FV Disc Brakes

[BLS]

The Southeast and Northeast have historically had very high FV participation.

4 majors races in the SE this year with the following attendance:

Sebring 6
Palm Beach 8
Road Atlanta 7
VIR 9
Average Majors FV Race participation = 7.5 cars

I don't consider that to be a healthy level of participation. There are regional races where only 0-2 cars are showing up. I can go back and look up the National race attendance before the majors program and see similar numbers.

The class will not survive if participation continues to slide. I don't know what the "cure" is, but it is clearly not the status quo.

You may be able to find some parts, but for a new racer faced with many choices, junkyard parts may not seem appealing. Spending many dollars for a "new" motor that is built with very few new parts may not be appealing. It doesn't bother me personally, I prefer to spend less and work more, but is that going to work for the new drivers entering the sport? The only thing that has shocked me as I work my way back into the sport is the low car count. I never raced with less than 17-18 cars and we usually had at least 20. At a regional level we are lucky to see any cars at many races.

[budawe]

Majors on the west coast are way up from last year but mostly due to the Laguna runoffs. It appears that Majors entries across the country are up in total as well. The same can't be said for the eastern decline but I think it's partially attributable to the runoffs move.

The realities of all formula classes tend to exclude new racers who prefer not to work on cars and often choose arrive and drive classes like SM & SRF. Surveys of new SM folks show they feel fendered cars much safer than open wheel and prefer the lower risk profile as well.

[jhenn4716]

What is the weight of the disc components compared to the current drum components? Is it the same, less, more?

Starting from the beam, to all brake parts, to wheels minus rubber. What is the break down of weight? If you didn't have the added weight penalty of running the disc breaks, would your car be any lighter?

[BLS]

More, about 18-20 pounds as I recall. The 25 pound penalty is a bit more that the added weight itself.

The real question I have is the inertia of the rotating components. They weigh more, but where is the weight?

[DanW]

No dog in the hunt, but I have the VW type 3 uprights, rotors and calipers on my Zink Z10 CF. Through all of the above, has anyone considered the HP loss from 4 pairs of brake pads dragging on the rotors? The rotors are one piece iron castings and they are quite heavy.

Anyone experienced a long pedal from pad knock-back?

Just asking.

[protoform]

The race last week at Loudon NH had 18 FV show up for a regional some were new drivers Some for a shakedown of a newly gotten car and didn't race. but 15 ended up on the grid for sat and sun races John Petillo set a time of 1:15.3. Roger Sibenalers track record is 1:14.9 the regional guys in the north East do ok.I believe for the full story go to New Hampshire results by NH John.

[sracing]

No dog in the hunt, but I have the VW type 3 uprights, rotors and calipers on my Zink Z10 CF. Through all of the above, has anyone considered the HP loss from 4 pairs of brake pads dragging on the rotors?

About .0002 run-out or bearing play is more then enough to eliminate drag You can try it. I have,

With lots of bearing play or run out you can of course experience some pedal push back. You can loose 1/2 inch of pedal after a hard corner. But with the tiny amount of free play you have with discs it is only a bit disconcerting on your first lap.

Compared to drag on drums and pedal play, it is a BIG non-issue.

Re: Weight: ~12lbs for drums ~ 16 for rotors. The largest part of the drum weight is rotating. The rotor weight is a bit more closer in radius. All in all. probably a non issue.

I don't support the vee to disc conversion, but I suspect a disc BJ beam set up correctly will easily out do a link pin drum set up. If for no other reason, the BJ will maintain camber in a corner, A vee is much like your old Red Flyer Wagon in a corner. (I don't care WHO sets it up or what their claim is. Watch a video).

FST front runners have no problems with Vees in the corners currently. (With hard oversize tires.)

In any case.. don't do it. The rule change is a terrible idea and you will be trying to figure out equality for years after Vee is dead..

This whole thing came down to : "Be careful what you wish for. You might get it"

You (VEE) have parts to last for a few years. We (FST) were planning for the next entry level generation. For years we have heard about how bad FST sux and why it will never work. Now people are trying to half ass duplicate it without any logical plan.

[Hardingfv32]

......Now people are trying to half ass duplicate it without any logical plan.

The plan is to slowly convert to FST type parts. It is the ONLY logical thing to do.

Brian

[Bill Bonow]

The plan is.........

Hey Brian,

Having trouble finding this "plan" referenced on any SCCA page, FV site or the internet in general.

