. Don't merge FST and FV until there is no other alternative.
2. FV is still the cheapest entry class and needs to be promoted as such - you don't need expensive shocks, radios and data collection systems to go fast and have fun - somehow we have forgotten that.
3. FV will continue to evolve and solutions will come up as needed - of course as needed means staying true to #2.
4. We need to do more promotions and think outside the box when it comes to getting new drivers into the sport - used tire exchanges, loaner Hans devices - race sponsorship so we can reduce entry fees - these would make us stand out from other classes. FST needs to figure out why all those cars out there are not showing up - and get them out.
5. This means getting MORE involved in the SCCA not less - going to regional membership meetings, helping out at car shows, getting to the new members before other classes do. Even if we can't get the new teen drivers - if the 30 something gets in a Miata it will be hard to get him out.

FV faces more competition from outside its class than from within, but FST didn't help FV, probably hurt it, but that horse is out of the barn - the inability of FV to change was part of the problem - so both sides can share where we are right now.

The funny thing is now we need each other because of the things we do share, suppliers, and service providers like engine builders, transmission builders and car constructors. So the next few years will need to be a coordinated push by FV and FST against other classes.

Hope to see people at Vee Fest at NHMS.

ChrisZ

[Rayzor]

Hi Bruce

My name is Ray Filetti, and I am a Formula Vee enthusiast from Sydney Australia. I have lived through every significant moment of Formula Vee evolution in Australia since the late Eighties, and have been instrumental in the evolution of the 1600 rules.

While not wanting to involve myself in your Formula Vee scene, in the interests of keeping our history correct, I feel I should correct some of your statements.

Our control manifold was introduced in the mid 1990's, a few years before we starting thinking about ball joint H beams, disc brakes, and 1600 engines, which were allowable from 2002. The control manifold was introduced for exactly that, to control all the manifolds and accordingly keep costs down and performance more equal. As you say, many of us were working on trick, expensive, manifolds. Some of us even ran frightfully expensive US-made manifolds. Almost all of us believed that without a control manifold, Formula Vee 1200 would have been killed off eventually. I would say that this measure did achieve in prolonging Formula Vee 1200, even up to today. Our 1200 cars use that control manifold today, completely unchanged from the mid Nineties.

Your statement that we raised the compression ratio in a vain effort is also not correct. We did raise the compression ratio as a partial equalisation measure with the 1600 cars, but there was never any intention to make them absolutely equal. Almost everyone agreed that we wanted the 1600's to go slightly faster than 1200's, otherwise the 1200 concept would have been destroyed immediately by the far cheaper, and more appealing, 1600 concept. We knew that the 1600's would outnumber the 1200's over time, but today, more than ten years after 1600's started here, we have on average, around 20% of our fields as 1200's, (including almost entire fields in some states) and they enthusiastically fight for their own championships all over Australia. At a National Series round this weekend just gone, nearly half the cars in the 31 strong field were 1200's.

Go check out a Formula Vee Association of New South Wales Magazine of June 2012 at http://www.fvansw.asn.au/magazine to get an idea of how the 1200 scene is going in my home state.

Finally, sure, there were many people in Formula Vee, some of them highly eminent, who did not want any change from the 1200's with control manifolds, but I believe that almost every one of those people, and every person in Formula Vee today, is thankful that the 1600 concept was approved, because even today we have fields of mid to high twenties in the bigger states, which is above the average over the life of Formula Vee, and we have new cars from manufacturers being released every few years.

Cheers
Ray

[Stan Clayton]

Finally, sure, there were many people in Formula Vee, some of them highly eminent, who did not want any change from the 1200's with control manifolds, but I believe that almost every one of those people, and every person in Formula Vee today, is thankful that the 1600 concept was approved, because even today we have fields of mid to high twenties in the bigger states, which is above the average over the life of Formula Vee, and we have new cars from manufacturers being released every few years. Cheers Ray

I rest my case.

[Bill Bonow]

Those new cars that they come out with every few years look pretty sweet.

The notable differences between Australian (CAMS) FV 1600 and the US (SCCA) FST is 13" wheels (FST) vs. 15" wheels (FV 1600), forced air cooling for FST with stock fan shrouds and belts for FV 1600. There are other minor differences, but those are the major ones.

Here is the new Sabre built by Borland

[problemchild]

I rest my case.

Huh? In Austrailia they did not merge two classes and attempt to equalize them. They run two separate classes together as one group.

