FV future #3 Transmission

[FVRacer21]

3nd of a Series

Okay we have just had a successful event (SCCA Runoffs) where we established our class as the largest formula class there, and attracted new blood from karting, one of whom is the son of a Indy 500 winner.

To keep FV relevant, and yet also a entry level class, I want to propose some changes and discuss the pros and cons. I would like to keep each thread factual and focused. If there is another idea we can break it off into its own thread.

The threads must be self-policing.

If someone writes something that does not belong to the thread - DO NOT RESPOND.

If the person feels their point is valid they can pm me to start a new thread, or they can start their own. Hey, I can dream can't I?

Okay, for idea # 3.

The proposal is that FV adopt a fixed transmission – that is with a fixed series of ratios.

Reasons:

In general, there are 4 combinations of transmissions that could be built easily:

1. Short-Short (1.26 3rd)
2. Short-Long (1.22 3rd)
3. Long-Short (1.26 3rd)
4. Long-Long (1.22 3rd)

Most racers have settled on the Short-Long, while FFirst I believe is using the Long-Short. Most Vintage groups might be using the Long-Short as their engines do not rev as high so they need the extra gearing.

Advantages –
1. Less cost for driver entering FV
2. If we pick the right box, it will lower revs at top end (MAYBE)
3. Less changing of gearboxes means more time to do other things
4. Turnaround time between certain races is now possible.

Disadvantages
1. The gears we pick may not lend themselves to certain tracks
2. The fixed set may not be as “fun” to drive
3. Engines and exhaust may have to be returned for more midrange torque. (I need input from engine and exhaust builders to see if this is a show stopper – most other classes using a fixed transmission use a fixed engine and manfold.

Please let me know your feelings, experience and if you would support a fixed ratio gearbox.

If the results are positive, then they can be submitted to the new ad hock committee or put up for a class vote.

Chris Z
Citation #23
061987

[S Lathrop]

For many divisions, having only one gear set option may not be all that big an issue. But with Elkhart Lake and Blackhawk in the same division, one of those gear boxes will suck for one of those tracks.

Is this really that big an issue?

[pacratt]

From what I know, Vintage Vees that follow the Monoposto Rules can run any one of those combinations but most choose the short box with 1:26 3rd gear as we are required to run a tall rear tire (24" outside diameter minimum) at all times...this also takes care of gearing for road America.
And the 1:26 gear is "friendlier" to less-skilled drivers, who tend to not carry speed into corners.
Glenn

[Matt Clark]

actually, this is one of the FV issues that I don't really see as a huge issue.

hardly anyone I know changes boxes out anymore just for the 1.22/1.26 3rd gear. everyone just keeps the 1.26 short box in, as fewer tracks need long boxes. a lot of the guys that have been racing a while still have those boxes sitting under their bench untouched & unused.
(side note- don't forget the 1.32 3rd and the .89 vs. .82 4th options for even more combos yet)

if you mandate any short box for everywhere, you will blow engines when you go to really big tracks. if you mandate a long box for everywhere, we won't be able to get out of our own way & laps times will be abysmal at some tracks.

now... for a slightly related twist. if you change tire diameter, your drive ratio changes again. then what do you do? you either start over with picking ratios or live with unintended consequences of too high/low rpms.
for example, in Challenge Cup, our tires are much larger diameter & we use the 1.26 short boxes. one of the reasons we are (barely) slower than a regular Vee, is the drive ratio off the corners. we simply don't have the power to pull the extra gearing yet.

[problemchild]

For many divisions, having only one gear set option may not be all that big an issue. But with Elkhart Lake and Blackhawk in the same division, one of those gear boxes will suck for one of those tracks.

Is this really that big an issue?

Its the reason that a lot of racers would traditionally skip race events at Lime Rock, Pocono, Road America where a long box was required. so it certainly would have helped big time in the past. In the current perverse FV world where the elite racers run a zillion rpm with their shortbox at any track, including RA, it would be an ideal way to reduce the advantages of people willing to grenade their engine for a time advantage. However, it will never get by the logistical issues of having 98% of the community needing to change over their transmissions.

A much better solution would be to spec a large tire that would have the cars reach terminal velocity before reaching nasty rpm. The Falken (and vintage tire) actually does a pretty good job of this as a bonus to its massive cost savings. You could spec a minimum ride height as a way to keep people from building a new generation of trick cars, if you have concerns about that.

