Class Name Change?

[Bill Bonow]

Rather than cause a ruckus, figured to start a new thread in the FST area was more appropriate.

OK, here is the deal/story. We started in 2002 with a "test car" to test out concepts and ideas for potential upgrades/changes to FV. It was easiest for us (committee) to race it in "FS". Long story even longer, other people just started building cars to our "test rules". Next thing we know, we have a Regional series for these cars. At Mid-Ohio one year, it was suggested to become a Divisional class and it should be "FS-T". Simple enough and it stuck as we did not want to piss off the FV folk with a class designation that was too close. Raced for a number of years until 2008 when we applied for SCCA GCR "Regional Only" status as "FST". We got it and from 2009 on, we've been FST.

As a general comment, we've been called "Formula FST", Formula Fast", "Formula F1st" and others by our announcers at Hoosier FST series events. Seems to be a minor issue, but would love to not feel the need to correct people on our class name.

It is now being suggested that a class name change would be a good direction and could possible help to move us forward to Major status or future class combination.

I certainly have my opinions, but am curious to hear from our FST guys as well as FV guys if the name is changed to FV 1600 (or similar). If there is enough interest, I can install a poll. Let see where this goes first.

[BLS]

As a new and old FV guy I vote FV1600.
It is what it is

[Bill Bonow]

It is what it is

Yep, thanks

[Amon]

Bill,

I think FV1600 sounds great and that's my vote!


Mark

[Bryon Prokopf]

Speaking from a timing and scoring standpoint; you need a shorter abbreviation than FV 1600 on the results. I am not sure if the SCCA wants anything longer than 4 characters, but I can tell you that there is a lot of info we need to put on the results and this would take up more room that we don't have.

Bryon Prokopf
St. Louis Region SCCA T&S Chief

[Bill Bonow]

Byron,

Thank you for that very valid point.

I guess the last "00" is sort of redundant anyway and I'm pretty certain that FV is not going to be keen on changing to FV 1200 (snowball in hell comes to mind).

Maybe FV and FV2?

[Mark Filip]

Speaking from a timing and scoring standpoint; you need a shorter abbreviation than FV 1600 on the results. I am not sure if the SCCA wants anything longer than 4 characters, but I can tell you that there is a lot of info we need to put on the results and this would take up more room that we don't have.

Bryon Prokopf
St. Louis Region SCCA T&S Chief

Good point I never though about how "difficult" this would be for SCCA but then again I don't really care in the same way they don't care when they just push things through making things "difficult" for the people paying without having a official vote. They had a "what do you think" nothing saying your voting on a rules change and the next thing we know rules are changing. We all need to take what happens in our class and not leave anything up to a select few to make decisions.


FV12 & FV16 and it that's too many letters because you know someone scold you if your letters are to small, to narrow or on the wrong color contrast, we can could have the 1200 cars use a white class plate with say black FV on it and the 1600 class the opposite or white with red other series do this all the time with colored number plates, just a thought. Let's face it they are both Formula cars and they both are Volkswagen.

[Bill Bonow]

We all need to take what happens in our class and not leave anything up to a select few to make decisions.

This is WAY off the thread topic, but it is very important:

This is a key point on why it is so important to be informed and make your vote count when it is time to elect your area director. Most SCCA members simply don't realize the power and importance that your area director has. If you don't know or understand just how important and how much in control your area director is, I highly suggest that you school yourself.

The fact is, we (general membership) never vote on anything other than our area director. In cases like this, the CRB puts out an opinion poll that they may (or may not) use to formulate their recommendation to the BOD. The CRB may go back to the FSRAHC for technical data who may (or may not) go back to the FVAHC for supporting data.

So, the FSRAHC reports to the CRB, and the CRB makes the recommendation, but ultimately the BOD makes the final call.

You may not like the "select few" program/politics, but that is how our club is structured.

[G.B.]

At Mid-Ohio one year, it was suggested to become a Divisional class and it should be "FS-T". Simple enough and it stuck as we did not want to piss off the FV folk with a class designation that was too close. Raced for a number of years until 2008 when we applied for SCCA GCR "Regional Only" status as "FST". We got it and from 2009 on, we've been FST.

If you didn't want to 'piss off the FV folk with a class designation that was too close' ten years ago, why do it now?

[Bill Bonow]

Guy,

Um, because some FV people here on ApexSpeed are now suggesting it?

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63609

I'd start around post # 36 and go forward from there.

We are fine just where we are at with FST. I'm interested in building the race group and getting access to Majors. If that includes a class name change, then we'll certainly look at that option.

[dd46637]

I just want to be able to run any or all of the events that are held in my area. I have a limited budget and the further I travel cuts into how many events I can get to in a single season.

