FV disc brakes

[Steve Davis]

Agreed. It would have been nice for the CRB to clarify the 4 bolt wheel question, which remains unclear by their response to APastore's letter and the current wording of the GCR.

I don't believe there is any further clarification needed about the wheels. The Sept 2019 GCR has an update..
Section 9.1.1 Formula Vee Specifications ... page 249.

C. Wheels shall be standard fifteen (15) inch X 4J as used on the 1200cc and 1300cc VW sedan as
defined herein, or any steel fifteen (15) inch X 4.5J wheel within the track dimensions of C.2. Wheels
may be balanced only by the use of standard automotive balance weights (adhesive or clip on). Hub
cap clips shall be removed.

emphasis mine... This would obviously include 4 bolt wheels - as long as they are
1). Steel
2). 15 inch rim diameter
3). 4.5 inches wide
4). The car meets the track dimensions after installation.

Steve, FV80

[FVRacer21]

I don't believe there is any further clarification needed about the wheels. The Sept 2019 GCR has an update..
Section 9.1.1 Formula Vee Specifications ... page 249.

C. Wheels shall be standard fifteen (15) inch X 4J as used on the 1200cc and 1300cc VW sedan as
defined herein, or any steel fifteen (15) inch X 4.5J wheel within the track dimensions of C.2. Wheels
may be balanced only by the use of standard automotive balance weights (adhesive or clip on). Hub
cap clips shall be removed.

emphasis mine... This would obviously include 4 bolt wheels - as long as they are
1). Steel
2). 15 inch rim diameter
3). 4.5 inches wide
4). The car meets the track dimensions after installation.

Steve, FV80

I would not jump so fast. This is the same wording that was in the February GCR with the addition of the word fifteen in order to be consistent with the first sentence. I do not believe that 4 bolt wheels ever came with 1200 or 1300 VW sedans (as defined herein). If you want to stretch the wording.... well I feel another clarification coming on....

ChrisZ

[Daryl DeArman]

I would not jump so fast. This is the same wording that was in the February GCR with the addition of the word fifteen in order to be consistent with the first sentence. I do not believe that 4 bolt wheels ever came with 1200 or 1300 VW sedans (as defined herein). If you want to stretch the wording.... well I feel another clarification coming on....

ChrisZ

The word or gives one the option of doing the former or the later. There is no mandate to do part of the former if one chooses the later option.

[FVRacer21]

The word or gives one the option of doing the former or the later. There is no mandate to do part of the former if one chooses the later option.

Here we go again...

So does that mean I can put metal center-lock wheels on?

This is just like the track rule where one item caused a clarification of another.

My reading is that whatever wheel you use it has to bolt to a 5 bolt drum or disc.

Since 1200 and 1300 VW sedans did not come with 4 bolt wheels, then unless the rule says you can use 4 bolt, you cannot.

Disclaimer - I am not opposed to 4 bolt if proposed, properly vetted and discussed and approved. I just think using this rule as justification for 4 bolt wheels is wrong.

ChrisZ

[jpetillo]

The clarification Steve noted above has nothing to do with APastore’s letter. It was noted by those who have input into the GCR that the wording was missing the “fifteen” spelled out, and that was corrected to be consistent with the way the GCR is supposed to present numbers. Effectively nothing has changed. John

[Hardingfv32]

.... Effectively nothing has changed. John

But is Steve's interpretation correct, that 4 bolt wheels (4.5") are legal?

Why not specify dia, width, weight and steel and let anything go? Currently you can not buy new 4" wide wheels which are a clear aero and weight advantage.

Brian

[Daryl DeArman]

Here we go again...

So does that mean I can put metal center-lock wheels on?

Chris, since the wheel rule now says you can use ANY steel wheel that is 15" diameter and 4.5" wide and satisfies the track measurements specified in C2, you can do exactly what it says you can do.

As long as that metal you are speaking to is steel, you satisfy that portion of the rule.

Permission to modify or use a particular component does not grant you permission to perform a prohibited modification to another to facilitate the use of the former.

[R. Pare]

But is Steve's interpretation correct, that 4 bolt wheels (4.5") are legal?



Brian

Based on the way that the sentence is written, along with how the Court of Appeals has ruled in the past on similarly worded rules, they are treated as two separate rules because of the comma that separates them, which means that the second half of the sentence could be interpreted as allow any type of wheel.

