Future of FB Poll

[reidhazelton]

More for arguments sake...what route would you like to see FB go?

[Garey Guzman]

I'm not voting because I don't have an FB/F1K but I'm following because I've always loved them and had hoped to get one later, when my boys were older. They look great and sound BEAUTIFUL!

[Zcurves]

This would be more accurate if it were limited to competitors in the class. It’s hard to believe there are 6 active competitors that support this bull$hit. After calling every competitor that I can get to answer, no one supports this. I have to question the motive and/or sobriety of anyone who thinks otherwise.

I also think the poll is too limited as well. Until we know what problem SCCA is trying to solve, it's difficult to make an informed choice.

[Daryl DeArman]

Until we know what problem SCCA is trying to solve, it's difficult to make an informed choice.

Reduce number of classes and bolster numbers in FA so that FA is not on the chopping block. . . ever.

[S Lathrop]

I have been involved in 2 major rules re-writes for the 2 biggest formula car classes today and when the rules re-writes took place.

For Formula Ford, Doug Reid (who was the Technical Director for SCCA at the time) convened a meeting in Denver for the express purpose of fixing the rules. Most of the players were in the room. Some recognizable names were David Bruns, David Baldwin, John Chrossle, Ralf Firman, Paul White, Adrian Reynard, The meeting also included the CRB. Over the better part of 2 days the rules that have largely governed FF since, and also F2000 some years later, were hashed out. About the same time, a group of "stake holders" in FV did the same thing for that class but we did not assemble instead we spent several months passing rules proposals around between the people involved.

Merging F1000 into FA can be viewed as a wake up call for the stake holders in the class to get their collective acts together and determine what they really want the class to be. What is certain is that the class has been in a slow decline for many years. Merging with FA maybe just buying a bit of time in that decline or it may be a real turning point for the class. As an example, F2000 started in SCCA racing as a subclass (spec line) in the old FC. FC at the time was made up of European F3, FSV, both water and air cooled engines and maybe some other lost classes ( like Formula SAAB). But F2000 had a place on the stage at the major races including the runoffs. Right now F1000 is the low cost alternative to all the current cars in FA and it is possibly the only car that anyone can afford to buy new.

I think that being competitive in FA is right at the limit of what can be done with formula. Maybe what would be better is to step the performance back to something that is right between FC and FA, a true FB class. And at the same time take a serious look at the engine rules. The most popular engine, Suzuki has a grim future. The Kawasaki might be a bit dodgy on the rules but rules are them selves not all that good. Maybe going forward the class should work toward a single engine or at least have a single engine that is competitive, cost effective and there is a good supply. In any event, there needs to be some serious work on the engine front or the class will just continue on the current trajectory. Along with the engines, maybe a look at drivers" aids is called for.

In any case, the current discussion appears a bit short on workable solutions and long on venting a lot of well founded frustrations.

[provamo]

been thinking of doing a FC conversion............so i voted

[reidhazelton]

This would be more accurate if it were limited to competitors in the class. It’s hard to believe there are 6 active competitors that support this bull$hit. After calling every competitor that I can get to answer, no one supports this. I have to question the motive and/or sobriety of anyone who thinks otherwise.

I also think the poll is too limited as well. Until we know what problem SCCA is trying to solve, it's difficult to make an informed choice.

Hi Tim,
You're free to start your own. This was to get the ball rolling and foster discussion among stakeholders and prospective stakeholders.

The problem is too many classes with too few entries in those classes.

[problemchild]

This would be more accurate if it were limited to competitors in the class. It’s hard to believe there are 6 active competitors that support this bull$hit. After calling every competitor that I can get to answer, no one supports this. I have to question the motive and/or sobriety of anyone who thinks otherwise.

I also think the poll is too limited as well. Until we know what problem SCCA is trying to solve, it's difficult to make an informed choice.

The poll is a way for the haters to hate (in anonymity) and those who contributed to this direction to ease their consciences by creating supportive documentation. Because the options are so limited, the only choice for an active FB racer would be the status quo (#1), so as you point out, the FB racers are clearly not participating in the poll. Who would blame them?

It is amusing (if you're not directly affected), that in the hypocrisy of SCCA politics, many of the same people that say posting on Apexspeed is a waste of time ..... "write a letter" ..... are the ones most involved in continuing with polls and commentary. It certainly does not seem to be the FB community.