[Rayzor]

Hi Greg
That's correct. They are two distinct classes, but we race together.
In my home state of New South Wales, the 1600's do not compete directly against the 1200's. We have an outright (1600) champion, and a 1200 champion, each year.
The 1200 guys race the other 1200 guys every race. We award trophies for the top three 1200's as well as the top three 1600's.
Our annual National Titles are slightly different - there are separate 1200 and 1600 races, including the finals. This way, the 1200 guys are given the same level of profile as the 1600's.
Ray

[Bruce Livermore]

Ray,

Thanks for correcting me and providing the facts and dates I had wrong.
So the control manifold was introduced in the mid-90's.

When was the compression raised, at the same time or was that done later?

If parity was not the goal, why was the compression raised on the 1200's.

Thanks,
Bruce

[Rayzor]

Hi Bruce
I didn't want to interfere too much in your Formula Vee business, but seeing that you asked...
Give me some time and I will do my best to find out, as close to the month and year, when control manifolds were approved, and when the higher compression ratio for 1200's was approved.
Same goes for all the rationale. There could have been reasons other than "closer equalisation".
Ray

[Rayzor]

Bruce

Following is a partial answer to the chronology of control manifolds and higher compression on 1200's in Australia.

But this will take some lengthy background explanation so hopefully you can understand why we did various things.

Our SCCA, CAMS, in early 1998 produced a document titled Beyond 2000 which looked at the future of all their National level categories. This document required two categories in particular, Holden HQ's (the equivalent of your 1972 Chevrolet Impalas, which raced as a control class), and Formula Vee, to carry out a thorough self review, which had to be objective and constructive with emphasis on future evolution. CAMS stated that if the reviews were not thorough and objective, they would not register any more new Formula Vees. The end effect of this was obvious.

Naturally, this started a period of argument and disagreement within Formula Vee from one corner of Australia to the other. There were the "Conservatives" who didn't want any change from the current 1200 spec, and there were the "Progressives" who had all sorts of ideas for future spec changes.

In 1999, the National Board of the Formula Vee Association of Australia, which is made up of one representative from each of the six State Formula Vee associations, agreed for three states to produce prototype cars. Victoria would produce a high performance spec, New South Wales would produce a low performance "reliable and durable" "standard" spec, and South Australia would produce an in between spec.

In late 2000, the Victorian and New South Wales spec cars were displayed at the National Titles in Sydney. The Victorian car, with its twin Delortos, sounded and went like a Super Vee (some people cynically say this was a deliberate tactic to scare people off 1600's, but I don't think so) and had mechanical gremlins and was parked, and may not have been run ever again. The New South Wales car basically used dead standard VW 1600 engine complete, ball joint beam with towers removed, control long box, and four wheel Beetle disc brakes. The South Australians never produced their car, so a breakaway group built one (more on this later).

Throughout 2001, the New South Wales spec car was taken to every race meeting for the Friday practice, and was driven by over twenty drivers, and covered over a thousand track miles, all without a hiccup. This basically converted every driver to the "standard spec"' in New Sourth Wales. At the same time, the South Australian breakaway group did the same, and they managed to race a few mid spec cars in their state, with no sanction from their State Association.

The key was though that the New South Wales "progressives" had a better line of communication to the National powerbrokers in CAMS, to the point that CAMS allowed the New South Wales spec cars to race only in New South Wales in 2002 side by side with the 1200's. This was the foot in the door that was needed. At the first race in 2002, ten New South Wales spec cars started, most of them converted from 1200 spec, and because they were not strictly Formula Vees, they had the working title of "Formula First", which was borrowed from the New Zealand name for Formula Vee. I think the FST guys may have got their name from this?

Oh, and I think i came third that weekend.

Throughout 2002, the politics got to the point that the New South Wales spec was accepted for roll out across Australia over the next few years, its adoption to be determined by each state association.

But here is the relevant bit of information for you.

During 2002 there was much discussion about parity between 1200's and 1600's, naturally the 1200 guys being concerned on the lap time differences for many reasons, such as the effect on the price of their cars, to the end of their careers of being winning drivers. In the end, it was decided that the "new" 1600 cars needed to be faster than the 1200's in order to keep the performance gap similar to the increasingly faster Formula Fords, to also not make ther 1200's compete head to head against the new class, as well as simply because that's what most people wanted.

The National Board decided that the gap between 1200's and 1600's should be on average two second a lap across most major circuits, which is equivalent to about two seconds over about three kilometres. In addition, it was decided that both 1200's and 1600's should have a similar maximum engine speeds so that the 1200's and 1600's had accordingly similar top speeds, and therefore no one gained an unfair slipstream effect from the 1600's.

