New rule

[Thomas Copeland]

Starting July SCCA GCR:

Formula 1000 is a restricted class. Therefore, all allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated
herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T. Homologation may be required. Refer to 9.2.2. for
details. All FB Cars competing in Majors Races and the Runoffs must have the AIM part #X47KPFSOLO2R0
data box mount installed on their vehicle to provide the necessary mounting of the AIM Solo Data box. The
mounting surface is to be approximately oriented either horizontally or vertically either parallel or perpendicular
to the longitudinal axis of the car and must be accessible from the exterior of the car with the driver
on board - it should have a view of the sky, and not be located under carbon fiber or metallic body-work.
In addition, the mount must not be on wings, and or wing end plates and where possible should be in the
cockpit. Sufficient space should be left between the mounting plate and the surface to which it is attached
to permit the use of zip ties/tie straps to restrain the data box to the mounting plate. The purpose of this
requirement is to allow the random placement of data boxes on cars on pre-grid by SCCA assigned personal
and the collection of the box when the car exits the race track. Contact AIM and their distributors for direct
purchase. Effective date January 1, 2019.

[J Leonard]

Did they update the part number or something? I thought most cars had these already.

[Thomas Copeland]

It's the part number that threw me. Couldn't find it. When I typed in Aim Data box mount I found something on Pegasus under another part number for solo lap timer that says effective 02/28/2014. This isn't it is it?

What data are they collecting? Engine?

[Fred Michael]

The old bracket was for an AIM Solo, the new bracket is for the new AIM Solo2.

[Thomas Copeland]

Thanks. Typing in Solo2 mount I found it here: https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/productdetails.asp?RecID=28435

I'm guessing there is one of the old brackets on my car. I haven't own an F1000 since 2012 so I'm sort of catching up here. Didn't know this was even on the car.

[jchracer]

As I understand it, the purpose of this rule is to allow SCCA to assess engine performance. I have been hassled multiple times about that silly bracket at majors and the run-offs. I spent time and money to mount the bracket. NEVER to my knowledge has an AIM solo box EVER been affixed to an F1000 car to collect data. Even if data was collected, what sense could anyone make of any data comparison given the differences in downforce/drag of the cars and the statistical data scatter from engine to engine.

When will SCCA discontinue this farce?

[Thomas Copeland]

So a useless rule to mount useless bracket to attach a useless box to obtain useless data for useless analysis. This is so SCCA!!

I'm just thinking of all the fun I've been missing all these years. I'm so glad to be back!

[ghickman]

So a useless rule to mount useless bracket to attach a useless box to obtain useless data for useless analysis. This is so SCCA!!

I'm just thinking of all the fun I've been missing all these years. I'm so glad to be back!

This is nothing new. Every Runoffs I've been at since 2014 has required this.

At Daytona I was told to have it on the car only to find out that tech said they had nobody on staff qualified to read the data.

This was all happening at the same time the CRB was trying to mandate restrictors on the FB's. I was first told the FB's needed to be slowed down then it later morphed into "it was to stop engine wars".

[Jnovak]

F500 cars have been instrumented many times. Including the Runoffs at indy and Daytona

The resson they are doing this is to allow the instrumentation of cars using multiple different engine combinations.

While i am no longer a member of the FSRAC i agree with this rule.

[jchracer]

F500 cars have been instrumented many times. Including the Runoffs at indy.

The resson they are doing this is to allow the instrumentation of cars using multiple different engine combinations.

While i am no longer a member of the FSRAC i agree with this rule.

Jay,

I make my living using engineering data to make strategic decisions. The first thing I do is to evaluate the quality of the data prior to making a decision. If the quality of the data does not line up with the decision to be made, I collect better data. The worst thing an organization can do is to make decisions based upon flawed data. I guess it could be done, but I find it highly unlikely that anyone could gather AIM Solo data on multiple cars with different engines and drag profiles and make any kind of solid conclusions with which to make decisions.