As with many issues, the dwindling number of FV racers who believe FVs should be highly developed, mini-F1 cars, will not understand the ideas to reduce rpm, and slow the cars slightly. The crowd that think that FV should be a open wheel version of SRF/SM will welcome changes that reduce rpm, reduce gearbox changing requirements, and reduce costs. A larger sized spec tire is probably the best solution to a lot of issues, and is about the only option that can be applied with minimal cost to current competitors.

[problemchild]

(side note- don't forget the 1.32 3rd and the .89 vs. .82 4th options for even more combos yet)

.

Many of the elite FV racers a have half-dozen different transmissions to choose from .... including split case options. How can that, or using a zillion rpm, be a good thing for a starter open wheel class supposedly based on low cost.

[FVRacer21]

"For many divisions, having only one gear set option may not be all that big an issue. But with Elkhart Lake and Blackhawk in the same division, one of those gear boxes will suck for one of those tracks.

Is this really that big an issue?"

Steve, to expand on Greg's response, for many years I only ran a long-short box followed by a long-long box. But I raced mostly at Lime Rock and Bridgehampton, and got killed when I went to New Hampshire.

Since returning in 2013, I have been running a short-short or a short-long because most of the NE races are now at NHMS, Palmer and Thompson.

I had Steve P build me a long-short and I think this would be a good overall gearbox, it really keeps you from buzzing the engine at Thompson (with a short-short you could see 7000 off the oval).

In the NE, I think the short-long (1.22 3rd) is right unless you go to Lime Rock. I am guessing in a draft you could see 6800 at the end of the straight. 15 years ago you would be floating the valves/points 1/2 way down he straight.....

The schedule is not that bad these days, but then you might have a NHMS, Lime Rock, Pocono short course back to back. Remember NHMS was a weekend, Lime Rock started on FRIDAY, so little time to do the swap. So you did the swap before NHMS and just sucked it up.

If we ran one gearbox then we would all suck at one and be equal at another. and lately I have heard of drivers having 6 or more gearbox setups. Not the Regional guys, but it is getting out of hand.

Of course maybe for a later discussion would be a Hewland type box where gears are free, that would be a big up front investment but cheaper in the long run that the status quo, but probably not fitting with the spirit of the entry level racer.

ChrisZ

[Hardingfv32]

'No development' was never part of the original or current rule set. I would say there is no implication that the current FV rule set is concerned with the term 'entry level'.

You guys are trying to achieve something that this rule set was never designed to do. Trying to change the current FV rule set to achieve your goals is simply never going to happen. The majority of current competitors have spent decades racing and purchasing equipment based on the current rules. That is not to say that another form of FV rules might not be more cost effective but a transition to these new rules is not cost effective to current participants.

This has been stated many times before on the subject of gearbox restrictions.... A gear ratio restriction just means additional engine and exhaust development. That is unless you also spec the engine and exhaust systems. Doing that would not be without some additional cost.

If you want cost control then look at SM and SRF.

Brian

[Matt Clark]

Odd.... I thought FV was "highly restricted" and about "driver ability rather than technological development of the car" that makes a "cost effective, highly competitive class". huh.

Also, SM & SRF are hardly entry level for most people. Nationally competitive versions of those cars start at way higher prices than a National FV. And they get wadded up way more often. Not even a good argument there.



1. Background
A. History and philosophy of the class
Formula Vee was recognized by SCCA in 1963. The class is highly
restricted, originally requiring the use of genuine VW parts “from the
standard Volkswagen 1200 Sedan Series type 1, US model sedan as
imported by VW” in the engine, drivetrain and suspension. Over the
years, the rules have changed slowly to maintain parts availability and
allow a gradual evolution of the class. However, the focus remains
the same: to provide a cost effective, highly competitive class that,
through consistent and tightly controlled component and preparation
rules, emphasizes driver ability rather than technological development
of the car. Today, as throughout its long history, FV is one of the most
highly subscribed classes in SCCA. The goal of these rules is to maintain
both the competitiveness and cost effectiveness of the class.

[crypt0zink]

If "modern" FVs are mandated to run a spec box, the costs will increase across the field, plus a long history of FV drivers choosing the best gearing is lost in the rules. Thus, decreasing race ready FVs and making ready-to-run transaxles useless.

[Hardingfv32]

... "highly restricted" and about "driver ability rather than technological development of the car" that makes a "cost effective, highly competitive class"....

I have a strong feeling that 1.A preamble was not part of the FV rule set before the last rule rewrite about a decade ago.