[reidhazelton]

The poll is a way for the haters to hate (in anonymity) and those who contributed to this direction to ease their consciences by creating supportive documentation. Because the options are so limited, the only choice for an active FB racer would be the status quo (#1), so as you point out, the FB racers are clearly not participating in the poll. Who would blame them?

It is amusing (if you're not directly affected), that in the hypocrisy of SCCA politics, many of the same people that say posting on Apexspeed is a waste of time ..... "write a letter" ..... are the ones most involved in continuing with polls and commentary. It certainly does not seem to be the FB community.

As hard as this might be for some, holding two thoughts at the same time is possible. Posting on apex is not a waste of time in my book as it can foster a 2-way, open discussion. At this time it does not have bearing on SCCA decisions, so for the sake of being the tool of change it is a waste of time from that standard. What is the current medium for change, as poor as it may be, is writing letters. It's not hypocrisy, it's just the way it is at the moment.

I fail to see why active FB stakeholders are limited to option 1. You claim anonymity in the poll as a fault, yet say " FB racers are clearly not participating in the poll". How can you possibly know, other than assuming you know what they are all thinking?

As Steve, said, this is long on conspiracy theory, criticism, and complaining, but very short on solutions.

It seems we all know the problem, so where does the majority of stakeholders want to go from here? It does not much matter at this point how the class got here, but what matters is where it goes from here on. The poll is not a decision, just a way to begin a discussion. Let's allow the stakeholders a platform to have that discussion as we did with the FF spec tire.

[Daryl DeArman]

The poll is a way for the haters to hate (in anonymity)

Couldn't, or shouldn't the poll be edited to show who voted and how? Even though an informal poll, why would a non FA/FB participant, or non-prospective FA/FB participant vote?

Other forums that I'm active on do not allow results to be viewed until the prospective viewer has voted. After they've voted they see the results as well as who voted how. Don't know if this forum software allows that feature or not.

[reidhazelton]

Couldn't, or shouldn't the poll be edited to show who voted and how? Even though an informal poll, why would a non FA/FB participant, or non-prospective FA/FB participant vote?

Other forums that I'm active on do not allow results to be viewed until the prospective viewer has voted. After they've voted they see the results as well as who voted how. Don't know if this forum software allows that feature or not.

Hi Daryl, yes, the forum allows that feature, but I felt it was better to be anonymous so people could place votes without fear of criticism. Just my feel at the time in the 30 seconds I took to make a poll, right or wrong, just as I saw it at the time. Agree or not, that is not the point. It's not a binding poll, just a start of a discussion. What is important is the future of the class, and the investments of the racers, not the semantics of a poll. If a FB racer wants a different poll, go right ahead and make one to create a place to hash this out.

Again, as a non-stakeholder, this was something to get the ball rolling.

Please, someone else (a stakeholder) take the reigns and facilitate the conversation.

[problemchild]

Couldn't, or shouldn't the poll be edited to show who voted and how? Even though an informal poll, why would a non FA/FB participant, or non-prospective FA/FB participant vote?

Other forums that I'm active on do not allow results to be viewed until the prospective viewer has voted. After they've voted they see the results as well as who voted how. Don't know if this forum software allows that feature or not.

I am one of the 2 votes for number one. I am not a stake-holder, but I don't expect stake-holders to participate ... so why not. It was easier than following these threads and debating with haters and those trying to ease their conscience. Those directly affected are bitter and angry, and busy planning their F1000 activities or looking for other organizations to race with. They are in no mood for SCCA BS from a bunch of arrogant experts that managed the club and their class to this point. Having been on the receiving end of similar treatment from the same group of people, I know exactly how they feel. While they may maintain their SCCA membership and license, their relationship with SCCA will never be repaired. They have been truly disenfranchised. It appears this trend is just beginning. Who is next?

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I voted "#3 - Change".

Do nothing and Merge are actually the same thing. Do nothing IS what has been going on and has scheduled the class to merge with FA.

Change MIGHT add cars to the class, reduce costs, etc.

I've seen several posts indicating that the poster does not care about Majors or Runoffs - but want a national class. Odd but okay. What is a national class if not a Majors class?

Why not:
- Agree to the merge and run in the FA group.
- Write your own F1000 rules (via NAF1000 or other means) that you all agree on. If you use the current more restrictive (than FA) rules, you can maintain the class - and possibly split it back out if the class grows.
- Have your own awards and championships.

