No comments on the prelims?

[John Nesbitt]

A few wild, crazy off-the-wall, conspiracy theories are floating around.

Why would someone in a perfectly good car with a perfectly good engine with at least 30hp on the entire field self retire before the end of the runoffs? What exactly was in that engine anyway? Was it even legal? What involvement did a certain local CRB member have in it all? How much exactly did he know about it beforehand and exactly who's bidding was he doing it for anyway? Funny how both he and his suspected master were part of this decision to turn FB into FA.

What was he (driver) even really doing at the runoffs competing anyway? Didn't appear he was there to win any race. And even if he didn't self retire (doubtful) what was the real purpose behind this bunch of shenanigans?

Don't know, maybe I should write a book.

Maybe its all just coincidence. Funny if so. Hard to believe too (if coincidental). Stretches the imagination, boggles the mind...

Then there's this car count criteria scam back in May. That backfired spectacularly. Hmmmm. But how's that fit in to all this? Ok, first you don't succeed try, try, again. So now we have this beautiful and official stamped looking prelim notice with of course the usual suspects involved that appeared majestically outta no where. Like a gift from the gods!!! Mentioning by the way, practically everything that was probably in that engine that was in that perfectly good car that somehow retired. Wonder how they are going to pass FB off as an FA? Look no further. Timing of course just eerie as I don't know what. And of course no explanation as to why they are doing it. Probably wouldn't help if they did explain it, wouldn't believe them anyway. Their own fault. They probably shouldn't have been so damn devious.

I give it to 2021 to get official notice from the same dishonest bunch about F3, F4, or both becoming a runoffs class.

Anyway, enjoy.

The great thing about a conspiracy theory is that anyone who suggests there is no conspiracy is ipso facto part of the conspiracy.

[S Lathrop]

I think that merging F1000 into FA is a good thing. I think that taking a Citation F1000 to the 2019 runoffs is a challenge that I would enjoy. And the challenge is going there to win. I think that with F1000 being ibn FA, you might see F1000 car at the FRP race weekends.

If you look at the FA class, where are the new cars coming from? F1000 is way less expensive both to buy new and to run than most of the existing cars. The cost of building a new Swift 08, 014 or 016 would be close to 3 times the cost of new F1000. FA Toyota engine rebuilds are in the neighborhood of $20,000 and you might need 2 per year. How many F1000 engines and transmissions can you buy for that? Compared to FC or even a FF, the F1000 is the same or even less expensive to build new.

The "safety issue" with tube frame cars is the same as with composite cars. It has to do with the front crush structures. If that part functions properly, there is no difference in the crash safety of a tube frame and composite car. This has actually been tested to the same standards as a F3 chassis.. The penetration issue can be dealt with by increasing the Kevlar layers to say 10 from 2 which is the minimum required now. This can be added to existing cars. The worst injury to a driver I was working with came in a composite chassis where the front crush structure failed and the steering rack was driven through the tub into the foot box area. That guy got to know Dr.Terry Trammel over the following year.

[reidhazelton]

Thanks Steve! Good info.

My safety concern is when the nose of a 1300lbs 016 meets the side of an FB. Would the added Kevlar be sufficient to stop that? If so, are we getting close to the Radon issue with side panels?

[Stan Clayton]

I agree, NAF1k has nothing to do with it. It's a by product of SCCA lack of 'clubness' for the FB crowd. It's really the result of too many poorly mapped divisions/regions that make divisional racing meaningless.

I disagree - it's always car counts. Time is money therefore track-time is money. Track day operators know this. SCCA knows this.

I don't know about the F3/F4 cars, but that process is nothing new.

Correct on both counts. The last formula class to unequivocally earn its way to national class status was FM in 1998. Before that they ran on a spec line in, wait for it...FA. In the early 2000s SCCA's BoD tried to short circuit the process with the FE, but being embroiled in a nasty lawsuit with Formula Renault, they backed off and made it a spec line in...FA. IIFC FE qualified one year (instead of the usual two in a row), whereupon it was made a national class in the great up-welling of 2006 (see below).