And if it was always part of the FV rules set then the founding fathers read AND implemented it in a manner very different from what you are proposing. I would say the preamble is very nebulous. What the rules actually say and do is a much more representative of where we stand today. The rules are what the past membership of the class wanted... and what most current competitors have invested in.

Again that is not to say there could not be another set of FV rules that meets all your objectives and is something that would be viewed as good for the class. Getting from what we have a today to what you feel is an improvement will be an almost impossible task. There is simply not enough time or money available to get it done.

May I assume that a major point of this exercises is to make the class more appealing to new comers. Then by definition SM & SRF are doing all the right things. They are the fastest growing classes in SCCA. You would see just as many FV's wadded up if we had similar car counts.

Brian

[S Lathrop]

Odd.... I thought FV was "highly restricted" and about "driver ability rather than technological development of the car" that makes a "cost effective, highly competitive class". huh.

I would argue that FV is an open, development class but the parts and modifications to those parts are very restrictive. It is a class where everyone who builds a car uses the same box of parts as a starting point.

Look at the evolution of the FV from its inception. I started racing in a Mk 3 Autodynamics. There is no way that car would be competitive in todays racing. The beauty of the class is that evolution is just about the same pace as we ware out our cars and need to replace them. But the Mk 3 I started racing in would still supply a great box of parts for a new car.

If I come up with a new idea for a FV, everyone can watch me develop my idea and see if it works. If it does work, there will be many more interpretations of that idea.

When I did the 84 Citation, I figured that the biggest advantage I could build into the basic car was to make the car really comfortable and easy to drive. And over a really competitive race distance that my driver might just have the slight physical edge to allow him or her to win against someone who was not as comfortable.

And setup is still critical to get just right for the individual driver. If the setup is off just a tiny bit off, then the car consumes just a bit more energy every time it goes around a corner. Over a race distance that adds up to maybe nothing more that one or 2 more times to draft by your opponent.

In short, I think this class is the ultimate development class for drivers and setup skills. And is still fun for me to think of new ways to skin this cat.

[Hardingfv32]

And is still fun for me to think of new ways to skin this cat.

Unfortunately this way of thinking is not in vogue with many of the current FV competitors.

Brian

[S Lathrop]

Unfortunately this way of thinking is not in vogue with many of the current FV competitors.

Brian

Think about how long the class would have lasted if we never advanced beyond Form Cars.

I found it interesting to look at the lap times of FC and FF compared to FE and FM. AT one time FE and FM were fairly close to FC in lap times.

[problemchild]

It is a legitimate argument to say that FV should be about car development. The problem with that argument is there needs to be a competitor/customer market to support that premise. The two people promoting that premise in this thread are not actively involved in campaigning current FVs, although they are working with some people who may be active. Besides Varacins and Weihseit, how many FV competitors are supporting that premise. Most of the top ten Runoff cars were 25 years old and running the same spec they were 20 years ago. Some even have the same paint they did 20 years ago.

We have to ask, is the future of the class more likely to grow (or just stabilize) by encouraging more Weihseits and Varacins, or keeping the dozens of Mysterians, Caracals, Vectors, VDFs, Vortechs, Citations, etc so they win Runoff poles and compete for Majors and Runoff win. I think it is so cool to see Siebenaler and Shields winning Runoffs in their same old "2nd class" cars. How cool was it to see Alex Scaler steal the pole in the car that his father was running 20 years ago? That is only my personal opinion, but I think the FV community needs to figure out where their best growth(survival) potential is and tailor the rules to suit that vision. That may mean more or fewer restrictions.

Cheers!

[S Lathrop]

It is a legitimate argument to say that FV should be about car development. The problem with that argument is there needs to be a competitor/customer market to support that premise. The two people promoting that premise in this thread are not actively involved in campaigning current FVs, although they are working with some people who may be active. Besides Varacins and Weihseit, how many FV competitors are supporting that premise. Most of the top ten Runoff cars were 25 years old and running the same spec they were 20 years ago. Some even have the same paint they did 20 years ago.

We have to ask, is the future of the class more likely to grow (or just stabilize) by encouraging more Weihseits and Varacins, or keeping the dozens of Mysterians, Caracals, Vectors, VDFs, Vortechs, Citations, etc so they win Runoff poles and compete for Majors and Runoff win. I think it is so cool to see Siebenaler and Shields winning Runoffs in their same old "2nd class" cars. How cool was it to see Alex Scaler steal the pole in the car that his father was running 20 years ago? That is only my personal opinion, but I think the FV community needs to figure out where their best growth(survival) potential is and tailor the rules to suit that vision. That may mean more or fewer restrictions.