[Jnovak]

Jay,

I make my living using engineering data to make strategic decisions. The first thing I do is to evaluate the quality of the data prior to making a decision. If the quality of the data does not line up with the decision to be made, I collect better data. The worst thing an organization can do is to make decisions based upon flawed data. I guess it could be done, but I find it highly unlikely that anyone could gather AIM Solo data on multiple cars with different engines and drag profiles and make any kind of solid conclusions with which to make decisions.

joel, i have seen and personally analyzed lots of this data and it is not junk data. What the club is using this data for is to collect and use GPS data from AIM data systems. This data is no different than the majority of data systems in use. It acquires GPS speed data which is used to define specific acceleration and speed data in order to define if changes in restrictor sizez and or vehicle weight.

[jchracer]

joel, i have seen and personally analyzed lots of this data and it is not junk data. What the club is using this data for is to collect and use GPS data from AIM data systems. This data is no different than the majority of data systems in use. It acquires GPS speed data which is used to define specific acceleration and speed data in order to define if changes in restrictor sizez and or vehicle weight.

I think we will need to agree to disagree....

[Jnovak]

I think we will need to agree to disagree....

sounds good Joel.

How about you suggest another way to make engineering based performance decisions for the scca? I can gurantee the the people who do this work will be very interested in your ideas.

[Daryl DeArman]

i have seen and personally analyzed lots of this data and it is not junk data. What the club is using this data for is to collect and use GPS data from AIM data systems.

I'm thinking it's not the system that is incapable of providing the data that makes it junk. It's all the variables that are being treated as a constant when making these decisions.

Aero configuration, rolling resistance, weight, state of tune, airbox design, header design, final drive ratio, tire diameter, etc. If the data shows one engine in one chassis is an outlier, how do you decide why, or is that data ignored?

[Jnovak]

I'm thinking it's not the system that is incapable of providing the data that makes it junk. It's all the variables that are being treated as a constant when making these decisions.

Aero configuration, rolling resistance, weight, state of tune, airbox design, header design, final drive ratio, tire diameter, etc. If the data shows one engine in one chassis is an outlier, how do you decide why, or is that data ignored?

what make you think that the engineers who run this program do not check and record as many of these variables as possible Daryl?

For example each car is checked for weight, final drive ratio, fuel etc. Now certainly the club cannot define the aero drag and other variables. What they do try to do is to instrument 3 cars for each make and engine combination. The way that they effectivly bypass the aero drag effects is to do all of the acceleration analysis from the lowest speed entering on to a straight say about 40mph to a speed that is approximately 90 mph in a straight line. This allows them to get the best estimate possible of acceleration from speed 1 to speed 2 and from spot one to spot 2 on the track. Thus the acceleration between cars can be accuratetly compared between engine and weight combination. All of this analytical work is completed by an employee of the club whe has multiple degrees in statistics so he can correctly define what we are looking for.

I am not that analysis person but having been a member of the FSRAC for several years, i had access to the recorded data and conducted my own analisis just for my own interests sake. I no longer have access to the data that is collected as i have resigned from the FSRAC.

I totally understand your concerns and those of others. I have also had my own similar concers, thus i have conducted my own analysis.

I can assure you that the club simply wants to do a job that is fair to everone involved.

If you have any better ideas i suggest tha you get involved by becomming a member of the FSRAC or presenting your thoughts and ideas to the FSRAC by submitting a letter defining your analysis ideas or thoughts. I guarantee that they will be well received.

If you have better ideas PLEASE let the FSRAC know.

[Daryl DeArman]

what make you think that the engineers who run this program do not check and record as many of these variables as possible Daryl?

I would not be surprised to learn that they record as many as prudent. That doesn't mean they aren't ignoring some of the largest variable factors involved.

For example each car is checked for weight, final drive ratio, fuel etc. Now certainly the club cannot define the aero drag and other variables. What they do try to do is to instrument 3 cars for each make and engine combination. The way that they effectivly bypass the aero drag effects is to do all of the acceleration analysis from the lowest speed entering on to a straight say about 40mph to a speed that is approximately 90 mph in a straight line. This allows them to get the best estimate possible of acceleration from speed 1 to speed 2 and from spot one to spot 2 on the track. Thus the acceleration between cars can be accuratetly compared between engine and weight combination. All of this analytical work is completed by an employee of the club whe has multiple degrees in statistics so he can correctly define what we are looking for.

I appreciate the insight.

If you have better ideas PLEASE let the FSRAC know.