To the best of my recollection it hasn't happened since. In no particular order...F600? Nope, never even got close, and still stuck in F5. F-BMW? Nope...ran as a spec line in FA until crashing and burning. Pro Formula Mazda? Nope, came close for a few years, but never qualified and is still mired in FA even with 100+ cars built. F3 & F4? Hahahahahaha...*gasp*...hahaha, no.

Which brings me to FB, the only organically SCCA club-grown national formula class in what, decades? Up through the 2005 Runoffs it ran as one of the three permitted configurations in FC, along with the Pinto cars and air-cooled SuperVee. Then a competitor put a modern m/c engine in one and sacred the pants off the FC crowd, and the BoD made the class a Pinto-only affair until the Zetec came along as the supply of Pintos was drying up.

The handful of remaining SuperVee guys went to vintage, but a bunch of folks on this forum pitched into write a set of rules for a new Regional class, Formula 1000 (FB). In the fall of 2006 the BoD made FB, FE, STU, STO, and ST new national classes by fiat, and gave them 5 years to qualify under the rules. ST failed to thrive and was put out of its misery after a few years, but the others made it, if only barely in the case of FB.

Fast forward a dozen years and here we are. Citation, Firman, JDR and Stohr can make you a new car (we (Stohr) have built and delivered 3 in the past two years), and I'll bet even Gary Hickman will build you one. But in spite of everyone's best efforts, the class has not thrived. Far from there being some nefarious conspiracy, there are simply too many similar classes competing for competitor dollars, and someone was going to come up tail-end Charlie. We can either whine about our lot in life, or we can take the opportunity by the horns and make the best of it.

I suggest we pursue the second path. Who's with me?

[reidhazelton]

But in spite of everyone's best efforts, the class has not thrived. Far from there being some nefarious conspiracy, there are simply too many similar classes competing for competitor dollars, and someone was going to come up tail-end Charlie. We can either whine about our lot in life, or we can take the opportunity by the horns and make the best of it.

I suggest we pursue the second path. Who's with me?

I like this guy.

[S Lathrop]

Thanks Steve! Good info.

My safety concern is when the nose of a 1300lbs 016 meets the side of an FB. Would the added Kevlar be sufficient to stop that? If so, are we getting close to the Radon issue with side panels?

Ask the same question of a 08 or 014 Swift. I know what the structure of my cars are in that area. One of the diagonal tubes that is beside the driver's lower torso is made of the same tubing required for roll bar bracing. That tube is short and well supported at both ends. That and all the other bracing of the frame in that area will do a good job of supporting everything that is outside the frame. The best protection in the case you describe would be to have the void around the radiator duct foam filled to make that becomes a crush structure. The radiator makes a decent crush structure, with out the hot water.

The old rules for formula cars showed a crush structure in the outer edges of the side pods. I haven't seen anything like that in decades.

[Jnovak]

A few wild, crazy off-the-wall, conspiracy theories are floating around.

Why would someone in a perfectly good car with a perfectly good engine with at least 30hp on the entire field self retire before the end of the runoffs? What exactly was in that engine anyway? Was it even legal? What involvement did a certain local CRB member have in it all? How much exactly did he know about it beforehand and exactly who's bidding was he doing it for anyway? Funny how both he and his suspected master were part of this decision to turn FB into FA.

What was he (driver) even really doing at the runoffs competing anyway? Didn't appear he was there to win any race. And even if he didn't self retire (doubtful) what was the real purpose behind this bunch of shenanigans?

Don't know, maybe I should write a book.

Maybe its all just coincidence. Funny if so. Hard to believe too (if coincidental). Stretches the imagination, boggles the mind...

Then there's this car count criteria scam back in May. That backfired spectacularly. Hmmmm. But how's that fit in to all this? Ok, first you don't succeed try, try, again. So now we have this beautiful and official stamped looking prelim notice with of course the usual suspects involved that appeared majestically outta no where. Like a gift from the gods!!! Mentioning by the way, practically everything that was probably in that engine that was in that perfectly good car that somehow retired. Wonder how they are going to pass FB off as an FA? Look no further. Timing of course just eerie as I don't know what. And of course no explanation as to why they are doing it. Probably wouldn't help if they did explain it, wouldn't believe them anyway. Their own fault. They probably shouldn't have been so damn devious.

