2016-17 NWFC rules and ideas (Outsiders welcome to discuss)

[RSS]

Since the season has ended we might as well reflect on it and start discussing changes for next season. This discussion will help us craft the winter survey and the questions it will pose.

2016 Rule Changes Where:

Car Weights :
CFC - 1175
Pinto - 1190
Zetec - 1240

Points Structure:
Seperating the 3 classes
Bonus Points (0.5 for your class of car, 1 for a car in a higher class)
Single point for a race start

Schedule:
4 race weekends
Best 8 out of 10 races
2 x alternate race only at NWFC events and do not include bonus points

Ideas for 2017 Rule Changes

Tires:
Limited Amount of tires per season (2 sets for a 4 Race weekend season, 3 for a 5 Weekend Season)
Limited Compounds - Avon A11 / Hoosier R35 / Pirelli / AR / Goodyear

Points:
Race bonus point expanded to the qualy session for that race.
Lower bonus point for cars in a higher class from 1 to 0.5
Alternate races points will only be 9/6/4/3/2/1 if they have enough cars.(A 1 car race is only 1 point 2 cars 2 etc up to a min of 6 cars for a 9 point win)

Schedule
4 or 5 race weekends per season?
Best 8 out of 10 or 10 out 0f 12 (Would depend on above)
Removing alternates all together or reducing it to only 1 sub race?

How does everyone feel about the USF/Mazda cars with the 150HP map?

Also if anyone has some ideas on the following.

- How to bring out the older CFC cars as we where a little light this season.
- Expanding the car base in and around the Seattle Area (We have solid groups in Vancouver, Calgary and Spokane areas but are a little light around seattle)
- Anything else you can think of or would like to see tried out!

[Spengo]

Tires
I like making the unofficial tire compound rule official. I don't know how number of sets could be reasonably enforced aside from honor system though.

Points
I don't like lower bonus points for beating cars in a higher class. This is entirely selfish and because I plan to drive a pinto.

Schedule
I like 5 weekends, more racing is better than less. A potential downside is there might be less participation per race but it's probably worth experimenting with at least to see what happens.

I have no problem with giving ex-USF2000 cars another place to race. I don't know anything about how well they can be BoP'd with FCs but if that 150hp remap works well enough it sounds good to me. Variety is fun. Does anyone in the Northwest have one or is this a preemptive move?

[RSS]

TIRES
We would have to come up with a tire marking system of some type to keep track of sets.

POINTS
Pinto's already have the advantage of more cars going for them think of the poor Zetecs!

SCHEDULE
We ran 5 race schedules in 2014 and 2015 so it wouldn't be anything new but as you mentioned attendance is key to our success so keeping the #s up is also important.

USF would be a preemptive move we think? but we have been contacted by people about allowing them in the past so thought we would broach the subject with the group.

[quickmag]

Anyone over 65 completing a 30 minute race without napping - 5 bonus points.

[RSS]

Going by your lap times at Castrol you would not have received your bonus points because it was pretty obvious you where napping on most of them.

[S Lathrop]

I going to suggest that all the cars race with a common set of rules.

But that each car and driver combination be handicapped with a system that subtracts time from the total race time and you come up with a points finishing order.

I have rowed crew shells as a master and at 73 years old I get something like a 30 handicap for a 1500 meter race. I believe that masters swimming does the same thing.

You could look at race results over the last several years and see what the time differences have been for the cars in the various categories and calculate the handicap system based on those results. I would use the race time less any full course yellows laps. Say that the CFC winners were 45 seconds slower on average at a particular track than the Zetec FC winners, race time and all green laps. Then any one running a CFC would get a 45 second handicap on his race time. In theory, the CFC guy could be the winner if he could beat his handicap and finish less than 45 seconds behind the winner.

Because track conditions vary so much, maybe the handicap has to be calculated as a percentage of the winning FC time.

Each type of FC would race as best as that car can be under a common set of rules. As a master rower, if I rowed a really good race, I could win on handicap. If I rowed something less than that the handicap system would not give me a win, just because I am old. Maybe you could add driver's age into the calculations.


A note about tires: The Hoosier radials used for the pro F2000 have gone to a harder compound than the R35. I think is R60 or something close. The time difference between new and tires with over 200 miles is about than 1 second or less. You can easily qualifying and race twice on a set and maybe do it 3 times. There is a lot of work getting cars to run on radials but it can be done and the reduction in tire consumption is worth it.