Perhaps the FSRAC should just say "Look, junk in, junk out. We get it. However, we need to give the appearance that our decisions aren't just wags. If we make an obvious mistake we'll do our best to correct it as soon as prudent. These are the chances you take when racing in a class with competition adjustments and restrictors. If you want to play it safe, use the same engine package as those on the FSRAC use. You won't have a better engine combination, but you won't be worse off."

[problemchild]

It seems every month, we hear of some rule that has gone wrong because various committees have miscommunicated with the CRB or the same between the CRB and BOD. There are dozens of examples of this. and that is before we discuss the number of times that various boards just choose to ignore input from committees, etc. It often takes several rounds of Fastrack to correctly publish rule changes. There is no trust, and with good reason.

These committees receive "confidential" input from dynos, and various data inputs. If a competitor's car is affected by this input, he has no way of studying the data, or challenging the data, or challenging the interpretations or motives or competence of those making decisions. I personally was effected by such a decision that involved all 5 of these elements with no recourse. There is no transparency.

If you consider that the breakdowns in the process related to trust and transparency make the SCCA process so flawed, how are we supposed to believe that a much more complicated process of data collection and interpretation can be managed effectively with primitive equipment? No thanks! Anecdotal input would be equally useless but cheaper and quicker!

[Rick Kirchner]

look on the bright side - at least they didn't mandate buying the bracket from a single source......

[Jnovak]

I have personally been adversly affected by rules change that affected my cars. That is why i have been extremly observant on all rules changes and adjustment wrt the FSRAC and the CRB.

When those who now make these decisions note the there are too many variables to allow proper decisions they simply do not make those changes they simply leave the rules alone.

Can any of you define a performance adjustment that you think was unjustified or unfair? I am not aware of any complaints wrt performance adjustments.

[Daryl DeArman]

ICan any of you define a performance adjustment that you think was unjustified or unfair? I am not aware of any complaints wrt performance adjustments.

Jeremy Hill comes immediately to mind. I'm certain there have been others. . .

[Jnovak]

Jeremy Hill comes immediately to mind. I'm certain there have been others. . .

the decision on Jeremy Hill was made over 10 years ago and was immediately reversed. That decision has zero to do with the current data based methodology.

Try something else?

[Daryl DeArman]

the decision on Jeremy Hill was made over 10 years ago and was immediately reversed. That decision has zero to do with the current data based methodology.

Try something else?

How did my example fail to meet the criteria of your original question?

SCCA has and will screw the pooch when it comes to competition adjustments...and you and I apparently have different definitions of the word "immediately".

I do agree; that FC MC competition adjustment has zero to do with the current data based methodology, which just highlights the point that data isn't required to make or support such decisions.

[Jnovak]

How did my example fail to meet the criteria of your original question?

SCCA has and will screw the pooch when it comes to competition adjustments...and you and I apparently have different definitions of the word "immediately".

I do agree; that FC MC competition adjustment has zero to do with the current data based methodology, which just highlights the point that data isn't required to make or support such decisions.

this was an example that was very poorly done and the management of the club understood that and corrected it immediatly but your right it was a change, not data based but a bad change. You sound like you think that there is a conspiracy to screw the members with rules changes. As i have twice been on the receiving end of decisions so i understand your concerns. However my experiences on the FSRAC have given me a much greater level of confidence in the process.

I asked for example and i should have been more specific. I agree that the process is not as open as i want however i have a huge confidence in the members of the FSRAC. Every one of them is a very serious hard core racer with many years of racing and i trust them.

I have examined all of the objective data acquired by the club in formula and sports racers and to my knowledge there has been one change based on the data and that was clearly objectively justified.

But enough. I understand your concerns and i hope tha you can learn to trust the club as i am certain that they want to do the right thing.

I think objective data is the best choice to base decisions.

There are better objective methodologies and I would love to see them implemented. However the budget is simply not there.

[Daryl DeArman]

You sound like you think that there is a conspiracy to screw the members with rules changes. As i have twice been on the receiving end of decisions so i understand your concerns. However my experiences on the FSRAC have given me a much greater level of confidence in the process.

I don't believe there's a conspiracy to screw the membership. I believe there are a couple of key factors at play. One, politics. Two, meddling trying to keep everybody happy just means someone will always be upset with the changes.

I think objective data is the best choice to base decisions.

There are better objective methodologies and I would love to see them implemented. However the budget is simply not there.