I give it to 2021 to get official notice from the same dishonest bunch about F3, F4, or both becoming a runoffs class.

Anyway, enjoy.

this sounds like you think that the Runoffs FB situation was a well orchestrated plot by unnamed members etc. More specifics are needed not rumors!

[Jnovak]

The big picture is that OW racing in the SCCA is in trouble, numbers wise, imo

[Bill Johnson 42]

I am disappointed to see this.

There is no upside for our club in this. Some of these guys will race in FA, some will just go away or find other places / organizations to run in. In the end it will be a net loss for the club. Virtually all will be disenfranchised with our club and I don’t blame them.

Basing any class consolidation on Runoffs counts is a mistake. Car counts are highly regional and with the Runoffs moving around class participation at the Runoffs is more a reflection of the local class numbers or the draw of the venue, not the overall health of the class. And if this is about the car counts or the health of the class, we only have 3 healthy classes in the whole club, SM, SRF and FV. Of course the healthiest FSR class gets the least amount of love because some don’t understand it.

We all drive what we drive for our own illogical reasons, the thought that you can combine the classes and end up with the same number of drivers is wrong, you take someone’s class away and for the most part, they’re gone. While Steve makes some valid points from a technical viewpoint, if F1000 were the next big thing we’d already be seeing new cars built and would already have far surpassed FA. Right now you can barely sell an existing car.

The last few years FA has been viewed a s a “catch all” class where we could move orphaned cars from other series, like PFM, that did not have a place to race and allow them to run Majors or whatever event they wanted – that benefits our club, this does not.

If this is supposedly based on our club’s data from Sonoma, I don’t get this kind of move based on data from one event. So now we move the F1000 cars to FA and say tough luck to the F1000 guys or start making competition adjustments on everyone in the combined class and again disenfranchise all.

If it’s about the Runoffs then either reformat the Runoffs or limit the number of classes.

Of course there's a lot of other reasons for this. This class took a left turn along the way and did not follow it's original path. It was sold on low cost, plentiful, plug-and-play stock engines with allowance for aero. Instead it ended up with 10,000.00 Geartronics systems and mismatched non stock engines. In the end it's all jut very disappointing.

[reidhazelton]

It's also, maybe more, based on Majors participation numbers. I was quoting Runoffs numbers because they are representative of Majors and easier for me to find. Year after year, the numbers are declining.

If we let nature take its course, and FB fades away, then what? They will be gone completely or relegated to regionals.. At least with a merge, they have some place to race.

But, I fully agree. When class shake ups happen, they have shown to push out someone. Take S2000 to be a good example. But, what do you do when you have a class with one car at a Majors event, and 7 at the Runoffs? I have yet to come up with a solution based on the cards dealt.

[Jnovak]

It's also, maybe more, based on Majors participation numbers. I was quoting Runoffs numbers because they are representative of Majors and easier for me to find. Year after year, the numbers are declining.

If we let nature take its course, and FB fades away, then what? They will be gone completely or relegated to regionals.. At least with a merge, they have some place to race.

Get the FB rules back to the original intent (LOW COST) it could survive. In 1 year Dave Piontek and i built 7 Van Dieman conversion cars, they were low cost and fast. IMO FB does not need 210 hp and FA to survive.

[reidhazelton]

[QUOTE=Jnovak;573957]

It's also, maybe more, based on Majors participation numbers. I was quoting Runoffs numbers because they are representative of Majors and easier for me to find. Year after year, the numbers are declining.

If we let nature take its course, and FB fades away, then what? They will be gone completely or relegated to regionals.. At least with a merge, they have some place to race.[/QU

Get the FB rules back to the original intent (LOW COST) it could survive. In 1 year Dave Piontek and i built 7 Van Dieman conversion cars, they were low cost and fast. IMO FB does not need 210 hp and FA to survive.