Based on engineering calculations of compression ratio, rocker ratios, and lap times, undertaken by our National Technical Director at that time, Greg Hepburn, to achieve the two second lap time difference and the similar top speeds, it was decided that 1200's should have a higher compression, and that the New South Wales spec 1600's would be fitted with restrictor plates, which after a testing day using radar guns, would be 29mm.

What is now the current specification Formula Vee 1200 and 1600 (by then, 1600's were approved as a National class by CAMS and could be called Formula Vee) first raced in New South Wales in early 2003. The race sheet can be seen at http://racing.natsoft.com.au/6379231...008.88Y/View?1

Note that Eastern Creek is 4km long, so the lap time difference is longer, and the standard of competitors is not quite what it was.

So that's the 1200 compression ratio increase and the (also important to the debate) 1600 restrictor plate.

Sorry for the boring and long winded reply. I guess no one has ever written this down.

There is some confusion about the year of the control manifold introduction - I am sure it was in the 90's but Greg Hepburn believes it was in the early 2000's. I will confirm with the builder of the control manifolds, Paul Corcoran (who built the wonderful all conquering Checkmate Formula Vee, which again won another National Series this weekend just gone in the hands of Ben Porter).

Ray

PS the South Australian breakaway guys kept racing their spec, which used a high spec cam, for a few years before they merged back to the New South Wales spec, but I think the FST guys borrowed their camshaft spec?

[CenDiv4]

I am all for looking down the road to ensure the life of our class. Its been mentioned before but we really could use some sort of plan.

Going faster, sounds great to me... disk brakes, why not?

[Stan Clayton]

I must say I agree with those who do not want to change the FST package to dumb it down to FV speeds. In the long run this is counter productive. If anything, *both* FV and FST need to be faster if they are to be safely grouped with the rest of the formula cars out there.

While it may be strong in the NE, nationally, FV has lost it's "critical mass" that used to allow single class or at worst 2 class race groupings. That these unhappy groupings are causing even further loss of participation is certainly plausible.

The fix? I don't know, but I have long believed that FV has been in decline more that other SCCA classes. I think Stan's graphs prove this once and for all. It appears that the "do nothing" approach of the last 10 years has not been doing anything that has helped.

This is an important point that risks getting lost in the discussion. During my time on the CRB we usually aimed for about a 7% to 10% time split between the poles of adjacent classes in the same category. I presume they still use that general approach, since they "sped up" the Sports 2000's with 30+ more horsepower to put them in P2.

If FV/FST are to be "good players" in the same race group as FF and F5, they need to speed up. At Road America the FF record is 2:21.1 (2:21.2 for F5), while FST is 2:39.1 and FV is 2:41.4. When FV could usually command its own race group its speed didn't matter, but how common is that these days? I haven't seen it in probably 15 years out west. In any case, using the normal criteria FV/FST pole times at RA "should" be no slower than about 2:32 to 2:33. Speeding up FST by 7 seconds at RA seems pretty straight forward, but speeding up FV by 9 seconds seems to be a tall order to me. Any thoughts?

[sracing]

. Speeding up FST by 7 seconds at RA seems pretty straight forward, but speeding up FV by 9 seconds seems to be a tall order to me. Any thoughts?

No problem on the speeding up of FST. But then you have a Super Vee with sticky tires, etc. It will destroy the whole concept. We have a front beam, no crash box, no good "break-away corners". 130 mph is far to fast for its construction and desired longevity (engine and driver) Not to mention expense.
I don't know how to realistically do it with FV, for the same and more reasons.

[Bill Bonow]

Speeding up FST by 7 seconds at RA seems pretty straight forward, but speeding up FV by 9 seconds seems to be a tall order to me. Any thoughts?

Stan is correct, it's not just FV/FST, it's FF and F5/6 too. Same grouping and sometimes many more classes in the mix as well.

I have thought that FST could use the torque produced a little better. Without changing the engine stability/longevity, a taller R & P could be installed and increase top speed. Many of the tracks we go to have a fair amount of time at 6000+ in 4th gear and no more revs to pull. The VW aftermarket has a "highway cruiser" R & P (I think 3.8:1). I'd bet that would knock out about half that 7 seconds (at Road America). I wanted to test this a few years ago, but thought "rules stability" is very important. This would not be a difficult test to perform. Just my thoughts.