However, that does not mean that allowing 4-bolt or centerlock wheels was the intent, so someone should ask the CRB to clarify it.

[Steve Davis]

IMHO, I believe the INTENT was to allow ANY 15" x 4.5"wide *VW* steel wheel .. to INCLUDE the 4 bolt wheels as were used on the Karman Ghia. It was added as an E & O because that takes less effort since it's not considered a rules CHANGE.. just a clarification .. and they don't have to CALL it a rules change because they don't want to CHANGE the rules any more than necessary and because E&O's can be done INSTANTLY without any "due process" .

It would be nice if the rules were always PERFECTLY CLEAR - but we all know that's far from the case. Asking for yet another CLARIFICATION might lead to even MORE "LESS CLEAR" mud in the water.

Possibly, the "easiest" approach would be to put a car in an event with the 4 bolt wheels (Like Andy's) and have someone PROTEST the wheel ... and force it into APPEAL where it requires HQ to study it and make a decision. That would be different from asking for a clarification (which often leads to tears), but gets the same results... either it gets ruled LEGAL or .. well,, COMPLIANT or NON-COMPLIANT, and it might actually work faster than the 'request method'.

Steve

[Daryl DeArman]

However, that does not mean that allowing 4-bolt or centerlock wheels was the intent, so someone should ask the CRB to clarify it.

Possibly, the "easiest" approach would be to put a car in an event with the 4 bolt wheels (Like Andy's) and have someone PROTEST the wheel ... and force it into APPEAL where it requires HQ to study it and make a decision. That would be different from asking for a clarification (which often leads to tears), but gets the same results... either it gets ruled LEGAL or .. well,, COMPLIANT or NON-COMPLIANT, and it might actually work faster than the 'request method'.

No need for a clarification, as any response other than "rule is adequate as written" IS a rule change since the current rules allow for :

(A) ANY wheel to be used that meets certain criteria (origin, bolt pattern and weight are not any of those criteria)

(B) ANY disc may be used that meets certain criteria ( Any ferrous alloy, unvented rotor may be used, but must have a maximum diameter of 11.75in. and a minimum thickness of 0.20 in. The otherwise smooth rotor may have a maximum of three pad cleaning grooves per side.)

and (C) ANY hub assembly may be used as long as it can be fitted with part 9.1.1. wheels.

That's three instances where the rules speak to related components of the system stating ANY component can be used meeting a certain criteria, NONE of those criteria dictating bolt pattern, mounting method, origin or weight of the wheel.

Clarifying those rules by adding any additional restrictions is a rule change. The class may decide that's what they want, but to handle the process any other way than a rule change is political B.S.

[FVRacer21]

No need for a clarification, as any response other than "rule is adequate as written" IS a rule change since the current rules allow for :

(A) ANY wheel to be used that meets certain criteria (origin, bolt pattern and weight are not any of those criteria)

(B) ANY disc may be used that meets certain criteria ( Any ferrous alloy, unvented rotor may be used, but must have a maximum diameter of 11.75in. and a minimum thickness of 0.20 in. The otherwise smooth rotor may have a maximum of three pad cleaning grooves per side.)

and (C) ANY hub assembly may be used as long as it can be fitted with part 9.1.1. wheels.

That's three instances where the rules speak to related components of the system stating ANY component can be used meeting a certain criteria, NONE of those criteria dictating bolt pattern, mounting method, origin or weight of the wheel.

Clarifying those rules by adding any additional restrictions is a rule change. The class may decide that's what they want, but to handle the process any other way than a rule change is political B.S.

Daryl,

You make a good argument except it violates the "Prime Directive".

"Formula Vee is a Restricted Class. Therefore, any allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as
stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T. Homologation may be required. Refer to
section 9.2.2. for details."

By your well explained logic you have pointed out a conflict in the rules. I disagree with your comment that any clarification is a rules change. A proper clarification corrects the conflict and brings the rules back to the original purpose. If the Comp Board was to take the initiative and do this they should fix the rule conflict.

"Wheels shall be standard fifteen (15) inch X 4J as used on the 1200cc and 1300cc VW sedan as
defined herein, or any steel fifteen (15) inch X 4.5J wheel within the track dimensions of C.2." (with the addition of) "and meeting the original mounting bolt pattern" - or something like that.

Steve's idea to run the 4 bolt and protest is one way to go. The other is to write a request and ask the Comp Board of the intent was to allow 4 bolt wheels. If it was, it should have been stated to such; because "Therefore, any allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T". That last part implies that we ask for clarification first. The fact we are debating this implies doubt.