Do you think the class would accept giving up the fancy shift systems, going back to stock engines, and restrictors? I'd be in favor of that as I think the cost is the main issue, as it is with nearly all racing.

[Jnovak]

[QUOTE=reidhazelton;573958]

Do you think the class would accept giving up the fancy shift systems, going back to stock engines, and restrictors? I'd be in favor of that as I think the cost is the main issue, as it is with nearly all racing.

YES! strictly mechanical shifting systems PERIOD! This is CLUB RACING not F1. Let the DRIVER BE THE DIFFERENCE NOT TECHNOLOGY! Also restrict the engine power in some way. Limit Rpm or use restrictors or some other method. This will increase competition and SIGNIFICANTLY reduce costs to compete.

[stonebridge20]

[QUOTE=reidhazelton;573958]

Do you think the class would accept giving up the fancy shift systems, going back to stock engines, and restrictors? I'd be in favor of that as I think the cost is the main issue, as it is with nearly all racing.

You would have to run that past all the "pro 1000" Orgs also if you want half a chance of that working.

[Jnovak]

[QUOTE=stonebridge20;573966]

You would have to run that past all the "pro 1000" Orgs also if you want half a chance of that working.

understood! But if they want to survive they need more racers and making them fast enough to compete with FA cars will not lower the cost imo.

If there were reasonable cost controls we would be in FB in a heartbeat!

[Steve Bamford]

[QUOTE=Jnovak;573970]

understood! But if they want to survive they need more racers and making them fast enough to compete with FA cars will not lower the cost imo.

If there were reasonable cost controls we would be in FB in a heartbeat!

I believe the horse has left the barn now hasn’t it?

[jchracer]

[QUOTE=Jnovak;573963]

YES! strictly mechanical shifting systems PERIOD! This is CLUB RACING not F1. Let the DRIVER BE THE DIFFERENCE NOT TECHNOLOGY! Also restrict the engine power in some way. Limit Rpm or use restrictors or some other method. This will increase competition and SIGNIFICANTLY reduce costs to compete.

Entirely wrong from my experience. If you are loosing in FB, it's not because your car is lacking technology, it's because your driver is lacking talent. Truth hurts but the propagation of these myths is a large contributor to the decline in the class. Alex Mayer and Hill can win just about everywhere with a manual shifter and an engine from 2007.

[S Lathrop]

A little history lesson. F2000 was originally a sub class of the original FC class. The dominant car in the class at the time was the water cooled Formula Super Vees. The biggest game on the North American continent for F2000 was the Canadian Tire series. I ran the first Citation F2000 in that series. Over several years the participants in the class were able to build the numbers to where FC was turned over to the F2000 cars and the FSVs were booted up to FA, where they died. That can happen for F1000 if the support is there. In the mean time the class lives on.

The F1000 is way more competitive as a FA than the F2000s were in the late 1980's. The F1000 merged into FA, has the opportunity to survive. Maybe over the next several years, the rules for the class can evolve to the point where people look at F1000 as the affordable, hi performance, open wheel formula car class it should be.

I think the big problem to be solved is engines. It is currently the hot topic. Say I wanted to do a run of 5 new cars. Where can I get 5 new engines for those cars? Crate engines or new bike engines as we were able to get when the class was new. And that is engines that run in cars..

[FVRacer21]

As an outside it is always interesting to look at other classes and the struggles they go through.

We have had the same issue with Formula First, but their goal was never to become a National (Majors) class.

My take is that to be a successful Majors class in the SCCA you need to have at least 150 cars and they need to be spread evenly across the country.

The goal of any new class is to get to those numbers as quickly as possible. Less than that and you will not have the base to support the class long term. The Legends cars build 600+ cars the first few years. In their heyday FF was about 100 cars per year. That is the numbers you need in the SCCA - I think the SCCA just said the 400th SR Gen 3 kit was sold -

If what I read is true, FB/1000 got caught up in technology before they got the numbers.