Couldn't agree more.

[JerryH]

Hey guys. Chill a bit. This rule isn't aimed directly at FB. Many other classes are involved. No one has been collecting data on our cars....and even though the mounting bracket is updated, I don't see that changing unless we as a group ask for it.....which would be a dumb move.

Scca has dealt with newer engines by adding weight.....and they might add more. No big deal if they do.
Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars
NorthAmF1000

[JerryH]

Hey guys. Chill a bit. This rule isn't aimed directly at FB. Many other classes are involved. No one has been collecting data on our cars....and even though the mounting bracket is updated, I don't see that changing unless we as a group ask for it.....which would be a dumb move.

Scca has dealt with newer engines by adding weight.....and they might add more. No big deal if they do.

Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars
NorthAmF1000

[Jnovak]

Hey guys. Chill a bit. This rule isn't aimed directly at FB. Many other classes are involved. No one has been collecting data on our cars....and even though the mounting bracket is updated, I don't see that changing unless we as a group ask for it.....which would be a dumb move.

Scca has dealt with newer engines by adding weight.....and they might add more. No big deal if they do.

Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars
NorthAmF1000

thanks Jerry!

[Daryl DeArman]

No one has been collecting data on our cars....

Scca has dealt with newer engines by adding weight.....and they might add more. No big deal if they do.

Chill? Who's livid over this? It's a discussion about why the new brackets, which evolved into how/when these competition adjustments take place. The validity of the data utilized. The goals and integrity of those making the suggestions.

Lowest class participation in all of Majors this year. 1.14 FB entries average. Carry on.

[Jnovak]

[QUOTE=Daryl DeArman;568357

Lowest class participation in all of Majors this year. 1.14 FB entries average. Carry on.[/QUOTE]

they were lowest because their pro series was run in regionals. If you add their pro series entries they are pretty decent.

[Daryl DeArman]

they were lowest because their pro series was run in regionals. If you add their pro series entries they are pretty decent.

Understood, but I thought there was some decision made/change about RunOffs participation requirements where regionals were going to count, then they weren't. How this plays out in the next 5-10 years will likely depend on how good/bad job the SCCA does with things and how the pro series is managed and promoted.

[problemchild]

Understood, but I thought there was some decision made/change about RunOffs participation requirements where regionals were going to count, then they weren't. How this plays out in the next 5-10 years will likely depend on how good/bad job the SCCA does with things and how the pro series is managed and promoted.

This comes back to the trust issue. The motives and competence of the people making the important decisions, never mind the smaller decisions, is the reason that so few people have trust in the SCCA process. Even the "smaller" decisions impact people. If they only ban a dozen cars with a poor decision, that is dozen people. If that happens just once in each class per year, that is a couple hundred people that are impacted. Often, half those people quit or go race with other groups. Even though FB is a smaller class, there are still hundreds of people affected, considering drivers, crews, suppliers, builders, etc. It is easy to get tired of Thomas complaining about it, just as I did when they banned my cars, but I have yet to hear that SCCA has apologized to the FB community and promised to make it right. Between this, and Jay's misguided engine equalization crusade, the biggest enemy of FB over the past 5 years, has been SCCA.

[Thomas Copeland]

Thanks Greg.

I often think of all the really good people at the regional level that volunteer their time to help put on the races. Their effort. We couldn't race without it. I hate to feel I am minimizing that by getting into a bickering fest with the SCCA management.

It started with the all out war on air shifters. Then migrated to the restrictors. But at least on those issues we had notice. A chance to respond. To avail the SCCA management of membership feedback. And I always trusted that the final decision would always be in the majority of the membership favor, in their best interest. That SCCA management would listen. I can abide by any decision if the majority of the competitors are for that that decision, even if I don't like it.

On this car count criteria they crossed a line. There was never any notice. Never any chance for any of us to respond. This was a total and complete ambush on the the SCCA membership by SCCA management. It broke all the rules of decency. Backdating criteria by a year and half. Who does that? And that's why many of us, not just me, are now having serious trust issues when it comes to decisions made by SCCA management and leadership.

I honestly wish this day had never come. I don't think its a situation anyone of us would like to be in. It's horrible!!