Also, the SCCA has thought this sentence so important that it is included in other classes, for example.

"c. Formula F and Formula Continental are restricted classes. Therefore, any allowable modifications,changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T."

Remember the Comp Board has to handle 40 + classes and 100's of makes and models. They cannot be experts on everything and rely on our input. And they sometimes make a mistake in wording.

ChrisZ

[R. Pare]

Daryl,

You make a good argument except it violates the "Prime Directive".

"Formula Vee is a Restricted Class. Therefore, any allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as
stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T. Homologation may be required. Refer to
section 9.2.2. for details."

Also, the SCCA has thought this sentence so important that it is included in other classes, for example.

"c. Formula F and Formula Continental are restricted classes. Therefore, any allowable modifications,changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T."



ChrisZ

My standard retort to that "rule" is this: Prove that I had any doubt.

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl,

You make a good argument except it violates the "Prime Directive".

"Formula Vee is a Restricted Class. Therefore, any allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as
stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T. Homologation may be required. Refer to
section 9.2.2. for details."

By your well explained logic you have pointed out a conflict in the rules.

What conflict? The allowed modification, change or addition is the allowance of any, any, and any.

I understand the whole "If It Doesn't Say You Can, You Can't", but one must also understand that when it says you can, you bloody well can.

I disagree with your comment that any clarification is a rules change.

I believe that any time you issue a clarification which makes something illegal tomorrow that was legal today, that's a rule change. When you change the wording of the rules to mean something different than what the rule said before, how is that anything but a rule change?

My standard retort to that "rule" is this: Prove that I had any doubt.

Exactly. Same thing with intent. How is anybody supposed to infer that the rule-writers' intent was anything other than what the words they chose to utilize mean?

[Steve Davis]

OK .. for those that haven't seen it, SCCA has now CLARIFIED their intent in the Dec. Fastrack.. at least the PRELIMINARY version of it....

FV
1. #27603 (Christopher Zarzycki) Clarification on Wheel Bolt Pattern
In FV, GCR section 9.1.1.C.3.C, add the following:
"Wheels shall be standard fifteen (15) inch X 4J as used on the 1200cc and 1300cc VW sedan as defined herein, or any steel fifteen (15) inch X 4.5J VW wheel with the same 5-bolt pattern as the standard fifteen (15) inch X 4J wheel within the track dimensions of C.2."

Obviously, MY interpretation a few posts back was NOT correct.

[Stumpthumper]

OK .. for those that haven't seen it, SCCA has now CLARIFIED their intent in the Dec. Fastrack.. at least the PRELIMINARY version of it....



Obviously, MY interpretation a few posts back was NOT correct.

I am glad they clarified it. I can't say I agree with the decision, but I am all for making the rules clearer to all of us...rookies, veterans and everyone in between.

[FVRacer21]

OK .. for those that haven't seen it, SCCA has now CLARIFIED their intent in the Dec. Fastrack.. at least the PRELIMINARY version of it....

Obviously, MY interpretation a few posts back was NOT correct.

Steve,

As others pointed out, your interpretation was not wrong - the rule was not properly written. I did not lobby either way - just stated that it was open to interpretation, and our rules should be clear. They had acted (in Andy's case) as if the rules meant 5 bolts, so now there should be no confusion.

The next step is up to people, but they would not have to risk protests and disqualification, just submit a request for rules change.

ChrisZ

[Daryl DeArman]

Steve,

As others pointed out, your interpretation was not wrong - the rule was not properly written. I did not lobby either way - just stated that it was open to interpretation, and our rules should be clear.

Yep. Rules writers shouldn't use the word any if they don't many any.

[Garry Sharp]

Here's where I ended up. I know the caliper is upside down, I only bought 1 to see if I could make it work.

Garry

[Stumpthumper]

Here's where I ended up. I know the caliper is upside down, I only bought 1 to see if I could make it work.

Garry

This looks great.

[S Lathrop]

One down side of 4 piston calipers is that the pads retract much slower than with 2 piston calipers. This will show as a significant reduction in lap times.

[Hardingfv32]

Why is that?

Do they also retract less because of the small size of their square seals?

Brian

[S Lathrop]

Why is that?

Do they also retract less because of the small size of their square seals?

Brian

There is a lot more seal area and the more friction between housing and piston with a 4 piston caliper.