I hate to be a Debbie Downer but the next class to start worrying is F5/6, after that (in the SCCA) is FF by 2021 and even FV will probably hit critical mass around 2025. (again Majors - not regional)

ChrisZ
FV Citation

[Jnovak]

[QUOTE=jchracer;573974]

Entirely wrong from my experience. If you are loosing in FB, it's not because your car is lacking technology, it's because your driver is lacking talent. Truth hurts but the propagation of these myths is a large contributor to the decline in the class. Alex Mayer and Hill can win just about everywhere with a manual shifter and an engine from 2007.

sounds like we agree joel. Does your car have a pneumatic or electronic shift system?

[John Mosteller]

I was involved in the group that worked on the original rules that were presented to apply for the class. The original proposal was for a low cost high performance class.

After being accepted the class was growing fairly good with good number of conversions and Stohr selling a lot of cars.

In my opinion the class was growing faster than I thought it would but then a few things happened that altered the classes path.

1. Along came some competitors that weren't coordinated enough to read a tach and move a lever forward or back at the right time to complete a proper shift. But they had plenty of money to alleviate the issue.They installed a 5 to 7 thousand computer shifter which was not legal at the time. When called on it they made enough noise to get the club to allow the system and reword the rule.So much for an inexpensive class.

I don't think the CRB and BOD followed the proper path. They should have banned these systems and then the competitors that wanted them should have had to ask for a rule change the proper way putting it out for member input before changing the rule.Instead it was you can't un-ring a bell. If this would have been something in a class like FF that required a cylinder head that was stock with a certain casting number and someone were to cast a cylinder head with better port shape with the right casting numbers and started selling them as a stock .Then sells 10 or 15 for five or six thousand do you think when the competitors that bought them were called on it that the CRB would say you can't un-ring a bell and allow it?

2.We had in the rules to implement a restrictor plate if the engine power started to creep up.When the club tried to implement them because the newer engines had more power the same competitors threw a fit saying they didn't want to be restricted,they wanted to go faster and said they wouldn't have entered the class if it was going to be restricted.They made a lot of noise again and got the restrictor plate implementation stopped.

3.We had a second attempt to implement restrictor plates that was fought by the same group .

The last time the CRB tried to implement the restrictor plates I posted on this forum that this was the y in the road.We could embrace the restrictor plates to go in the direction we originally proposed or we could continue towards more speed with the result being combined with FA.The result was for no restrictions .

At every one of the points we lost car count. Now its hard to believe the people that fought the restrictor are complaining when the FA goal post is finally in site.

Personally I don't think anyone should feel sorry for FB .because we had a number of chances to go the other direction.

Thomas you should quit complaining as you were one of the most adamant for the move towards FA
.
When 9.1.1.g is stricken from the GCR F1000 will cease to exist . If NAF1000 wants to run with SCCA the only way will be as a FA at Majors or as FS at regionals. I don't they will be able to get a split start without the other FA's being with them.

If we could go back to the beginning I'm sure we would have had manual shifting only and would have required a flat plate restrictor of about 40mm in the original proposal to start the class.

[John Nesbitt]

...

When 9.1.1.g is stricken from the GCR F1000 will cease to exist . If NAF1000 wants to run with SCCA the only way will be as a FA at Majors or as FS at regionals. I don't they will be able to get a split start without the other FA's being with them.

...

FWIW, there is a third path, not exclusive to the other two: Create an Optional Regional Class for FB, and run Regionals.

[reidhazelton]

I was involved in the group that worked on the original rules that were presented to apply for the class. The original proposal was for a low cost high performance class.

After being accepted the class was growing fairly good with good number of conversions and Stohr selling a lot of cars.

In my opinion the class was growing faster than I thought it would but then a few things happened that altered the classes path.

1. Along came some competitors that weren't coordinated enough to read a tach and move a lever forward or back at the right time to complete a proper shift. But they had plenty of money to alleviate the issue.They installed a 5 to 7 thousand computer shifter which was not legal at the time. When called on it they made enough noise to get the club to allow the system and reword the rule.So much for an inexpensive class.