Any chance you have a link to where this "plan" is located?

[Hardingfv32]

I don't support the vee to disc conversion, but I suspect a disc BJ beam set up correctly will easily out do a link pin drum set up. If for no other reason, the BJ will maintain camber in a corner,

1) The current Hoosier FV tires were developed so that the car is in balance with a std FV setup configuration. A more effective front suspension (higher front grip levels) is not going to provide more performance without a corresponding increase in rear grip.

2) My latest tire testing research indicates that the current Hoosier FV front tire is NOT unhappy with the link pin camber curve. There is every reason to think that the camber curve of the ball joint system will not be a benefit for the current FV tire.

3) You have 25 lb. more weight for the tires to deal with in the corners and during braking. There is also the issue of unsprung weight gain on rough track surfaces.

Brian

[sracing]

The current Hoosier FV tires were developed so that the car is in balance with a std FV setup configuration. A more effective front suspension (higher front grip levels) is not going to provide more performance without a corresponding increase in rear grip.

I don't accept this without seeing some on track testing.

2) My latest tire testing research indicates that the current Hoosier FV front tire is NOT unhappy with the link pin camber curve. There is every reason to think that the camber curve of the ball joint system will not be a benefit for the current FV tire.

I don't think a sloppy 4+ degree variance in camber (and toe slop) is a good thing for any suspension. I guess you are saying the rear is SO BAD that the front end should be very bad also. (But that has some truth to it. )

3) You have 25 lb. more weight for the tires to deal with in the corners and during braking. There is also the issue of unsprung weight gain on rough track surfaces.

Possibly, Again, without testing just guesses. The BJ COULD be slower. Whereas the spindle breaks on the LP.

[DanW]

About .0002 run-out or bearing play is more then enough to eliminate drag You can try it. I have,....

This whole thing came down to : "Be careful what you wish for. You might get it."

I'm impressed. It took me some time and patience to get my wheel bearings to 0.001" play. I guess I will have to borrow a "last word" from work and give it another try.

[sracing]

I was being facetious. The .0002 meant ANY runout is sufficient to relieve pad pressure.

[Amon]

BLS,

They're 25 vee's signed up for the Mid-Ohio Fourth of July event, and we have 8 vee's
signed up for the Nelson Ledges regional with three weeks to go, plus having to deal
with the temp. closing of the track which delayed enrollment, so not bad here.

Mark

[Hardingfv32]

I don't accept this without seeing some on track testing.

1) Explain why my statement is not logical? Were the tires not developed on a std FV and with balanced handling properties as one of the main goals? 'Assuming' the conventional generalization, a better camber curve at the front from the ball joint suspension creates more grip, will the car not become loose using a ball joint suspension?

2) This is an alternate theory from above and concerns the use of a link pin front suspension:

The nature/parameter of a tire's camber stiffness can create a tire that has almost no response to camber when the slip angle is at or above those found during heavy cornering. So, it is very possible the FV front tire is not camber sensitive and thus would not fine much improvement using a ball joint suspension.

http://www.optimumg.com/docs/TireComparison.pdf

Brian

[BLS]

Mark,

I agree there are "local" pockets with good activity. The 4th of July race is an outlier however. We have an invitation to participate in an all V event at Barber, a fantastic track, with a total of 7 signed up (for interest only, not firm yet).

The point remains, the nationwide class participation is way down. What is the cure? I personally don't think the status quo is going to do it. BJ beam and discs will not fix it, but I'll be darned if I see how the option is going to hurt. IF there is a performance advantage to the BJ/disc it's not going to be so large as to require changing immediately, IMO. Now, are active racers going to quit/change class because FV has the option of using disc brakes and ball joints rather than drum brakes and kingpins? I just cannot imagine that to be the case. Will someone on the fence about where to start there career be dissuaded by the drum/kingpin? Will someone on the fence about where to start there career be dissuaded by junkyard only parts availability? I believe that to be a more likely scenario.

It is my personal opinion that the class will have to adapt or die. There have been quite a few changes over time. Getting just a bit more modern, say 1966 technology instead of 1965 might help. I just do not see it hurting.

YMMV,
Barry

[BLS]

Brian,

Thanks for the link. That is a interesting set of data and I found it somewhat surprising, particularly the data regarding camber and it's effect on the different tires.