Years ago I went through a lot of issues with brake pads. recently I learned that the issues I had were dur to not having the correct operating temperatures for the pads and the rotors.. The coefficient of friction between the pas and the rotor changes with temperature. if you are operating at too low a temperature, you don't get the optimum brake performance. If as I was you datrted to low and had the temperatures rise to where you had optimum performance just as you were releasing the brake pedal, you would have a moment of over braking and just a instant where the tires would brake loose. In out case we were having front tire ware issued and corner entry push. It was caused by not managing brake temperatures correctly.

I think that the 4 piston calipers will not give optimum brake performance. We use 2 piston calipers on the Citation F1000 and it has top speeds well over 160 mph.

[Matt Clark]

I think that the 4 piston calipers will not give optimum brake performance. We use 2 piston calipers on the Citation F1000 and it has top speeds well over 160 mph.

I think you will find that the only reason for the 4 piston caliper selection was due the Wilwood dimensions. The 4 piston caliper was the thinnest of their offerings on the outside of the rotor... which was key because it had to clear the giant wide-5 mounting flange.

[Garry Sharp]

I think you will find that the only reason for the 4 piston caliper selection was due the Wilwood dimensions. The 4 piston caliper was the thinnest of their offerings on the outside of the rotor... which was key because it had to clear the giant wide-5 mounting flange.

In my conversion, this is correct.

[Matt Clark]

In my conversion, this is correct.

Yea, I am guessing that's the same for everyone who has tried it. Just no way around it.
And that is one of the biggest shames of the whole deal..... that is why the kits all have to be so expensive. If people (ie- SCCA rule makers) would use their head & either allow slightly wider track widths or *gasps* 4 bolt brakes, then kits would be perfectly affordable. Actually even cheaper than drums.

[S Lathrop]

Yea, I am guessing that's the same for everyone who has tried it. Just no way around it.
And that is one of the biggest shames of the whole deal..... that is why the kits all have to be so expensive. If people (ie- SCCA rule makers) would use their head & either allow slightly wider track widths or *gasps* 4 bolt brakes, then kits would be perfectly affordable. Actually even cheaper than drums.

Now you guys know why I did not get involved in building a disk brake package for FV. I think that the ultimate answer is going to be a single piston caliper that used LD19 or LD20 pads. And that is going to take some development to perfect the package. I did do an preliminary design. The next best option was to use an ICP cast iron caliper. With the extra strength of cast iron over aluminum, I could get a reasonable package, similar to what the caliper you are using but 2 pistons and with a good pad selection.

[Garry Sharp]

I am going to try and use the Wilwood 120-3277 Dynalite single floater on the rear. I already have 1 of those. The thing about those is the mounting holes have to be EXACTLY right or the posts bind and it won't slide. I am a lot better at drilling holes than when I started this project though!

[problemchild]

Yea, I am guessing that's the same for everyone who has tried it. Just no way around it.
And that is one of the biggest shames of the whole deal..... that is why the kits all have to be so expensive. If people (ie- SCCA rule makers) would use their head & either allow slightly wider track widths or *gasps* 4 bolt brakes, then kits would be perfectly affordable. Actually even cheaper than drums.

Even better! SCCA should have saved the class tens of thousands of $ and left the rules the way they were.

A small group of people wanted disc brakes that had no performance advantage, and would let people with existing legal drum brakes remain competitive. Those people got exactly what they wanted ..... or expensive crappy draggy disc brakes! The conclusion seems to depend on the day, and whether you are buying or selling. Will the next twist be making all the racers with drum brakes spend money to accommodate the racers with expensive underperforming disc brakes? Matt seems to be suggesting just that.

What a colossal waste of money, time, energy, and political will!

[Matt Clark]

Even better! SCCA should have saved the class tens of thousands of $ and left the rules the way they were.

A small group of people wanted disc brakes that had no performance advantage, and would let people with existing legal drum brakes remain competitive. Those people got exactly what they wanted ..... or expensive crappy draggy disc brakes! The conclusion seems to depend on the day, and whether you are buying or selling.

What a colossal waste of money, time, energy, and political will!

I know you are in the "never change a single thing" side (which I honestly am surprised at), but I can assure you the younger & newer people that in the class or are looking at the class ABSOLUTELY want disc brakes. If there is no performance advantage with discs, as both sides actually seem to agree on finally, then there is zero reason to not allow them if it only grows the class. It just needs to be better thought out.
The only reason to be against disc brakes at this point would be if you own a large stockpile of the old drums & shoes. The bottom line is, that they can simplify & reduce the cost of FV racing.