I don't think the CRB and BOD followed the proper path. They should have banned these systems and then the competitors that wanted them should have had to ask for a rule change the proper way putting it out for member input before changing the rule.Instead it was you can't un-ring a bell. If this would have been something in a class like FF that required a cylinder head that was stock with a certain casting number and someone were to cast a cylinder head with better port shape with the right casting numbers and started selling them as a stock .Then sells 10 or 15 for five or six thousand do you think when the competitors that bought them were called on it that the CRB would say you can't un-ring a bell and allow it?

2.We had in the rules to implement a restrictor plate if the engine power started to creep up.When the club tried to implement them because the newer engines had more power the same competitors threw a fit saying they didn't want to be restricted,they wanted to go faster and said they wouldn't have entered the class if it was going to be restricted.They made a lot of noise again and got the restrictor plate implementation stopped.

3.We had a second attempt to implement restrictor plates that was fought by the same group .

The last time the CRB tried to implement the restrictor plates I posted on this forum that this was the y in the road.We could embrace the restrictor plates to go in the direction we originally proposed or we could continue towards more speed with the result being combined with FA.The result was for no restrictions .

At every one of the points we lost car count. Now its hard to believe the people that fought the restrictor are complaining when the FA goal post is finally in site.

Personally I don't think anyone should feel sorry for FB .because we had a number of chances to go the other direction.

Thomas you should quit complaining as you were one of the most adamant for the move towards FA
.
When 9.1.1.g is stricken from the GCR F1000 will cease to exist . If NAF1000 wants to run with SCCA the only way will be as a FA at Majors or as FS at regionals. I don't they will be able to get a split start without the other FA's being with them.

If we could go back to the beginning I'm sure we would have had manual shifting only and would have required a flat plate restrictor of about 40mm in the original proposal to start the class.

This guy.

[jchracer]

This guy.

Not this guy.

While I don’t agree that manual shifters and restricted engines are the correct medicine for the symptom, I don’t think that was the main issue. IMO, what turned competitors away from FB was the ham-handed way these rule changes were implemented. If the rule change options were debated publicly with full stakeholder involvement, clear intent and sufficient time for compliance (6 months minimum), I don’t think we would be where we are today. Having rule changes show up in fast track weeks before the start of the season and then quickly reversing the change (twice) is no way to run a racing organization. Competitors like stability in the rules so that they can plan a proper racing program.

At least we got a years notice of this change.....Yey!

[Daryl DeArman]

IMO, what turned competitors away from FB was the ham-handed way these rule changes were implemented. If the rule change options were debated publicly with full stakeholder involvement, clear intent and sufficient time for compliance (6 months minimum), I don’t think we would be where we are today. Having rule changes show up in fast track weeks before the start of the season and then quickly reversing the change (twice) is no way to run a racing organization. Competitors like stability in the rules so that they can plan a proper racing program.

Rule changes cost money, even if their intent is to save money.

I had been down the MC-powered race car path before. I still believe that a 5-year moratorium on new engines would have been a difference maker. More open rules to allow them to work. 5 year freeze so there's not a motor of the year every year. Allow performance creep along with technology and have a decent supply of engines available.

2008 engine newest until 2013 season.
2013 engines newest until 2018 season.
2018 engines newest until 2023 season.
etc.

[Stan Clayton]

I'm not on the CRB or FSRAC any more, so obviously can't speak for the Club, but a decade's service on those bodies tells me that the only way you stand ANY chance of reversing this tentative decision is to make a MUCH stronger participation showing in 2019 than has been the class' history in recent years, and even then a reprieve is far from certain. Anything short of that is just bench racing, so get out there and enter Majors.

With the benefit of hindsight I would also petition for the following rule changes effective 1/1/2020 if FB can remain separate from FA:

1. Max bodywork width behind the front wheels reduced to 95cm. The primary reason FBs are as fast in the corners as FAs is their undertray widths allow them to generate FA-levels of downforce. Get rid of that and you slow them down in the corners.

2. Eliminate the 1" 'manufacturing tolerance' for the bottoms. I saw several FBs at the recent Runoffs with fully sculpted undertrays that fully exploited the rules. This too will reduce downforce and slow them in the corners.