Barry

[Amon]

Barry,

I'd consider going to the Barber race if we didn't have an FV series race at Pocono
that same weekend, but I haven't ruled it out completely. Maybe we need to
consider what Steven Davis and others have created with the large FV gatherings
around the U.S., promote them and they will come. Don't forget that the Barber
race is still 8 weeks away and hopefully you'll get 15-20 entered.

I agree with your opinion regarding the BJ beams and discs, and also don't believe
they'll hurt the class, but won't be the savior some may believe them to be?

Over time, I wouldn't have a problem with the blending of the FST and vee's into one
class, but it would have to be done over a long drawn out period of time with no major
penalty for those quickly converting or those electing to spread out any changes made to the cars. We wouldn't want to cause drivers to park their cars by creating rules that
make them feel uncompetitive by the possible changes made to the class.

It really is a crapshoot as far as what changes would be successful in reviving the class, but I'm not willing to throw in the towel.

Mark

Citation #66

[BLS]

Mark,

I think we are in agreement.

I do think low car counts which result in mixed classes reduces car counts even further. I am entered at Roebling regional end of June. FF, CF, F5, and V with 4 V's so far. Seems OK. Two weeks later at Road Atlanta I would really like to go. However, it is a one class free-for-all with all open wheel and S/R cars in a single group. I'll wait and see what the entries are and may not go to my favorite track for the first time in 30 years.

I am hoping the single class race "series" will work. As far as Barber is concerned, it is my understanding we have to get some minimum number of "interested" sign ups by June 7 to go ahead. So, those that are interested, sign up, not much time left.

Barry

[sracing]

Explain why my statement is not logical? Were the tires not developed on a std FV and with balanced handling properties as one of the main goals?

I didn't say your statement(s) were not logical. I said, I don't accept them without lots of testing. ( I think you would agree lots of things on a vee aren't "logical" ? )

'Assuming' the conventional generalization, a better camber curve at the front from the ball joint suspension creates more grip, will the car not become loose using a ball joint suspension?

"conventional generalization" on a Link Pin Zero roll Vee is a huge generalization.
We are also not simply discussing positive camber. We are discussing UNPREDICATBLE VARYING camber at unpredictable times. Unless I see that being used (and winning) in an F1 car, I am not ready to accept it as a good thing in any race car.

So, it is very possible the FV front tire is not camber sensitive and thus would not fine much improvement using a ball joint suspension.

Very possible. But again, from many vids and still images, what appears to be VERYING camber as much as 4 or maybe 6+ degrees just doesn't intuitively seem like the best set up for ANY end of the car.

Just the fact the the BJ beam camber doesn't change from session to session (and corner to corner) must have some advantage.

Watching these cars (FV and FST) together on a dry track with comparable drivers does not show ANY visible advantage to the LP beam. Yet, FST has a much heavier unsprung and sprung weight and rotating mass. (and poorly matched tires). And that is with a comparable tiny bit of car year testing. (verses the Vee over at LEAST 30 years.)

Your testing (noted in your EMAIL), Is interesting and a few years of that and we may be able to make additional, fair to all rules changes in FV. But FV doesn't have to many years.

Keep it as is and ride out it's popularity as is. Messing with it now, IMO, will just piss off most current FV owners. Those who want to and have the $ can simply go to the existing FST class. It could easily be a "Run-Offs" car in a couple years if a few people jump in. Not something that I would want, but many do.

(Note that most of the complaints/concerns about any of this stuff has to do with the rising costs of FV. Funny enough, many also complain that no one will go to FST because it's not a "run-offs" car. Yet, you will spend as much for one run-offs as you will for the full rest of the season...)

Brian, I am way outside our posts and these are, of course not, pointed at you..

[Tiago Santos]

"conventional generalization" on a Link Pin Zero roll Vee is a huge generalization.
We are also not simply discussing positive camber. We are discussing UNPREDICATBLE VARYING camber at unpredictable times. Unless I see that being used (and winning) in an F1 car, I am not ready to accept it as a good thing in any race car.

I think that's the point Brian was making. It's not good, yet the crappiness in the front end is balanced by the tires we run. Improving the front end significantly through much better camber control means the car will be loose - unless we all figure out a better rear suspension as well.

Keep it as is and ride out it's popularity as is. Messing with it now, IMO, will just piss off most current FV owners. Those who want to and have the $ can simply go to the existing FST class.