[RSS]

I don't think we are going for the everyone has a chance of winning the championship but more of the fast guys in each of the groups/budget brackets has a chance of winning the overall championship.

Of course closing everyone up on the track never hurts as well.

If we where going to a spec tire it would have to provide savings in some way for our drivers and not sure on how an R60 compound tire would work on those cold cold mornings on some race days here in Canada (around 50F at our last race weekend). Plus the old getting radials to work on the CFC cars could be difficult.

Keep the ideas coming though.

[Blair Robertshaw]

There are many f1000's out here looking for a common series to run in as you know. Probably 7 you could add to a grid. Perhaps a name change to NWOW (North West Open Wheel)

[ccoffin]

My 2 cents, coming at it from the perspective of someone who doesn't have anything personal to gain but does want better competition and more cars on track.

Tires: I think if you limit the number of sets, you are essentially limiting the compounds you can use as anything softer than what is mentioned above would not make the full schedule. You would need to take care of tires if you had to make them last more than one weekend. I think you could run into some possible safety issues with the suggested tires per races from the original thread (Comes out to about 10 heat cycles per tire of you count practices). I like the idea of limited compound and having one tire set less than the number of weekends raced, so 3 sets for 4 weekends, 4 sets for 5. Also, I believe since Greg and Roger have been at every NWFC event, one of them should always be there, and they have figured out a marking system to keep number of tires used in check fairly easily. I am opposed to specing a tire as it requires drivers to spend time/money figuring out a new setup, and the options we have been presented with do not save us any significant money over the current most commonly used compounds. Plus you run into the possibility that some spec tire might not work at all for an older car.

Points: eliminate alternate races. Too messy.
I think it would make things a little more simple if it was only a .5 point bonus for passing cars of a newer generation instead of 1. Keep the max points as they are. Also, more zetecs next year (is it four more already?) should even the pinto Zetec scoring disparity we saw a bit of this year.

Schedule: while the intent of the four race schedule was to get more cars out to our events, it actually ended up having a little bit of the opposite effect. It placed a little too much emphasis on making specific weekends, and if people missed those for whatever reason then there was no reason to go to another event that they were on the fence about. So I vote for going back to five with one caviate, we have to be very intentional with our race selection. ORP is a great track, but might not offer enough infrastructure to attract racers to it. Especially early in the season. I think they might change their date up again so we will have to wait and see. Portland is borderline as there is no local base and it is a bit further drive for both Spokane and Vancouver area drivers. calgary guys probably won't come. Same with ridge. Pacific should have been better attended this year, but a number of drivers had issues that were out of there control. Easy for Spokane and Vancouver to get to, Calgary probably still won't make it. Mission-yes, Spokane-yes, castrol-yes, Area 27-yes (heard that we are probably going to get a club race there next year as they just finished paving, central to all population bases). I think we should go to pacific as the fifth as it makes the most sense geographically. Maybe Portland the next year.

I think we are opening a can of worms with the MZR cars, but I'm not completely against it

[ccoffin]

I going to suggest that all the cars race with a common set of rules.

But that each car and driver combination be handicapped with a system that subtracts time from the total race time and you come up with a points finishing order.

I have rowed crew shells as a master and at 73 years old I get something like a 30 handicap for a 1500 meter race. I believe that masters swimming does the same thing.

You could look at race results over the last several years and see what the time differences have been for the cars in the various categories and calculate the handicap system based on those results. I would use the race time less any full course yellows laps. Say that the CFC winners were 45 seconds slower on average at a particular track than the Zetec FC winners, race time and all green laps. Then any one running a CFC would get a 45 second handicap on his race time. In theory, the CFC guy could be the winner if he could beat his handicap and finish less than 45 seconds behind the winner.

Because track conditions vary so much, maybe the handicap has to be calculated as a percentage of the winning FC time.

Each type of FC would race as best as that car can be under a common set of rules. As a master rower, if I rowed a really good race, I could win on handicap. If I rowed something less than that the handicap system would not give me a win, just because I am old. Maybe you could add driver's age into the calculations.


