Future of FB Poll

[Zcurves]

I get your point, but I think you missed mine. I don’t care that the cars in the bottom of the possible range are near FB weights. As a competitor, I care about risks and worst case scenarios. If there is potential for me to be competing against a car with 50% more weight, then I’m against it. The risk is there if there’s one 1450# car, three 1350# cars, and six 1100# cars. When SCCA procures sponsors that can roll out another car when mine gets totaled, I’ll be more open to it.

What is your affiliation with FB? Are you a class competitor, interested bystander, or support business? It would give a better perspective on your responses. Your profile remains anonymous.

[Thomas Copeland]

Someone has told me that they spoke to 2 members of the BOD and they did not realize they were voting to eliminate FB as a class, only that they thought they were voting to allow FB to run as a FA if desired. Apparently the wording was a little vague. If true, then we need to keep writing in our letters to the BOD to stop this.

The NAF1000 schedule has been held up while we work out the what, where, and when we are racing. It would be nice to receive word from the BOD as soon as possible to know if they will reverse this decision. They do have a meeting in mid-January I think. Because if they don't, then we (NAF1000) can just dispense with running in the Majors this year as there will be no point in doing that anymore, and put together a multi-year deal to go race elsewhere instead. We do have options. If I race, I'll race wherever the NAF1000 does, whether it's SCCA, or as it's becoming more and more apparent with each day, somewhere else.

There are safety issues to be considered in making F1000 faster to match the speed of a FA.. Issues which I'm not willing to compromise on. Going faster to compete head-to-head with a heavier FA car is just not an option. Would you drive a tube frame FC or FF at over 190mph at a place like Daytona? How about 170mph at VIR? Just think of the aftermath of an accident like that. At those speeds, in a tube frame car.

I will not be converting my car into a suicide special. I'll probably leave the car in the garage and just run test days if that's all that's left for us to do. In a way, I guess that now explains why I've seen so many cars at pre-SCCA weekend test days over the years pack up and leave and not stay around to race. Always wondered. Now I think I know. I guess they just finally got fed up too.




For those obsessing over shifter systems here is my unbiased take on them. True, I once was was involved in selling Geartronics, but I'm no longer on speaking terms with "you know who", so I don't care anymore. I have nothing to sell here.

I've been lucky in that I've had the opportunity to drive 5 different shifter systems. Clunky old H-pattern shifter (FF, F2000, F3, etc), Sequential (FE), Flatshifter (FB - three different variations including 2 paddle), Pro-Shift, and Geartronics (FB). I've driven every one of these types of cars with these shifter systems installed. I can't remember if the FE had a flatshifter or just a simple sequential box.

For me, I find there is no real competitive advantage to using one of these shifter systems over the other. Well, except maybe those old H-pattern ones. But we don't use them in FB anyway.

The only real advantage to using the Geartronics over the Pro-Shift or the Flatshifter from my experience is the downshift denial feature in the Geartronics program that prevents you from over-revving the motor and blowing it up. That's it. I've heard there was one corner at Road America where using the Geartronics helped in the downshifting, but did it provide a competitive advantage? I don't know. Doubtful it did. It makes shifting easier, but so does a properly installed flatshifter with paddles, and anything is better than what you have in FF and FC. I never want to go back to snatching gears on an H-pattern shifter or changing worn clutch gaskets and gears again.

If I'm putting the Geartronics in my F1000, which I'm actually thinking of doing, it's strictly to save the motor. Not to gain a competitive advantage. I also like keeping both my hands on the wheel. It's safer. When I have to reach down in the middle of a hard turning corner to change gears I don't like that. It's not as safe as keeping both hands on the wheel.

The Geartronics also has issues. It's finicky, has to be programmed, breaks down a lot, and when it does break down tech support is mostly either non-existent or a long time in coming (this is told to me from others, if I put it in my car I don't expect to get any tech support). That can leave you stranded on a race weekend. Which is why if I put it in my car I will leave the flatshifter intact in the car as a backup.

I'm not exactly sure what people mean by assisted shifting. Is flatshifter with paddles assisted shifting? Is the flatshifter system itself assisted shifting? Or is it just electronic systems? Either way you still have to manually shift. The car's not doing it for you. So there's really is no assisted shifting going on here. Why the obsession over having us reach down and snatch gears? It's less safe. I thought people on here were always on about making racing safer. Now you're just contradicting yourself s. I guess it's whatever argument suits your needs.



.

[DanW]

Tom and others,

I have absolutely no dog in this hunt other enjoy than watching you all race and the workmanship of building these cars.

The meeting in Mid January is the National Convention in Las Vegas.

https://www.scca.com/events/1992768-...nal-convention

[rcrmike]

We already run most places including the Runoffs with FA so there is no change in safety .