[Bill Bonow]

Dave,

We've certainly seen the number of available events get dramatically reduced in the past couple of years. I would sure hope the possible result would be to open up more potential events.

I think I'm in the same boat as you, limited budget that is only shrinking each year. I'd love to see access to more local stuff.

[GregSmith]

Bill,

With inception of the Majors, the Divisional race entries for FV have really taken a hit down here. I wasn't aware that the push was on for FST Major status but it certainly would open up our available events.

Hoping to get to testing soon....

Greg

[Bill Bonow]

Greg,

Never really been a push so much as a potential opportunity with the recent changes in Club Racing. If we go "Majors" status, I'm sure there will be class growth (significant?). The down side is (as with anything competitive) costs will likely go up to run up front.

We are always looking to see what the future will bring. Lately, it's been less and less opportunities/dates to go racing.

Yes, I heard you're getting close to completion on your Mission. Just remember, lots of photos

[Daryl DeArman]

Curious as to why anybody would object to a class designation of cars in a class that you don't race in?

To me, just sounds like looking for a reason to be pissed off.

[rave motorsports]

We would vote to keep FST. We have worked very hard to seperate our identity from FV here in the Midwest. Honestly being seperate has made it easier to promote. We aren't Formula Vee and are quite proud of that. It's easier to not just be looked at as Formula Vees red headed step child and we now have our own "Brand Idenity" out here.

[gbmetcalf]

In my humble opinion FST AND FV work. Why change the names.

G.

[Matt King]

In my humble opinion FST AND FV work. Why change the names.

G.

Yeah, I asked that in the other thread, but to not derail that any further, what is the process for elevating FST to Majors status now, and why would a name change be warranted or necessary to accomplish that? Seems like you already have some equity in the name, but being able to race all SCCA events makes sense and would potentially be a big boost to participation.

[Bill Bonow]

What is the process for elevating FST to Majors status now?

Great question. These things (class status) seem to be sort of a moving target in SCCA. I'm sure whatever the process is, it will be a labyrinth hidden inside of a gauntlet. You know, fun stuff.

Why would a name change be warranted or necessary to accomplish that?

Don't know that is is or isn't required. Only saying that if required it's not off the table.

FYI, I am not necessarily in favor of a name change. But if it means access to more races, I think we should look at all the options.

[teamclark]

Well I like FST (or First) but thats because it has a down under connection, in fact in NZ we originally wanted to call in F1st....but that got shot down by Burnies lawyers....

My one comment on a more general front is do we want/need Majors status.....if you build it they will come...ok well that sort of worked so build it bigger and that will attract more?

Sometimes you have to be careful what you want, because it can take you in a different direction from that which you set out on....you know low cost, easy for everybody, fun but competitive.....

I like the sound of what Rave are doing in the Midwest, positioning FST as a bridging class for young drivers, with enough 'experienced' guys around to keep it interesting and to help those progressing through. This 'formula' has certainly worked in other parts of the world....

IMHO there are plenty of other options for those that want to go race Majors (way to many in fact) Adding another single seater class to that mix...I am not sure what that gains anyone....something I have never understood about the SCCAs model when it comes to class proliferation.

[WASP]

I'm for keeping the name as is. I think it's a clear separation of the class and the rules for F1st have been carefully written to make the 1st the leader in bold and better ideas.
If the Fv class wants to adopt some of the F1st features then so be it.
I am constructing a new car for the B-Modified class for Solo competition. The rules for that class fit the F1st car and allow some modifications that will make the the the F1st
class real swoopy (1900cc engine, close ratio gear sets and aero changes) Leave the
class name alone it's drawing real positive interest. No need to introduce any confusion.

Steve Dunlap
Wasp Race Cars

[Matt Clark]

Just my 2 cents on this....

I think either FV should become FV1200 and FST should become FV1600 or just make FST into FV2 to kind of bond the classes a little more, and as FV morphs into FST in the coming years, it makes it "appear" less drastic. We all know perception is a large part of the battle.

And if people want this changeover to happen, it NEEDS to get Major/National status so everyone in FV has incentive to make the evolution. If you do not want to change to the newer parts & want to stay a Regional FV, then so be it. The publicity & status is key to growing the class to the bit of the mass market we do reach & draw from.

[sracing]

There just HAS to be something more important than this. Don't break it. Keep it simple. FST works. (As does FV.)