But:
- The runoffs disagreement over written v. spirit of the rule basically proved that you guys probably can't comply with "gentlemen agreements" and drivers will go full FA for that edge. Just can't help yourselves.
- You can't even agree on the disadvantage of paddle shifting (a divisive topic).
- If you go full FA you will NEVER split the class back out of FA.

[Jnovak]

Merging F1000 into FA can be viewed as a wake up call for the stake holders in the class to get their collective acts together and determine what they really want the class to be. What is certain is that the class has been in a slow decline for many years. Merging with FA maybe just buying a bit of time in that decline or it may be a real turning point for the class. As an example, F2000 started in SCCA racing as a subclass (spec line) in the old FC. FC at the time was made up of European F3, FSV, both water and air cooled engines and maybe some other lost classes ( like Formula SAAB). But F2000 had a place on the stage at the major races including the runoffs. Right now F1000 is the low cost alternative to all the current cars in FA and it is possibly the only car that anyone can afford to buy new.

I think that being competitive in FA is right at the limit of what can be done with formula. Maybe what would be better is to step the performance back to something that is right between FC and FA, a true FB class. And at the same time take a serious look at the engine rules. The most popular engine, Suzuki has a grim future. The Kawasaki might be a bit dodgy on the rules but rules are them selves not all that good. Maybe going forward the class should work toward a single engine or at least have a single engine that is competitive, cost effective and there is a good supply. In any event, there needs to be some serious work on the engine front or the class will just continue on the current trajectory. Along with the engines, maybe a look at drivers" aids is called for.

In any case, the current discussion appears a bit short on workable solutions and long on venting a lot of well founded frustrations.

i think the above statement are correct.

Imo the CRB needs to rescind the decision to merge FB with FA and then revisit the rules for FB to bring the class back to its original concept of a low cost motorcycle powered OW class!

[RussMcB]

been thinking of doing a FC conversion............so i voted

Well, there's at least one little bit of encouraging news.

[petawawarace]

As an outsider looking in, who’s looked at building one, Ive noticed a few things with the FB rules. I’ve been around other forms of motorsports and seen similar issues.

1. I love the “openness” of the rules in FB. They allow guys to build and innovate their own creations. Unfortunately the reality is that this type of formula eventually drives the costs up through the roof. The first couple cars are pretty mild, but as guys build new ones, things creep. This can apply to engines, drive lines, bodywork etc.

2. The illusion of needing high cost parts can be just as damaging as actually needing them. Even though many of us know that you don’t need the Geartronics system or the newest “hybrid” motor, it often discourages the guys that don’t have them. Usually the guys at the front end of the grid are the ones that spend the most time testing, have the setup knowledge, are the best drivers etc, when they have all the newest equipment it gives the illusion that everyone needs that equipment.

3. This class, like many others are not PRO classes. The guys racing are doing it for FUN. Constantly needing to upgrade the cars (actually needed or not) wears a lot of people out. They just stop showing up because they are tired of it. What keeps us amateurs coming back time after time is the fun. A lot of us can have that fun racing for 10th. I think the biggest thing is that we are racing against someone, not just lapping by ourselves.

4. Very rarely does a “community organized” class really succeed. There are always agendas. Racing on multiple levels has show that a dictator style class works best. So long as the person or group has the right approach. If they have the goal of growing the class, and truely increasing numbers, they will make the best decisions.

[Daryl DeArman]

Hi Daryl, yes, the forum allows that feature, but I felt it was better to be anonymous so people could place votes without fear of criticism.

I get that.

I also like the polls (not aware if an option on ApexSpeed) that don't show you results prior to voting. I think it keeps people thinking for themselves.

Back to the discussion that the poll was intended to stimulate. I don't think the FB stakeholders' best interest is in returning to SCCA racing should the rule change be rescinded.

As to the performance of FA vs. FB.

I'd be shocked to learn that equally driven and equally prepared cars as close as the data provided shows. FA equipment is very expensive to maintain when pushed to 100% Further the FB car with which the data points are provided wasn't torn down and confirmed to be compliant.

What's the percentage of time at 100% WOT in that FA vs. that FB according to their data? How long between .25 lateral G's and max lateral G's? Did the SCCA look at this data in addition to segment times, lap times and trap speeds?

[cjahn]

As a driver in Midwestern Council (MC) who may come back to SCCA after a break I voted....

Rules change; outlaw assisted shifting, only use stock engines, and some sort of power limiter

I dont have the budget to run with the big dogs but still have fun with an FB classified in FA at MC - bone stock on used tires, junkyard motor, no power adders, stock ECU, manual shifting (Paddle), all on a 2007 Stohr F1000. (old body style)

And to complicate matters I have kicked around ideas of a competitor motor buy program. Buy competitors motor for xxxxx $$$$$. $1500? $2k?