A note about tires: The Hoosier radials used for the pro F2000 have gone to a harder compound than the R35. I think is R60 or something close. The time difference between new and tires with over 200 miles is about than 1 second or less. You can easily qualifying and race twice on a set and maybe do it 3 times. There is a lot of work getting cars to run on radials but it can be done and the reduction in tire consumption is worth it.

I think Steve might be on to something here. My concern is the calculations might be a bit too difficult to do effectively at the track at the end of the race, and that things like yellow flags and laps behind a safety car could seriously effect the handicapped results.

[patman]

Honestly I think you guys are doing pretty good. I wish there were something similar around here. Guess I should have factored that in to my decision to move back East

[gcoffin]

Bonus points: the bonus points structure was developed so that the driver who beat the most cars in their class or above should have a shot at winning the Championshp. That is exactly what has happened. In 2016 the ztec class was undersubscribed were as the pinto class was generally fully subscribed. It is not the intent of the points scoring system to award the Championship to an undersubscribed class. That said a review of the 2016 season shows that there were sufficient points in the Ztec class in play to have won the Championship, it just did not happen, that is why we race.

[gcoffin]

Lol I'm completely in favor of age points or a masters class...old man trophy perhaps limited by T level so Stephen is eliminated

[Bob Wright]

Patman-

"Honestly I think you guys are doing pretty good. I wish there were something similar around here. Guess I should have factored that in to my decision to move back East"

There is...its called FRP and the F2000 Championship.

www.f2000series.com

[S Lathrop]

I think Steve might be on to something here. My concern is the calculations might be a bit too difficult to do effectively at the track at the end of the race, and that things like yellow flags and laps behind a safety car could seriously effect the handicapped results.

The only information that I think is necessary is the lap time for the leader on each lap to deterring which laps would be discarded in the calculations and the finishing time of all the contestants. The discarded laps would be subtracted from every one's time and then the handicaps applied.

I would take a look at the result sheets from several races to see what data is available and then play with that data to get an idea of how a handicap system might work.

Bob,

Maybe something like this might help fill the F1600 and F2000 fields.

[ccoffin]

Patman-

"Honestly I think you guys are doing pretty good. I wish there were something similar around here. Guess I should have factored that in to my decision to move back East"

There is...its called FRP and the F2000 Championship.

www.f2000series.com

Can a $15000 pinto powered car win the f2000 championship?

Don't get me wrong I'm all in favor of frp, and I think it's the best bang for your Zetec dollar on the east coast, but I'm convinced that unless my question is answered with a yes it can't be compared to what we have going on.

[Bob Wright]

Probably not with the Pintos in this part of the country. However we had a Pinto powered car contend quite well a few years ago with Chris Livengood driving, and we occasionally have one that can routinely be in the middle of the field. It's more that most of the people who want to compete have bought Zetecs.

I was only answering Patman that there was a place to go in the east.

[patman]

Probably not with the Pintos in this part of the country. However we had a Pinto powered car contend quite well a few years ago with Chris Livengood driving, and we occasionally have one that can routinely be in the middle of the field. It's more that most of the people who want to compete have bought Zetecs.

I was only answering Patman that there was a place to go in the east.

Bob,

In my particular case I already own a Pinto powered car, and certainly cannot afford a Zetec car after moving across the country and starting a new business. One of the major appeals of NWFC to me was the competition within the Pinto field that allowed everyone to get into the series at a much lower price point.

That said if I can run with you guys and have some chance of being competitive I am interested and will check out the website.

I assume you run in this series, if you don't mind would you PM me your contact info and maybe I can pick your brain a little bit?

Thanks,
Pat

[drdestructo]

I think we should figure out a MZR solution. There are good cars coming available.

What's SCCA going to do with them?

Also, I believe a $15,000 car can win our championship!

Russ

[gcoffin]

I think SCCA classed the MZR as FA with a weight penalty for the gear box

[ccoffin]

I think SCCA classed the MZR as FA where it is realistically uncompetitive

fixed that for you. This also means it is classed as an FA in ICSCC if I am correct, which means it would run in group 3 with us anyway, so if someone shows up and wants to run it then we can compare them head-to-head and include them if needed.


Now I'm going to throw something crazy out there and see what everyone thinks, my thought heading into this is that no one really wants this, but I figured I'd bring it up as a discussion point anyway.