Yes, you'd love that. I'm sure the miata guys are looking at the participation numbers and thinking the exact same thing "leave it be guys, we'll be here when your class is dead".

[sracing]

I think that's the point Brian was making. It's not good, yet the crappiness in the front end is balanced by the tires we run. Improving the front end significantly through much better camber control means the car will be loose - unless we all figure out a better rear suspension as well.

Which would happen. BTW. Brian is a pretty bright guy and I don't believe for a moment that he thinks "crappy" varying cambered front ends is good for ANY end of the car. His point was that you may not need much or any negative camber with this tire combo.

Yes, you'd love that. I'm sure the miata guys are looking at the participation numbers and thinking the exact same thing "leave it be guys, we'll be here when your class is dead".

This gets funny... I SOLD the business. I don't make any money off FV or FST anymore. (although I ALWAYS made much more on FV stuff since the prices were increasing on everything from tires to rocker arms. Yet you apparently think I would love FV to die? I don't have an axe to grind.. It is simple to see that by ANY definition FST to a better class for the future. And that FV is on a downward curve. Maybe neither class will make it, I don't particularly care. But this strange love being shown for an inanimate object (FV) over a newer, safer and cheaper one still amazes me. Vee has been fun for 50 years. It will soon be time to move on. Even SM is ok if that is what you want. But if you want to make the most of your investment into FV, FST seems logical to me...

However I guess it will be bandaged to death just so we can continue to call it FV. Let it go with dignity. Then go Vintage, SM, or FA. I don't care. FV, FST, FF and so on, are just amateur race car classes. Not living family members.

[Daryl DeArman]

I think that's the point Brian was making. It's not good, yet the crappiness in the front end is balanced by the tires we run. Improving the front end significantly through much better camber control means the car will be loose - unless we all figure out a better rear suspension as well.

That was option 1 of his, option 2 was that the front tires aren't camber sensitive at certain loads and slip angles so there may not be any gain.

While it may be easier/possible/predictable to control camber in a BJ v. LP beam during roll and with cornering forces what about the difference in camber through bump and droop? The LP design would have a huge advantage over the BJ beam in camber change through travel.

Yes, you'd love that. I'm sure the miata guys are looking at the participation numbers and thinking the exact same thing "leave it be guys, we'll be here when your class is dead".

Eventually they will all be FST cars whether you still call them FV or not. Some people dive in from the side, some take the steps....

[BLS]

The LP design would have a huge advantage over the BJ beam in camber change through travel.

I must have overlooked something regarding the BJ beam. Would you explain why the camber changes with travel in the BJ beam Vs the link pin?

[Daryl DeArman]

I must have overlooked something regarding the BJ beam. Would you explain why the camber changes with travel in the BJ beam Vs the link pin?

The geometry of the upper and lower turkey legs are more dissimilar in two axis in the BJ beam than the LP beam, therefore the arcs scribed through their travel is more dissimilar in the BJ than LP beams. However, what I overlooked was the fact that their design does not allow them to travel in an arc from the chassis centerline. Thus camber shouldn't be negatively impacted.

[BLS]

Daryl,

OK, thanks.

Barry

[Bill Bonow]

Based on this, who in the FV world wants more flexible options?

From the FV board:

The Committee had submitted their recommendations regarding allowing disc brakes in FV. The recommendations were intentionally very restrictive in that the ball joint beam was the only option for disc brakes on the front using 4 bolt VW wheels. For the rears, disc or drum brakes with 4 bolt wheels or keep your 5 bolt drums. A weight penalty was also included in our recommendation. We thought we were done and the recommendations would either be passed on to the Board for their consideration or not. The CRB however came back to the Committee and asked for more flexible options.

As a Committee we are struggling to come to an agreement as to whether there should be other options, and if so, what other options should be considered. We will poll the membership via the Registry to get input. We are trying to understand the direction in which the community wants to go if other options are to be considered. Whether the SCCA decides to allow disc brakes in FV or not is anyone’s guess, but we will need as much feedback as we can get to get a true representation of the community's vision.


http://www.formulavee.org/interchang...p=32311#p32311

[BLS]

I read that and wondered what they mean by "more flexible". Since the discussion is confined to disc brakes, perhaps the more flexible option is one that does not require replacing the beam, retaining the link pin beam. The only other flexible position I could think of would be the type of disc/calipers, allowing something other than the VW/FST components.

[sracing]

I think they want parts that are more flexible. Like the FV drums and turkey legs. ????