Cj

[John Mosteller]

In my opinion there is only two viable choices in this poll ( option 1 and option 3)

Every car in FA has either fixed engine rules or restrictors so I think you are dreaming if you think they will put us in there with rules that allow our engines to continue to gain power with everyone else being fixed. Its been known for a long time that the powers to be think we are going to fast for tube frame cars so I am pretty sure we will have restrictor plates if we're put in FA.

My guess is option 1 and option 2 lead to FA with restrictor plates so option 3 is really the only chance to remain a class.

As far as who should be able to vote. Somebody thinking of coming into the class should be as well as anyone running FA that will be impacted by the direction this class goes.

Also the way the rules have gone in this class since the Geartronics came in has been if my computer shifter is banned I'm going to sue the club.
When the club thought we were going to fast for a tube frame car and tried to implement a restrictor it was if you implement it I'm going to sue the club . The next time it was if you implement that restrictor I'm going to sue the club.Then when we didn't have the participation numbers to get invited to the 2019 runoffs it was I'm going to sue the club.Now their talking about removing us from the GCR so no more F1000 class but we don't have to worry Thomas is taking care of it.Probably going to threaten to sue the club again if they try.

It's possible someone on the CRB or BOD is tired of these threats of lawsuits and want to get rid of this problem class permanently .If so the end of the year is the perfect time because I don't think there's any chance of us making the participation requirements to be invited to the 2020 runoffs .It will take about 288 to get invited and we have 46 now which means we need to get about 240 in the 38 Majors .In order to make it we'll need over 6 in every Major in 2019. Last year 15 of the Majors had 0 , an additional 11 Majors had 1 each , 3 that had 2 . Not a pretty sight .

I'm personally tired of all the BS so I am going to ask the CRB if I can start running my F1000 in FA now instead of 2020.

[Heel-and-toe]

I'm personally tired of all the BS so I am going to ask the CRB if I can start running my F1000 in FA now instead of 2020.

A new spec line in FA permits F1000 cars with unrestricted throttle bodies and ECUs effective next week.

[sprocketmensch]

Why do some have a bug up their ass with regards shifting. Modern cars have modern shifting. Newer technology allows lots of options with Geartronics being the high end, but lots of other lower cost options. It is ridiculous to remove one of the great advantages of the class to further a myth of this being a reason why the class isn't growing.

To me the reason is clear - the SCCA has decided to add more formula classes, not less by promoting F4 and F3. These are where most new drivers would have come from. And their stupid meddling with the ruleset has promoted instability in the one class where new cars were being added.

FA and FB should not be merged. Leave shifting alone. If needed, consider some engine regs to keep things balanced but nothing more than that. If we cant field enough cars for the runoffs, so beit, we lose our runoffs spot. Lets give this another year without fiddling and assess then.

[Heel-and-toe]

To me the reason is clear - the SCCA has decided to add more formula classes, not less by promoting F4 and F3.

If the SCCA had decided to make club racing classes for pro F3 and F4 cars, I doubt they would've gone to the trouble of creating spec lines for F3 and F4 cars in FA (like F1000). F4 has had a spec line in FA since 2016. As Mr. Clayton said in the other FB thread, “F3 & F4? Hahahahahaha...*gasp*...hahaha, no.”

[sprocketmensch]

You misunderstand. I am not suggesting that they are trying to move F3 and F4 into club racing (although that will eventually happen on its own) , merely that the by running these series they have diluted the pool for those that would be running F1000 ( and other open wheel classes). Now the club side and the drivers have to deal with the fallout of these decisions. FB is being sacrificed here.

I would think a better metric for SCCA club might be how many NEW cars are being built and added to the class each year. FA has none. FB has at least 4 active builders - Firman, JDR, Griip, Philly Motorsports, as well as Phoenix, Citation, and others I am leaving out. Why blend these into another class. Let the class grow and see where it goes in a year or two. Its one of the few open wheel classes where new cars are actually being made.

[sprocketmensch]

BTW, I think the choices in the poll are absurd and obviously leading. They are not the only choices for FB and only show the bias of the poll maker.

[J Leonard]

Fourth poll choice..... None of the above?

[reidhazelton]

BTW, I think the choices in the poll are absurd and obviously leading. They are not the only choices for FB and only show the bias of the poll maker.