3. Get rid of all shifter assistance in favor of purely mechanical systems.

4. Use the 35mm restrictors from P2 to trim some of the top off the RPM range.

Presto, you've moved back from the FA crown and closer to FC. Here are the three best laps from the three classes in the Sonoma races:

FA
1:29.924
1:30.087
1:30.450

FB
1:31.189
1:31.525
1:31.818

FC
1:34.053
1:34.891
1:34.943

FB is only a second or so off the FA pace, but it's 3 seconds ahead of the FC guys, so you could slow another second and be perfectly spaced between them.

Just bench racing...

[RussMcB]

I'm probably just showing my age, but I've always thought shifting was a big part of the skill and enjoyment of our racing.

[jchracer]

I'm probably just showing my age, but I've always thought shifting was a big part of the skill and enjoyment of our racing.

Have you driven these things? 1st and second gear accel is so much faster than a conventional open wheel car. Plus it's pretty easy to over rev on down shift and engine go boom. I think it actually saves money in blown engines for those of marginal talent.....me included.

[billwald]

Hope you all can appeal, get together, and keep the class alive. They are amazing cars, many great drivers, friends, and builders. Good luck.

[RobLav]

I had a homemade mechanical shifter with tubes, rods, and rodends. It worked wonderful. Never shifted down to first at all, even at 55 MPH corners. 1st gear would result in wheelspin anyway. And that was back in 2009 with a 2006 Yamaha R1.

IMHO, the bodywork width (floor) rule is the primary cause for the high downforce, as Stan says. That's a lot of square inches! The only reason we made it that wide was to allow one of the potential F1000 cars in (I forget which one - one of the Brit cars). Remember, we were trying to include as many potential cars as possible. 48" wide max width floors is a reasonable compromise. Stan's 95cm width might work, but it'll probably take a lot of cost and effort to get the already built cars down to that. Additional foam in that heat exchanger area would also benefit via safety.

Anyway, it's all kind of hindsight now. Does that "Y" in the road (FA or stay as slower FB) really still exist? One heckuva compromise among an awful lot people to go back to the roots of FB!

[John Mosteller]

Stan those times are from the race which had a couple of full course yellows . If you look at the qualifying results the fastest FB was a couple tenths faster than the fastest FA in two out of the three qualifying sessions.

The P2 restrictors size in the latest GCR are 36.5 which would still cut the top rpm .

The floor width and deviation would be very costly to change. Especially the ones with radiators/side pods out at the 150mm area.

If we could go back to the original proposal we should have stuck with 95cm but at the time there were motorcycle powered cars 150cm wide and we settled on 150cm to include those cars.

The only reason we allowed air shifters and not manual only was there was someone who wanted to run a Pingle air shifter they had on a motorcycle powered car. That was a dumb system that had 12 volt positive to one side of the shift solenoid with a button to ground the other side.Instant shift with no throttle blip or any time delay etc.

I think the real problem with our proposal was we were not rules writers. There was a lot of discussion on some of these items but a lot of how these things ended up was from trying make everyone happy. We didn't want to chase anyone with interest away.

In hindsight several of these things backfired .

[Jnovak]

Not this guy.

While I don’t agree that manual shifters and restricted engines are the correct medicine for the symptom, I don’t think that was the main issue. IMO, what turned competitors away from FB was the ham-handed way these rule changes were implemented. If the rule change options were debated publicly with full stakeholder involvement, clear intent and sufficient time for compliance (6 months minimum), I don’t think we would be where we are today. Having rule changes show up in fast track weeks before the start of the season and then quickly reversing the change (twice) is no way to run a racing organization. Competitors like stability in the rules so that they can plan a proper racing program.

At least we got a years notice of this change.....Yey!

i completely agree Joel. The F1000 ad hoc committee only did the research and made the recommendations. The CRB are 100% responsible for the date fiascos! Plus they would not allow us (the committee) to publish or share the dyno data. With the FB community, if the data had been made available then i think that the FB community would have seen that this solution was a very viable engineering bssed and very low cost solution that works.