[Jnovak]

Between this, and Jay's misguided engine equalization crusade, the biggest enemy of FB over the past 5 years, has been SCCA.

what make you think this is my crusade?

I did not invent or propose this methodology. I am simply in favor of using objective data to make changes as opposed to ("he is too fast! Lets change the rules")

[JerryH]

I am not to concerned about the new brackets......since no data is being collected on our class.....or hasn't been up to now.

I do agree with Joel.....in FB there are way to many variables between car/engine/driver/combinations.....and level of prep.....to get usable repeatable data. There may be a few other classes where it might be useful. Comparing F600 to F500 is one. I have not looked at others.

My main concern goes to Thomas Copelands point. The backdated requirements for being a runoffs class......and the sudden change from 2.5 to 4 average.....and going back on the promise that there is a regional path to the runoffs......is just plain wrong. Given enough notice, drivers and groups can change their behavior to meet the requirements. This gives no time to do that.....and regional participation should always be considered as part of the whole package.....otherwise regional racing may disappear.

Daryl......Do You have an F1000? just wondering where you fit into our little F1000 world.

Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars
North American Formula 1000 Championship
Scca member since 1966.

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl......Do You have an F1000? just wondering where you fit into our little F1000 world.

I don't. I will never race in a class with "competition adjustments" or "restrictors" as the SCCA utilizes them.

I'm just a fan of the cars, with an opinion, a keyboard, and an internet connection.

I was a fan when the class was first created. I had raced bike engined cars before, when I was much more serious about my racing. That experience helped form the opinions I had about this class.

I didn't have a FB/F1000 car so should have zero impact on the rules for the class. Let those with skin in the game dictate the direction they want to go. When I saw the direction the rules package was headed I knew it wasn't for me.

Still a fan and would love to see large fields of the cars.

Meanwhile, I decided to take up motocross as I enter my 5th decade. I bought a few bikes and will keep an eye on how the FB and F6/F5 class evolves. I have friends that warn me that it's just a matter of time until I get hurt racing on 2 wheels and go back to racing 4 wheels. If/when that happens I'll see what my options are. Hope either F1000/FB or F6/F5 is something I would be interested in at the time.

[Thomas Copeland]

Jerry, think there's any chance the SCCA management will come to it's senses before a class action over the car count criteria gets filed? I hope so.

[ghickman]

I don't. I will never race in a class with "competition adjustments" or "restrictors" as the SCCA utilizes them.

I'm just a fan of the cars, with an opinion, a keyboard, and an internet connection.

I was a fan when the class was first created. I had raced bike engined cars before, when I was much more serious about my racing. That experience helped form the opinions I had about this class.

I didn't have a FB/F1000 car so should have zero impact on the rules for the class. Let those with skin in the game dictate the direction they want to go. When I saw the direction the rules package was headed I knew it wasn't for me.

Still a fan and would love to see large fields of the cars.

Meanwhile, I decided to take up motocross as I enter my 5th decade. I bought a few bikes and will keep an eye on how the FB and F6/F5 class evolves. I have friends that warn me that it's just a matter of time until I get hurt racing on 2 wheels and go back to racing 4 wheels. If/when that happens I'll see what my options are. Hope either F1000/FB or F6/F5 is something I would be interested in at the time.

For what it's worth Daryl has always been one of the more vocal supporters of FB on this forum, you don't need to own one to see how cool they are. I think his view toward FB is shared by many.

[marshall9]

+1 ^^^^^^^^^

[Jnovak]

I think that FB has the potential to be the best class in SCCA club racing.

We loved it when we were in it!

[Zcurves]

Part of what attracted me and many others to FB is the fact that they are modern cars. They are very different from the Pinto that I left. The cars should be ever evolving and improving. Does anyone want to buy a brand new car with a 10 year old engine? That’s not going to attract new blood and it isn’t going to sell many new cars either. The class needs both to succeed. If we can’t always be in search of a better mousetrap, we may as well go spec. I say that because no one will ever invest in new technology if they’re just going to get slapped with an equalizer. This class has always been about innovation. You can name any of the inspired in the class and I’m sure they are trying to figure out how to go faster.

FB is a motorcycle powered class and should be riding the coat tails of any and all bike manufacturers (who are also constantly improving).

But what do I know? I’ve only been an avid competitor (and consumer) for almost a decade. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.