You're free to make your own if you feel that way and I encourage you to do so if it helps the conversation.

Again, those are simply the most obvious choices as I saw them. I had no intent to lead anyone to anything, other than starting a discussion for an outcome that hopefully represents the majority of the class.

I'd spend less time getting bent out of shape over a meaningless poll, and more effort on the direction of the class.

[reidhazelton]

Fourth poll choice..... None of the above?

Sure! What would that be?

[Daryl DeArman]

I would think a better metric for SCCA club might be how many NEW cars are being built and added to the class each year. FA has none. FB has at least 4 active builders - Firman, JDR, Griip, Philly Motorsports, as well as Phoenix, Citation, and others I am leaving out. Why blend these into another class. Let the class grow and see where it goes in a year or two. Its one of the few open wheel classes where new cars are actually being made.

They blend to save FA. FA folks and the SCCA will not allow their premier open wheel class to disappear.

[reidhazelton]

They blend to save FA. FA folks and the SCCA will not allow their premier open wheel class to disappear.

From where I saw it, that was not the case. FA has become a bit of a catch all class, as is seen in F4 and F3 cars getting dumped in as spec lines which clearly have different performance levels. F3 and F4 are not running in the FA group as F3/4, but as FA cars in the FA class. Yeah, I know...

FB's numbers, as John showed in a post in this thread, have been down for a while and declining. SCCA has too many classes, pure and simple. SCCA cannot sustain itself with classes that have zero or 1 car at an event. This didn't have as much to do with FA, as it did what to do with FB. It's all about the numbers. If FB had stronger numbers at Majors, it would not be an issue. Participation numbers at Majors, and the Runoffs are what matters. When you have 7 cars at the Runoffs, you're class is in trouble. That's the bottom line.

[sprocketmensch]

[/QUOTE]
FB's numbers, as John showed in a post in this thread, have been down for a while and declining. SCCA has too many classes, pure and simple. SCCA cannot sustain itself with classes that have zero or 1 car at an event. This didn't have as much to do with FA, as it did what to do with FB. It's all about the numbers. If FB had stronger numbers at Majors, it would not be an issue. Participation numbers at Majors, and the Runoffs are what matters. When you have 7 cars at the Runoffs, you're class is in trouble. That's the bottom line.[/QUOTE]

Reid,
Aa has been pointed out in other threads, FB's low numbers in last years Majors have everything to do with our decision to run teh NAF1000 in 2018 at regionals to get more run time and our own race groups. This year we will be at the Majors and the numbers will be quite different.

[Daryl DeArman]

SCCA has too many classes, pure and simple. SCCA cannot sustain itself with classes that have zero or 1 car at an event.

Agreed.

This didn't have as much to do with FA, as it did what to do with FB. It's all about the numbers. If FB had stronger numbers at Majors, it would not be an issue. Participation numbers at Majors, and the Runoffs are what matters. When you have 7 cars at the Runoffs, you're class is in trouble. That's the bottom line.

I agree the class participation numbers were abysmal. However, the FA counts weren't anything to write home about and certainly weren't trending positive. The cars are close-ish in performance so you consolidate them. I get it.

They didn't clip the FA cars and fold them into FB.

[reidhazelton]

They didn't clip the FA cars and fold them into FB.

FA numbers were stronger, and it's easier to coax people into speeding cars up, than getting others to slow thier's down. So, FB into FA. Nothing nefarious.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Why do some have a bug up their ass with regards shifting. Modern cars have modern shifting.

The issue is not the method of shifting, it's the added COST to compete. I thought FB was supposed to be cheap.

To me the reason is clear - the SCCA has decided to add more formula classes, not less by promoting F4 and F3. These are where most new drivers would have come from. And their stupid meddling with the ruleset has promoted instability in the one class where new cars were being added.

They aren't new classes. Just new cars on a line. What meddling? Hasn't every proposal been shot down?

You misunderstand. I am not suggesting that they are trying to move F3 and F4 into club racing (although that will eventually happen on its own) , merely that the by running these series they have diluted the pool for those that would be running F1000 ( and other open wheel classes). Now the club side and the drivers have to deal with the fallout of these decisions. FB is being sacrificed here.

okay - so it's your opinion that ALL new drivers would enter FB and nothing else?