Getting FV 9+ additional out of an FV will be a real trick

[problemchild]

Stan, this is now gone beyond trolling.
First, you suggest that a class, that to its detriment, has resisted any kind of meaningful evolution or change for 40 years, and is firmly commited to the "status quo", merge with a class created by those who left because of that status quo commitment. Now, you are suggesting that we speed up the cars 10 seconds per lap.
Why don't you just say it. You want to kill FV as we know it, and create new class(es).
In what world do you expect this to happen?

[Stan Clayton]

Stan, this is now gone beyond trolling. ... Why don't you just say it. You want to kill FV as we know it, and create new class(es).

Not at all, Greg. I own an FV and want to ensure the class has a bright and long future. In light of the challenges the class faces, IMO that means having a frank and open discussion, exploring options, and challenging assumptions. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but I assure you I am not trolling.

[problemchild]

Not at all, Greg. I own an FV and want to ensure the class has a bright and long future. In light of the challenges the class faces, IMO that means having a frank and open discussion, exploring options, and challenging assumptions. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but I assure you I am not trolling.

We have people serving leadership roles in the FV community who believe FV is alive and well, and see no need for any changes. Despite over 2/3rds wanting a spec tire, we cannot get that done. Perhaps your prompts for discussion might be more realistic.

Perhaps, if we made them go 25 seconds faster, we could merge them with FA.

[BLS]

FV is a class designed around low cost entry level performance as is the FST class. We could change them, rename them FSV. Maybe then we could get the 10-15 runoffs entries FC, FE, and FM have.

A far better "improvement" would be for the SCCA to have a commitment to Formula car racing and recognize that an entry level class(s) is important to that development. FC, FE, FM, F5/6, FF can play together pretty well. What FV/FST needs is a separate run group that helps attract the future of formula racing. When you want to go faster, the other classes are waiting.

[Daryl DeArman]

We have people serving leadership roles in the FV community who believe FV is alive and well

...because they have enough parts to last the rest of their racing life and don't want to make any changes that will obsolete their stash.

Anyone paying attention with no vested interest can clearly see that something needs to be done, maybe not tomorrow, but sooner than many would care to admit.

[problemchild]

...because they have enough parts to last the rest of their racing life and don't want to make any changes that will obsolete their stash.

Anyone paying attention with no vested interest can clearly see that something needs to be done, maybe not tomorrow, but sooner than many would care to admit.

That applies to any class. Any outsider can see the benefits of Hondas in FF, or F600, or FST. The toughest to sell, are those who have accepted their class as it is, and just want outsiders to buy in and make it better. Pass the Kool-aid please.

My point, to Stan, was reinventing the wheel will never fly with people who refuse to consider reinventing a wheel nut. Progress is possible, but being realistic is required. The concept of merging FV and FST lost 95% of the FV community. Not many of the remaining 5% would buy into that 9 seconds/lap concept. FV and FST can and should work together to maintain and grow their race group. The reality is that merging with equalization is just not going to happen.

[Bruce Livermore]

Ray,

Thanks for the thorough reply. I'm sure it took a while to put it together. It's worthwhile reading for everyone interested in the future of FV in the US. It offers an example of what someone else did and why. Give my regards to Paul Corcoran. He was very helpful to me when I was trying to understand the spec. manifold he developed, how it was made, controlled, etc.

Bruce

[Bruce Livermore]

Stan,

I've got to agree with Jim and Greg on this. While it would be great for race groupings to speed up FV (significantly), it is completely unrealistic and probably quite unsafe. Our engines are already stressed pretty well and need plenty of TLC to stay at their peak. Our brakes are also near the limit as they are; wheels, spindles, front trailing arms as well.

If FV (and FST) is to survive it/they need a safe place to race. Race chairs combining race groups to get events over by noon on Sunday are not helping... Putting Vees' in harms way by running them with SFR's is just plain foolish. But that what's happening and Vee drivers are voting with their lack of interest.

I also believe FV has been more effected by the rising cost of gas (for the transporter, not the Vee) and the economic downturn we've been in. FV is the closest thing SCCA has to a (true) middle class (blue collar even?) race class. And guess what, true middle class jobs and salaries are in decline and have been for 30 years. You could say that FV is the canary in the coal mine as far as economic effects on participation.

For me, FV is ALL about low cost racing. It exists and has thrived almost solely for that reason. The fantastic level of competition we have had over the years is largely a result of the low cost of entry we had.

Bruce