Btw the P2 restrictors are not true flat plate restrictors but are essentially faired in flat plates thar are essentially a true venturiis with a venturii shaped inlet and exit.

[RobLav]

Interesting that I agree more with Stan and Jay than I used to! I too blame the CRB. We were inexperienced at rule-writing... intent and wording did not have complete consistency. When issues popped up, the CRB should have referred questions to us for clarification, but they seemed to operate in an arrogant vacuum. Either that or it was all under the umbrella of black helicopter conspiracies.

[LenFC11]

Rob..

when you guys where writing rules and knew your intent and inexperience why didn't you all seek help from someone experienced in writing rules?

Can't blame CRB for enforcement of the rules you wrote

[David Ferguson]

I always thought that it would be a good idea to produce a "Justification" document alongside any new rules. This justification would explain the reasoning behind the wording of the rules, and spell out what was trying to be accomplished (ie, intent).

In the future, when the rules are revisited due to new technology, unforseen developments, or competitor requests -- due consideration would be given to the arguments in the justification document. The tribal knowledge wouldn't be lost with "thank you for your service on the ad hoc committee"

[RobLav]

Len,
We had assistance from FSRAC. That fact (inexperience) is also one of those Rumsfield things about knowns and unknowns. Hindsight visibility is so much more acute.

Oh, and I forgot the other piece. At the time, we were drafting rules for a Regional Class only. CRB/BOD decided to go straight to National Class. If we had known that, we probably would've been more careful. And I completely agree with Mr. Veracity himself in the above post about justification.

Sure, I can blame my myself, and those of us in the ad hoc committee. And I do take partial responsibility. But this rulemaking process just isn't right.

[Mike B]

I always thought that it would be a good idea to produce a "Justification" document alongside any new rules. This justification would explain the reasoning behind the wording of the rules, and spell out what was trying to be accomplished (ie, intent).

In the future, when the rules are revisited due to new technology, unforseen developments, or competitor requests -- due consideration would be given to the arguments in the justification document. The tribal knowledge wouldn't be lost with "thank you for your service on the ad hoc committee"

We did draft an introduction that outlined the class philosophy but I see now that it wasn't detailed enough to serve as a stand alone document to guide any future rule changes or clarifications.

Rob..

when you guys where writing rules and knew your intent and inexperience why didn't you all seek help from someone experienced in writing rules?

While we did have guidance from certain FSRAC members, I take the blame for not being explicit enough in what we wrote, and for not understanding the available technology to foresee the future. In our defense, we did use language that was similar to what was in the GCR at the time. Of course, we all know that language is also poorly written in many instances.

Can't blame CRB for enforcement of the rules you wrote

Absolutely true. On the other hand, there were some rules that were "tweaked" by the CRB after we submitted them. Nothing that directly affects this conversation, though.

[Jnovak]

Rob..

when you guys where writing rules and knew your intent and inexperience why didn't you all seek help from someone experienced in writing rules?

Can't blame CRB for enforcement of the rules you wrote

Len you slightly misunderstand the process. The F1000 ad hoc committees actually only make reccomendations for the wording then the FSRAC make further recommendations that they think appropriate and FINALLY THE CRB then make any changes they think appropriate and finalize the written rule. In this particularr case it appears that there were alternative interpretations of the written rules that were used in the ruling by the appeals court.

This is the reality of how rules are written. The CRB makes the actual final decision of what the rules state and i think the system is, in general, very effective. The reality is that sometimes it does not work as intended. Imo this was one of those times.

[LenFC11]

From reading any rules I know I am not one who can write rules. There are many here who have experience in doing this.

I fully understand hard to know what technology is around the corner but we all know something is coming.. especially if you follow the motorcycle industry you know they move fast. If you don't follow the industry maybe would have been good idea to get someone on board who does

Agree a rules justification document could be useful in cases like this. Maybe including a document like this should be a rule..

[Mike B]

I fully understand hard to know what technology is around the corner but we all know something is coming.. especially if you follow the motorcycle industry you know they move fast. If you don't follow the industry maybe would have been good idea to get someone on board who does

Like George Dean?