[Lucien j LeBlanc]

I think FST is fine as it is, we are not Formula Vees and after 50 years it is time for the fv class as we know it to go away into vintage racing. The biggest problem getting folks to convert to FST here on the west coast is that it is not a Majors class. We are limited to only 4 double regionals annually here in Southern California. I have my old 1976 Fv car to run the Majors events but as you can imagine it is too old to be competitive and I much prefer to run my Evolution FST car. I see no future for Formula Vee so I will not buy or build a more competitive FV car just to do the Majors. We need to push towards getting majors status.

I think that the current set of rules are fine for regional racing., however, if we are to replace formula vee we need to think of inexpensive changes to the rules to enhance the performance of FST. There are two areas that could be changed:


Change the carburetor to a weber two barrel with a dual runner intake manifold Cheap power no modifications to carb required - I have built and tested this concept and it works great. Problem is over-reving the motor in top gear.

Allow a spec tall gearbox (rp 3.88 to 1) and a spec "short" (rp 4.125 to 1) gearbox using close ratio gears or better get a different tire spec that allows a spec tall tire and short tire.

Louiethegreat

[Amon]

Louie,

Nice opening statement! I'm sure you're going to win friends with that ignorant line,
and I'm sure those you're wanting to convert will be more inspired after reading your post!

Mark

[rave motorsports]

I think the issue that concerns us the most is getting as many people as possible into small bore open wheel racing. With car counts as they are we know we will all be on track at the same time. I know when I'm racing I don't pay any attention to the initials on the side of the other cars. FV,FF,FST, I race everybody and have a big smile on my face the entire time.

[marshall9]

FV2

FV for the new millennium
F2000 tires
2nd generation FV
FC became F2000

[Lucien j LeBlanc]

I think FST is fine as it is, we are not Formula Vees and after 50 years it is time for the fv class as we know it to go away into vintage racing. The biggest problem getting folks to convert to FST here on the west coast is that it is not a Majors class. We are limited to only 4 double regionals annually here in Southern California. I have my old 1976 Fv car to run the Majors events but as you can imagine it is too old to be competitive and I much prefer to run my Evolution FST car. I see no future for Formula Vee so I will not buy or build a more competitive FV car just to do the Majors. We need to push towards getting majors status.

I think that the current set of rules are fine for regional racing., however, if we are to replace formula vee we need to think of inexpensive changes to the rules to enhance the performance of FST. There are two areas that could be changed:


Change the carburetor to a weber two barrel with a dual runner intake manifold Cheap power no modifications to carb required - I have built and tested this concept and it works great. Problem is over-reving the motor in top gear.

Allow a spec tall gearbox (rp 3.88 to 1) and a spec "short" (rp 4.125 to 1) gearbox using close ratio gears or better get a different tire spec that allows a spec tall tire and short tire.

Louiethegreat

I been driving FV for 25 years, that hardly makes me ignorant. Sometimes the truth hurts I am afraid, but needs to be said.

[Amon]

The number of years driving a vee doesn't make your opinion more relevant!

Mark

[Mark Filip]

I think FST is fine as it is, we are not Formula Vees and after 50 years it is time for the fv class as we know it to go away into vintage racing. The biggest problem getting folks to convert to FST here on the west coast is that it is not a Majors class. We are limited to only 4 double regionals annually here in Southern California. I have my old 1976 Fv car to run the Majors events but as you can imagine it is too old to be competitive and I much prefer to run my Evolution FST car. I see no future for Formula Vee so I will not buy or build a more competitive FV car just to do the Majors. We need to push towards getting majors status.

I think that the current set of rules are fine for regional racing., however, if we are to replace formula vee we need to think of inexpensive changes to the rules to enhance the performance of FST. There are two areas that could be changed:


Change the carburetor to a weber two barrel with a dual runner intake manifold Cheap power no modifications to carb required - I have built and tested this concept and it works great. Problem is over-reving the motor in top gear.

Allow a spec tall gearbox (rp 3.88 to 1) and a spec "short" (rp 4.125 to 1) gearbox using close ratio gears or better get a different tire spec that allows a spec tall tire and short tire.

Louiethegreat

You want the largest open wheel group in SCCA to go away and get replaced by one of the smallest?

Why would you want all the current FVs to go to vintage? It will not increase FST counts.

You also claim FST is not a formula Vee..... What is it? It's a formula car based on VW parts correct? Take the beam off add real from and rear suspension and you may have a argument but it's a FV now just one with a larger engine updated beam disc brakes and big tires.

Also what would you want to allow both a long and short box? You want to decrease expense and this would make everyone purchase another gearbox that will sit on the floor most of the time.

There is a reason the numbers are low in the west and I'm not exactly sure why but the east is comparible to other classes in fact we have grown the Northeast FV fields.