Seriously, as bad as the decision to allow discs in FV is, making the rule even MORE flexible is terrible.

[Bill Bonow]

I heard rumor that there was a proposed modified Mazda Miata upright/brakes to fit the link pin set up and then wheels would have new centers installed to fit the Miata bolt pattern. Maybe this is the "flexibility" the CRB is asking for?

[rave motorsports]

Just forget the whole thing. Making it more and more complicated is not flexible. I guess I don't understand the whole debacle. Race FV or FST. We all run at the same time in most races. Convert don't convert. Go racing and race the guy ahead and behind you. Let FST be a national class. Just go to the track and race what ya brung!!!!!

[smsazzy]

Here's a crazy idea, stop saying what won't work, start saying what will. :-)

[Bill Bonow]

Steve,

I don't think its a point of "Will or Won't", "Do or Don't". Based on my reading of the most recent minutes. my bet is that the FVAHC is perplexed, just as I am.

If the CRB is truly asking for "flexibility" in this disc brake question/proposal, think a definition is really in order. My bet, that is what most will ask for as well.

I read the GCR looking at key focal point about all cars/classes. In general, we have two major types, restricted and open. I tend to think of the restricted as "limited" and the open to be "flexible". FV being a restricted class (as defined in the GCR), the idea of "flexibility" just doesn't seem to match the general spec of the class.

I think everyone will agree that the term "flexibility" can hold a pretty broad spectrum of definition.

For the most part, the CRB will not come up with ideas of this type without some form of lobbying.
That was my original question, who really wants this "flexibility"? And what exactly is it (technically)?
Sure sounds like it's not the FVAHC and from my review, there seems to be two general positions: 1) leave it as is (drums) and 2) VW disc front with use of BJ beam. Did I miss a third faction?

[jpetillo]

... Go racing and race the guy ahead and behind you. ...

How many times do we hear "Number XX ruined my race. He/she was racing me, but was not even in my class and the pack got away from me." It's probably the single most common reason people gripe about a ruined race.

The problem with racing the guy ahead or behind you independent of class is that some folks are there to race against others in their class, and getting in the middle of that ruins it for them, and that reduces the value. Unless everyone agrees beforehand at the racers meeting, I think this should be avoided.

[jpetillo]

Bill, although none of us are privy to any politics or lobbying in the ranks of the SCCA, I think it's safe to expect that flexible in this context would be with regard to what is typical for flexibility within FV rules in general, and not open or unrestricted. John

[problemchild]

Here's a crazy idea, stop saying what won't work, start saying what will. :-)

Leaving FV as it has been for 50+ years will work!

[smsazzy]

Says the guy who wants a spec tire rule.
Says the guy who wants to raise minimum weight.

So leave it as it has been for 50 years? Shall we slap the fans and generators back on? Lower the minimum weight down to 850 pounds without driver?

You are contradicting yourself at every turn Greg.

[Hardingfv32]

Has anyone considered asking the CRB what they mean by 'flexible'?

I would say they want a conversion that has less specific part requirements. For example, converting a link pin beam.

FV is not working. FV is working everywhere else in the world because the cars were updated/modernized. Is there any better illustration of how updating a rule set helps a class?

The majority of SCCA FV competitors are myopic.

Brian

[problemchild]

Says the guy who wants a spec tire rule.
Says the guy who wants to raise minimum weight.

So leave it as it has been for 50 years? Shall we slap the fans and generators back on? Lower the minimum weight down to 850 pounds without driver?

You are contradicting yourself at every turn Greg.

Steve, just be ridiculous. I believe FV should have evolved itself 25 years ago and could still have made fundamental changes 15 years ago. The FV community has overwhelmingly chosen and committed to the status quo through all these discussions. To reject minor cost-saving and accessibility changes and then invoke major changes now would be suicidal.

If you want to apply your "get R done" positive attitude, then apply your attitude to cost-cutting or accessibility changes that are reasonably obtainable without killing the class!

[jpetillo]

Brian, while I don't disagree about what's going on elsewhere in the world, does any of these groups have a single racing organization crossing such a wide geographic area as we do? This I think is a significant distinction when comparing to the SCCA. It's not clear to me that we can directly compare ourselves to these other regions. Not that we should ignore what works abroad. We would need some understanding of why they evolved the way they did, and that we could draw from. For example, did all of their changes really work, or did they back peddle with some of the changes.