I would think a better metric for SCCA club might be how many NEW cars are being built and added to the class each year. FA has none. FB has at least 4 active builders - Firman, JDR, Griip, Philly Motorsports, as well as Phoenix, Citation, and others I am leaving out. Why blend these into another class. Let the class grow and see where it goes in a year or two. Its one of the few open wheel classes where new cars are actually being made.

The correct metric for SCCA is participation ONLY - ALWAYS.

Splain this: If FB has 4+ active builders and are ADDING cars to the pool, where are they going? They aren't showing up on SCCA grids. Are they being parked? Are people buying these cars for artwork/displays?

BTW, I think the choices in the poll are absurd and obviously leading. They are not the only choices for FB and only show the bias of the poll maker.

What is that bias? I'm seeing people concerned about the best future possible for these cars. Your guidance of the class has lead us here and your solution is leave us alone - don't change anything. Sorry, but it WILL change. The only thing any of us can do is a little nudging here and there.

From what you've stated you are not encouraging participation in the class. You are promoting exclusivity. When shopping classes people are looking for efforts to control costs and a clear vision. How does FB really stack up?

[Stan Clayton]

Reid,
Aa has been pointed out in other threads, FB's low numbers in last years Majors have everything to do with our decision to run teh NAF1000 in 2018 at regionals to get more run time and our own race groups. This year we will be at the Majors and the numbers will be quite different.

How many entries did NAF1000 get this year?

[Heel-and-toe]

How many entries did NAF1000 get this year?

It looks like a total of 13 drivers scored points during the season, https://northamf1000.com/championship-points/, but the website seems to have no grid lists or lists of finishers that would show how many cars were present at individual races, and the race reports don't appear to say how many drivers were involved. (The points list suggests that the average number at individual races was something less than 13 cars.)

[John Mosteller]

Reid,
Aa has been pointed out in other threads, FB's low numbers in last years Majors have everything to do with our decision to run teh NAF1000 in 2018 at regionals to get more run time and our own race groups. This year we will be at the Majors and the numbers will be quite different.

We needed another 119 entries to be invited to the 2019 runoffs. So if the NAF1000 series could have given us the numbers if they ran 6 Majors instead of 6 regionals it would have required NAF1000 to have had 20 entries per weekend and I heard they were getting 5 or 6.

[LenFC11]

How many entries did NAF1000 get this year?

I was at NJMP this past year. I believe there where 5 or 6 cars

[Jnovak]

There is not really a question whether FB is in numbers trouble or not, it is and the only real issue is: can the FB numbers be dramitically improved?

My opinion is that the class is simply too costly to attract new drivers to the FB class as it is currently structured.

I do not know how many active FB drivers there are or how many new drivers are needed to make FB a viable SCCA maJors class.

Anyone out there know the answers?

[Zcurves]

Splain this: If FB has 4+ active builders and are ADDING cars to the pool, where are they going? They aren't showing up on SCCA grids.

Of course they are. Two of the new JDRs went to existing F1000 drivers (I am one of them). The third is a new Firman that raced with the series at MidO. I’m not sure what the fourth car is.

NAF1000 numbers were down in 2018, but there’s no particular reason. One driver damaged his car at Indy and didn’t get replacement parts from the manufacturer until late summer. Two series drivers retired and sold their cars, which the new owners are getting acclimated at track day events. Two drivers ran other organizations (FRP AND IMSA). Another series driver had major surgery. Two other drivers had support/budgetary issues. Two drivers in the northeast never go anywhere but their home track and didn’t make it to our race at their home track. There are at least three more cars in Florida that I don’t know the status. Coop no longer has a ride either.

The fact that the Runoffs were on the west coast probably had something to do with it. No one from the east coast went to Sonoma. Maybe some people didn’t run Majors because they knew they weren’t going to the Runoffs. That was one factor in NAF1000s decision to run regionals. Either way, I doubt anyone is staying home because they are unhappy with the rules. I’m expecting much higher participation numbers on the east coast this year, but it’ll still be a challenge.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Of course they are. Two of the new JDRs went to existing F1000 drivers (I am one of them). The third is a new Firman that raced with the series at MidO. I’m not sure what the fourth car is.

I was quoting sprockets statement of 4+ builders actively building cars - not just 4 cars.
"FB has at least 4 active builders - Firman, JDR, Griip, Philly Motorsports, as well as Phoenix, Citation, and others I am leaving out."

He's saying there are 6 active builders. Are you suggesting only 3 cars were built?
You are also implying that cars are being run not in the same series. How can that build national grids?

Why did you need a new car? And what happen to your old car?

Just trying to make sense of this.