How about we swallow up FM and FE into the mix? Class them with the Pinto's as lap times are all similar, possibly adjust the weights a bit up for FE and FM to protect the current group, Although the front running FM's and FC's are about neck and neck anyway. PS I know they are each faster in different spots on the track and so on and so on.

Pro's of this are that it brings our numbers up and could allow for a number of reasonably priced entry points into the class. There are no FE's up here right now, but this kind of consolidation looks like it might be happening in SCCA in the next few years, so maybe we get the jump on them.

[gcoffin]

Northwest FCME

[BeerBudgetRacing]

If just leave it nwfc where the c is car or championship....

[drdestructo]

FC FM FE all can play well together. Lets do it!

I wish the MZR could run as FC. I think its a better engine than the zetec and you could go run with open ecu on track days with 200 hp!

[RSS]

I would say yes to the FC, FM, FE idea if each class had half a dozen cars in each. But they don't FE has 0 FM has what 2 cars? At that low of numbers we aren't gaining anything really and if their class is that low they should be just switching over to FC if they want to race and not just go lapping.

It is not a big change money or speed wise so the only conclusion is they aren't interested in racing in a large group so why possibly piss off some of our guys?

[rickb99]

.... front running FM's and FC's are about neck and neck anyway. PS I know they are each faster in different spots on the track and so on and so on. .....

That is true but, Jeff was 90% of the time faster then any FM's in our run group. But it would certainly be worthwhile to equalize them for 'size of the championship sake'. FE's I have no clue, never ever seen an FE in the Northwest but, I do understand there's one in Oregon now.

[S Lathrop]

There are real issues when FC and the FM and FE are racing for the same space on a track. The FM and FE are both quicker down the straights but significantly slower in the corners than a FC.

For the FC to run at its performance level it has to have a clear shot at a corner so it can build enough distance to stay ahead of FM and FE down the straights. As long as every one plays nicely this is not an issue. But when you have an intense pack of FMs and a fast FC coming up behind, things can get dicey. FMs can touch FCs with little consequence to them.

These are not issues you guys face out in the North West but in Central Division this has been an issue.

[DaveW]

There are real issues when FC and the FM and FE are racing for the same space on a track. The FM and FE are both quicker down the straights but significantly slower in the corners than a FC.

For the FC to run at its performance level it has to have a clear shot at a corner so it can build enough distance to stay ahead of FM and FE down the straights. As long as every one plays nicely this is not an issue. But when you have an intense pack of FMs and a fast FC coming up behind, things can get dicey. FMs can touch FCs with little consequence to them.

These are not issues you guys face out in the North West but in Central Division this has been an issue.

My experience, exactly. Some FM's, at least when I was last running club races in 2010, thought an FC should never be allowed past, even if you were running 2 seconds a lap faster.

Had a nasty encounter once because of that.

[2BWise]

I would say yes to the FC, FM, FE idea if each class had half a dozen cars in each. But they don't FE has 0 FM has what 2 cars? At that low of numbers we aren't gaining anything really and if their class is that low they should be just switching over to FC if they want to race and not just go lapping.

It is not a big change money or speed wise so the only conclusion is they aren't interested in racing in a large group so why possibly piss off some of our guys?

Could you include them in the ruleset, at a disadvantage to start, such that if someone does come along they could join. If they like it you've got two options 1) reset the rules slightly to make them more competitive or 2) get them into a legitimate FC. You wouldn't piss anyone off to start with because there are no FM or FE running with you. They'd be welcomed to join, but knowingly come in at a disadvantage.

[gcoffin]

With the exception of two of our races at Mission we run in mixed open wheel groups so any of the above mentioned cars are welcome to run with us.

But as realists it is clear that there are simply not enough of any of these cars in the northwest to even consider making them part of the series. It simply comes down to demographics. The next group we need to get out on the track are the CFC cars, 9 of which are in the region, plus another 8 pinto FC's that either were not raced this year or are up for sale that need to get on the track in 2017.....that's 17 or so FC's in region vs two FM's and some imaginary maybe cars.