[Jnovak]

There is a lot more seal area and the more friction between housing and piston with a 4 piston caliper.

Years ago I went through a lot of issues with brake pads. recently I learned that the issues I had were dur to not having the correct operating temperatures for the pads and the rotors.. The coefficient of friction between the pas and the rotor changes with temperature. if you are operating at too low a temperature, you don't get the optimum brake performance. If as I was you datrted to low and had the temperatures rise to where you had optimum performance just as you were releasing the brake pedal, you would have a moment of over braking and just a instant where the tires would brake loose. In out case we were having front tire ware issued and corner entry push. It was caused by not managing brake temperatures correctly.

I think that the 4 piston calipers will not give optimum brake performance. We use 2 piston calipers on the Citation F1000 and it has top speeds well over 160 mph.

Steve, we used 4 piston calipers on the motor cycle powered Blade F500 that also went over 160 mph at Daytona. I suspect that pad drag caused by poor retraction was not an issue. Watch the Runoffs video and see which car accelerates harder out of the bus stop.

Ps the 2nd place car had 2 piston calipers. I know because i built that car too.

[Hardingfv32]

If people (ie- SCCA rule makers) would use their head & either allow slightly wider track widths or *gasps* 4 bolt brakes, then kits would be perfectly affordable...

The competitors are the ultimate rule makers.... if there was the political will for these changes, they would have been implemented. Get more competitors on board and give it another try.

Brian

[problemchild]

Great idea!
Spend another few years, to get changes that will obsolete the drum cars and the already converted disc cars.

[FVRacer21]

Great idea!
Spend another few years, to get changes that will obsolete the drum cars and the already converted disc cars.

"Always Look on the Bright Side of Life"

[mmi16]

Rules creep gets expensive.

[problemchild]

"Always Look on the Bright Side of Life"

I have learned to put positive energy to tasks that have some strong likelihood of being successful. I hate wasting time, money and energy on tasks or projects which will not be successful. FV needed to evolve 30-40 years ago. It was managed by vendors who chose to evolve by maintaining the status quo, allowing lots of tortured modifications, and whizzy bits, without restriction. The low budget FV racers of the 60-70s had become comfortable racers with disposable income and supported that direction. That was typical SCCA direction, which set the course for many classes. Trying to undo those choices now is just a wasting time, energy, and money.

The one constant attraction of FV for almost 60 years was "low cost and good competition". It is those same attributes, although not nearly so prevalent, that attract people today. It is not brake discs, steering racks, or any other 60 year old technology that will get applied to FV race cars with their 80 year old technical basis. The premise is absurd.

As I have since 1980, I will promote and support any changes to FV that actually will reduce cost or make racing more competitive. Matt's statement that "The bottom line is, that they can simplify & reduce the cost of FV racing" could not be further from the truth. The recent rule changes have decreased the simplicity, and increased cost dramatically for those choosing disc brakes. To reduce those costs, rule changes would be required that would raise costs for everyone, including those already invested in disc brakes. Move on, stop the nonsense, and let the FV racers spend on travel and entry fees, with time and energy applied to car preparation.

[Stumpthumper]

This topic keeps going in circles. That said, optional disc brakes do reduce costs. As drums get more and more expensive, drivers now have a choice to invest in disc brakes. Even if they are the heavy EMPI kits for $400 or a DIY like what Gary did. If the claim is that it will make running at the front more expensive, that I have no idea.
I would like to see the allowance of 4 bolt wheels and have written the CRB to reqest it and more people should officially voice their opinions so we can put this topic to bed.

[Matt Clark]

Will the next twist be making all the racers with drum brakes spend money to accommodate the racers with expensive underperforming disc brakes? Matt seems to be suggesting just that.

What a colossal waste of money, time, energy, and political will!

Matt's statement that "The bottom line is, that they can simplify & reduce the cost of FV racing" could not be further from the truth. The recent rule changes have decreased the simplicity, and increased cost dramatically for those choosing disc brakes. To reduce those costs, rule changes would be required that would raise costs for everyone, including those already invested in disc brakes. Move on, stop the nonsense, and let the FV racers spend on travel and entry fees, with time and energy applied to car preparation.