[Speed Sport Engineering]

I think FST is fine as it is, we are not Formula Vees and after 50 years it is time for the fv class as we know it to go away into vintage racing. The biggest problem getting folks to convert to FST here on the west coast is that it is not a Majors class. We are limited to only 4 double regionals annually here in Southern California. I have my old 1976 Fv car to run the Majors events but as you can imagine it is too old to be competitive and I much prefer to run my Evolution FST car. I see no future for Formula Vee so I will not buy or build a more competitive FV car just to do the Majors. We need to push towards getting majors status.

I think that the current set of rules are fine for regional racing., however, if we are to replace formula vee we need to think of inexpensive changes to the rules to enhance the performance of FST. There are two areas that could be changed:


Change the carburetor to a weber two barrel with a dual runner intake manifold Cheap power no modifications to carb required - I have built and tested this concept and it works great. Problem is over-reving the motor in top gear.

Allow a spec tall gearbox (rp 3.88 to 1) and a spec "short" (rp 4.125 to 1) gearbox using close ratio gears or better get a different tire spec that allows a spec tall tire and short tire.

Louiethegreat

Must....resist....saying something here......

[Amon]

Mike,

I don't have your self-discipline, so rereading his original post led me to believe that
he meant that "it is time for the LOUIE, as we know him, to go away into vintage
racing". He must have accidently interjected FV into the space normally reserved
for his own name.

Mark

[Bill Bonow]

I'm not a fan of Lou or his comments.
He has not helped the FST cause at all on the West Coast.
From what I see, he has done more damage than good.

This thread was simply to see if this name change had any legs, it doesn't. I thought the thread died until Lou decided to stir the pot.

Not going to allow this to turn into another "us vs. them" thread. As pointed out many times before, we passed that point a long time ago. The focus should be, as Bill Gray pointed out, building the race group numbers.

[Agitator]

Bill,
You're not only a moderator, but a mediator. Thank you. I was about to come out of my turtle shell and throw some mud on Lou's wall.

James

[jhenn4716]

Not going to allow this to turn into another "us vs. them" thread. As pointed out many times before, we passed that point a long time ago. The focus should be, as Bill Gray pointed out, building the race group numbers.

Thank you Bill. IMHO, you have all worked very hard to promote and grow FST. Why change? I think a change would only confuse people and hurt the very progress you have worked so hard to achieve.

[problemchild]

Louie had some valid points.

Vintage racing would be much more viable than SCCA for many FV racers. The once mighty CenDiv has 3 times as many FVs at area vintage events than the June sprints. Managing the inevitable transition is the tough part. Of course, complete denial works too.

[Amon]

Greg,

There are 26 Vee's signed up for the M-O Fourth of July event, so using the Sprints as
the basis of comparison doesn't hold much water.

Mark

[Matt King]

No single event, including the Runoffs, is a particularly good measure of the overall health of the class. The best indicators are overall national participation, followed by divisional numbers. Obviously the class is stronger in some areas than others, but the national numbers have been indicating a general decline for the past few years.

There is no magic bullet that's going to turn it around. The issues facing entry level open wheel racing are much more macro in nature than the type of beam or brakes we run.

[Don Jones]

How about Super Vee as this class no longer exists in SCCA racing. They are kinda a throw back to ealry FSV days with air cooled motors and no wings

[jim murphy]

No single event, including the Runoffs, is a particularly good measure of the overall health of the class. The best indicators are overall national participation, followed by divisional numbers. Obviously the class is stronger in some areas than others, but the national numbers have been indicating a general decline for the past few years.

There is no magic bullet that's going to turn it around. The issues facing entry level open wheel racing are much more macro in nature than the type of beam or brakes we run.

I was told by my director that the BOD reviewed several indicators while evaluating the bringing in of 600cc MC drivetrains into F500. The one indicator that was the most convincing were the total number of F5 drivers over ten years of races - for F500 this showed a noticeable decline. Thus, this was the deciding factor in bringing in the MC drivetrain into F500. I think that ya'll should use this same indicator to bring more light to your declining situation.

BTW, during the entire time that we have been running F4/5/6 cars, almost all the people who talked with us about which formula class to get started in, when asked about what they, as outsiders, thought of the FV class - almost ALL of them said something to this effect: "too slow, tires were too skinny, old technolgy both in the suspension and the drivetrain . . . ". When told about FST class, they liked it better, in general, until they heard that the class does NOT want to be a national class, then it was dismissed by the outsiders. You guys have got to appeal to the outsiders and the ONLY way to do that is with a faster FST. The outsiders thought that FST's should be closer to the speed/times of the F5's - a bigger motor will do this without going too high in RPM.

HTH,
Jim
Been messing with F4/5/6 cars since 1982.