If the goal is increasing formula car participation in general the targets here in the Northwest should be a Formula Ford series

[Robbie.Arthur]

I can guarantee you that there are more FV's up here than FF's

I'd say from watching your races at Mission the past two years whatever it is you guys are doing it seems to be working. A suggestion I might propose to you guys is finding a way to keep the cars relatively evenly matched be it a weight penalty for winning the previous weekend or something. While it was nice to see Mitch walk away from the field in a few laps at Mission this year, and watching the early lap battles was great but after everyone got settled it felt more like a hot lapping session than anything. (The exception being the McEwen/Coffin dice on Saturday)

All in all the series is doing great for not only the FC numbers in the PNW, but more importantly the overall entry on a given weekend!

[RSS]

A moving ballast race/race is a fair bit to police and if some cars have to add a ton of weight it is unrealistic to do in a safe manner. Changing overall weights for each sub class is doable though.

To stop some of what you mentioned we think the tire rule will help, as the second race that weekend I managed to stay close to Mitch before traffic separated us as I was on new tires at the time and actually had the fastest lap of that race. After we got split a bit I just went into tire saving mode as I had to stretch them to the end of my season.

The Saturday race had a ton of battles in it Coffin/Mcewan, Werner/Aitken, Babkirk/Yuen, Babkirk/B Smetaniuk, I managed to go from Last to 4th back to last. But I do agree as everyone began to figure out the track it got more spread out by the end of the weekend.

11 drivers did set personal best Mission lap times that weekend!

I think we should also bump up CFC to 1993/94? instead of 1990 Like the GLC guys have done as those cars should be good competition for Greg's Swift , Brad's Citation and Lawrence's Argo. It would also even out the class totals a bit moving 3 or so cars from Pinto to CFC.

Current Class Totals
FC-Zetec 10 cars
FC-Pinto 20 cars
CFC 6 cars

[Zac.B]

Ideas for 2017 Rule Changes

Tires:
1 new set per race weekend. Test days are exempt. I feel most of us do this anyways. And as most of you know I'm a big fan of Avons.

Points:
Point system seemed to work pretty good. If you wanted to simply it maybe just go to straight basics, finishing position and that it?

Schedule
I think the 4 race seasons are perfect. it keeps it accessible for us lower budget people.
Maybe delete the alternative races.

How does everyone feel about the USF/Mazda cars with the 150HP map?
If it is as close to the zetec as I've been hearing why not? Opportunity for more cars! And i think its arguable if a sequential box is an advantage or not.

Feel free to discuss!

[RSS]

Zac I like how you mixed a 6k tire budget in with still being low budget racer!

[Zac.B]

Well i feel its a good balance for both. And plus driving around on cords isn't the most fun either

[BeerBudgetRacing]

And i think its arguable if a sequential box is an advantage or not.

What about the extra gear? Advantage?

[Zac.B]

What about the extra gear? Advantage?

Could be interpreted as that. The last 5 speed car i had, first was a get the car rolling and be easy on the clutch gear and 2-5 were at speed gears. So again 4 useable gears

[kea]

Ideas for 2017 Rule Changes

How does everyone feel about the USF/Mazda cars with the 150HP map?
If it is as close to the zetec as I've been hearing why not? Opportunity for more cars! And i think its arguable if a sequential box is an advantage or not.

Feel free to discuss!

You can never get different engine packages to be the same, everywhere. There is always some edge, somewhere. Look at the Honda engine vs. Ford engine in FF.

And as for the sequential gear box.
If it is only perceived as being an advantage, the others will stop their support.
Look what has happened to SCCA.
The East Coast "Pro" series Zetecs, with their allowed "blue-printed motors, replacement injectors, etc.(not SCCA legal) have reduced the participating class size because of those advantages, perceived or not.
Even over the same model cars with a Pinto.
One other note. The SCCA rules for FC require it to be a Ford engine.

[eospeed]

Keith

All the zetecs at Quicksilver are built to the same spec. SCCA or FRP run the same engine specs. The alternate injector is also club and FRP legal. I dont understand what differences in prep your referring to? They all require the same parts rest plate ect Bob dose run a different map in the ECU but that dosent have a negative impact on the club imo. "Blueprinting" is just another word for setting clearances. That is done with any proper rebuild an is well within the rules.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Could be interpreted as that. The last 5 speed car i had, first was a get the car rolling and be easy on the clutch gear and 2-5 were at speed gears. So again 4 useable gears

I don't know what is in those boxes ratio wise but I'd suspect they are all racing gears.

You may want to restrict gear ratios in those boxes otherwise people will be buying gears to change, etc.