I am not suggesting that in the least, and I am rather confused as to how someone would even arrive at that conclusion. And my statement is dead on if you actually look at it & break the numbers down. Yes, starting from zero, the initial disc investment would be slightly higher (Andy Pastore found it to be just under $1000 for all 4), but then look at the price of replacing *prepped* drums & Carbotech shoes vs. the pads & rotors over a couple years, and it is obvious discs are cheaper. And, you don't have to adjust or check them every session.
People overlook the fact that top guys are not using $45 stock drums & $20 shoes, so there is already a huge difference in braking parts people are using now. The cost & effort for prepped drum cars are not as low as people want to think.

We have established drums are not a performance advantage, they are just insanely expensive currently, so there is zero obsoleting of any cars.
Yet again, I repeat that if there was some thought put into the disc rules, there could be inexpensive packages that require zero maintenance. All of this is a proven fact at this point.

There would be zero increasing the costs for those already invested in discs... they already have their kits & are using them. And there would be zero changes for drum cars to spend money on for theoretical "expensive underperforming disc cars". I am not even sure what that would mean.

[problemchild]

If people (ie- SCCA rule makers) would use their head & either allow slightly wider track widths or *gasps* 4 bolt brakes, then kits would be perfectly affordable. Actually even cheaper than drums.

Yes, and everybody, whether with drums or current discs, would need to widetrack their cars. That is an expense.
And the person who already spent $1500 on their current conversion, will get to spend money on spacers or wheels or ? ...... as well as watch other people put discs on their cars for 1/3 the price they paid. Matt, you were on here for 2+ years, claiming that affordable disc brakes would fit within the track rules, and Harding was wrong. You got the rule change you wanted, but now you want more changes. And you keep claiming it will lower the cost of FV racing. The math does not work.

[Matt Clark]

Yes, and everybody, whether with drums or current discs, would need to widetrack their cars. That is an expense.
And the person who already spent $1500 on their current conversion, will get to spend money on spacers or wheels or ? ...... as well as watch other people put discs on their cars for 1/3 the price they paid. Matt, you were on here for 2+ years, claiming that affordable disc brakes would fit within the track rules, and Harding was wrong. You got the rule change you wanted, but now you want more changes. And you keep claiming it will lower the cost of FV racing. The math does not work.

Yes, I was... and we had a lead on things with a customized caliper, but unfortunately Jamar (who ironically complained to us about someone else bugging them for info on our things) quit working with us... and in fact, owes us money for parts that never came, but that is another story. There was work that was started with someone else, but life got in the way of that, for both sides. So those learning experiences put us back to looking at existing & more widely available components, as we figured out not to depend on 1 single source for things. We started looking at using almost the exact same stuff as Andy Pastore found independently. Obviously his experiences & findings are well documented on here now, and back up what I have been saying.

With that said... I did NOT get the rule change we wanted. There was a change, but nowhere near what was wanted or needed. And my posts on here for the same number of years show that.
Your statement would be the same as someone trying to say we needed to control the manifold rule better, then ending up with the current monster manifold rule we have now. "You got your rule change, why are you not happy?"

I agree that it would suck to have spent $3500+ on brakes, then have a change to reduce that expense.
Kinda like what you wanting to ban the Harding Monster Manis would have done, or when the carbon fiber wheel pants that Varacins had was banned. That is a downside to being an early adopter, but it is better for the class in the long run.
As far as the "wide track" issue, that depends on what kit you want to use. The Empi kits are definitely way wide, I think even 1"+. Many of the other kits are, if I remember correctly, only like 3/8".... which I would say is reasonable, especially when you consider stock rear drums can be basically that over smoothies. I would not advocating for a massive width increase. If you use 4-bolt parts, there shouldn't be any increase.

The math works perfectly fine, if it is written correctly to start with. And people have already proven that with actual parts & race on track.

Everything I have said has been because of what we are seeing & hearing from new people that did come or want to come into FV. I have no agenda or personal gain involved, and everything I have been more of the public pusher of is stuff that *many* of the other long term racers of your generation are in favor of as well.
If it was just what I wanted, it wouldn't necessarily be what I have been advocating for here.

[Daryl DeArman]

Unfortunately, too many people in the road racing world find larger, one-time expenses unaffordable, but somehow justify to themselves spending many multiples of that dollar a few dimes at a time. Out of one side of their mouth they claim it will take 5 years to break-even, but out of the other admit they've been at the hobby 15+ and plan at least another 15.