Cheers!

You post proves my point. The class is advancing but at a pace that does not upset the stability of the class. I do have a new car in the garage.

Make a big change in tires and see how fast things develop.

[FVRacer21]

BTW

I found this on the web - 1967 GCR:

4. Formula VEE

4.1 Definition

A formula for single-seat, open-wheel racing cars based on standard Volkswagen 1200 series type I, U.S. model sedan components, and restrictive in specifications so as to emphasize driver ability rather than design and preparation of the car.

No components, of the engine, power train, front suspension or brakes may be altered, modified, or changed, nor be of other than VW manufacture, unless specifically authorized.

http://rmvr.com/rules/1967-scca-gcr-...Formula%20SCCA

ChrisZ

[Hardingfv32]

BTW...1967 GCR...

Imagine that... those words have been in place for 50 years and yet here we are with our current FV rule set. Is there a better example of how pointless the 1.A preamble is? Seems like something a little more effective is required if you intend to restrict class development from this point on.

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

It is a legitimate argument to say that FV should be about car development. The problem with that argument is there needs to be a competitor/customer market to support that premise

This is not exactly true. What is required is the desire for a competitor to have an advantage. I know for a fact that there are currently plenty of these types of competitors. They are willing to pay for a competitive advantage that few others have.

It is a pointless waste of money when everyone has access to the same development but if you are on of the few then it is a different story. I think a good example of this would be the Autowerks engines used in the NE. I am going to assume that a lot of the people talking cost control use Autowerks engines. Where was the outcry about the additional expense of the beehive springs when they were introduced in the Autowerks engines? Did someone think the springs were an advantage and did not warrant cost control measures?

You can only stop the development you can see. What are you going to do about the developments that are not in plain sight? Good luck with that.

Brian

[jhenn4716]

Not sure that transmissions are really an area where a lot of guys worry about spending money. Some race in an area that only needs one transmission. Others race in an area that requires two different transmissions (RA and Blackhawk Farms).

I think the appeal of the class being affordable is buying those older cars. I would guess that few racers coming into FV will be able to buy a new car.

Let's think like a new driver for a moment. I just bought my new car, what am I thinking about next? The last thing on my mind is that I need to run out and buy a new set of Hoosiers or a monster manifold to be competitive. I am going to think about how to get the car on the track. How to learn how to drive the car, and with experience go faster.

We need to coach and mentor new drivers. It helps them learn the skills to race, develops camaraderie, and builds our ranks. I know some areas of the country have rental vee's. Maybe more available cars could put new drivers behind the wheel. Provide the opportunity to race and we've won half the battle.

If racing a vee has taught me anything so far, is that it is more about the driver and his ability then the car he's in. I would be no faster in Mike Varacins car then my own. But if I could shoe horn Mike into my car, that would be the fastest its ever been driven.

We have two goals; get people into cars, keep them in cars. Obviously keeping racing costs down will keep people in cars. But first we need to get them in the car to begin with.

[problemchild]

This is not exactly true.

Every class is competing to attract new blood. The potential market for competitors has significantly changed from 30 or 40 years ago. Many more newbies are spending money on cars not needing alot of preparation and hands-on attention ..... because they are not able, or don't want to, do the work themselves. Where do you find potential competitors who are capable and want to spend 100s of hours in their garage preparing their race car? The "many people" you reference is a dozen or two people. Most of those people are older and have romantic ideals but are not competing. It is a lot easier to appreciate others innovation and dominant success when you are watching, than as a paying competitor, struggling just to be there.

This is not an issue unique to FV, but is hurting the health of all the formula classes. The classes that deal with the issue best, are the ones with the best future.

I am not saying innovation and development is bad. I am asking if the marketplace can sustain that approach in the current times.

[Hardingfv32]

When considering the current FV participant population I would complete agree that control of development is the best thing for the class.

My point would be that controlling cost with the current rule set is an impossible task. There is simply to much interconnection between the various rule sections.

Any migration from the current rule set is going to have an expense associated with it. This is not going to be politically acceptable to the majority of the current competitors.

The transmission subject is a perfect example of this. When you restrict the gear ratio possibilities there will be a natural desire to make up the lose of performance with adjustments to the engine and exhaust.

All the low hanging fruit regarding cost control was picked long ago.

Brian

[DaveB]

God, racing season can't come soon enough.