Forgive me John, I do not know you because I am on the East coast. There is absolutely a serious safety issue that many may not be aware of. Any half competent driver can "share" the track with combined race groups. However, sharing and competing are two different animals. A 1450 pound FA, which are most of the current entrants in my area, racing for position and points against a 1000 pound FB will absolutely turn ugly and dangerous. That's over a 40% difference of mass plus an increase in speed. F=M x A. The FB will usually be damaged with the added risk of unnecessary injury.

Case in point. We have ONE FA entrant that has been threatened within an inch of his life to NEVER come back because of his lack of safety judgment. He thought it fun to race FBs because FAs are the faster class. He himself wasn't faster while he was being lapped by FBs. He caused 2 Red Mist DNFs of FBs in one weekend. Red mist, and we weren't even competing. He wisely took the warning and has thankfully never returned to Majors. Competition WILL more-so cause this safety issue to reoccur when one is at a lesser risk.

We have experienced several innocent "that's racing" FA-FB collisions over the years. The FAs were easily repairable while the FBs were considerably destroyed. Everyone in the paddock was thanking God that no one died at the freak turn of events at Atlanta a couple years ago. Some drivers suffered minor injuries. If someone has a link to the video, this may be an appropriate place to review it as a safety refresher. There is already much discussion on another thread. No need to rehash the blow-by-blow thread.

[John Mosteller]

original post by S Lathrop

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.

Originally Posted by 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?
.

original post by S Lathrop

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.

I am sure a FBs suspension isn't as strong as a FAs so will surely get more damage .But I happen to agree with a couple of Steve Lathrops quotes above as far as the safety of the car itself. There are probably unsafe FBs being ran. I know how my car is designed and built and I would not hesitate to race a 1450lb Atlantic. It doesn't appear that Steve feels any different about his Citation FB. So we'll just have to agree to disagree .

[rcrmike]

The "safety issue" with tube frame cars is the same as with composite cars.

A few may have missed the entire point. This is NOT a tube frame v composite concern. Both structures are fine. It's about the difference in mass during an impact. The two are not equal. Similar to a prize fight match between bantam weight v a heavyweight. Which fighter will always get seriously hurt? The heavyweight has little hesitation entering the ring, his risk is small. One punch is all the heavyweight will require to place the bantam on a stretcher. That's why most sports have different divisions. Safety comes first. Fair competition is a secondary concern.

Sharing the track is relatively low risk. Racing for position and points creates an unintended unsafe situation. The lighter car's driver will always be at higher personal risk. I do not wish for any of our racing family to get hurt. Cars can be replaced. I want my friends to be around to compete next week. It's never OK for any of us to get hurt.

[petawawarace]

A few may have missed the entire point. This is NOT a tube frame v composite concern. Both structures are fine. It's about the difference in mass during an impact. The two are not equal. Similar to a prize fight match between bantam weight v a heavyweight. Which fighter will always get seriously hurt? The heavyweight has little hesitation entering the ring, his risk is small. One punch is all the heavyweight will require to place the bantam on a stretcher. That's why most sports have different divisions. Safety comes first. Fair competition is a secondary concern.

Sharing the track is relatively low risk. Racing for position and points creates an unintended unsafe situation. The lighter car's driver will always be at higher personal risk. I do not wish for any of our racing family to get hurt. Cars can be replaced. I want my friends to be around to compete next week. It's never OK for any of us to get hurt.

Your trying to make a very complex situation (a crash between the different cars) simple and it doesn't work that way.

First off, your using the wrong formula. What your interested in is actually the kinetic energy. That formula is K.E. = 1/2 mv2.
m=Mass, v=Velocity.


Secondly your trying to compare 2 different cars impacting the same car (FB) at the same speed. This is extremely unlikely. No 2 crashes are exactly the same. IF the FB was hit broadside, perfectly square, tight up against a wall, then yes, the car with more weight would do more damage. In reality, the impacts are very rarely "square". They are almost always "glancing" blows. Add the fact that the car getting hit is usually still moving and not completely stopped.
A small increase in speed, and the FB will have the same or more KE than the FA.

There are many series around the world that race with similar or often greater differences in mass and they don't seem to be an issue. Perhaps focusing on other issues with the class would be more constructive.

[JEREMY HILL]

I competed in the Can-Am series in a 1146 lb U2L car where I regularly beat most of the 5 and 6 litre 1631 lb cars. Unfortunately I was punted off on a few occasions, one of which wrote off my car and caused me permanent and painful neck issues. I have not minded sharing the track with FA's but I am not interested in racing them. Open ecu's and free intakes will not make an FB competitive with an FA. FB would need built and or bigger motors, bigger tires, bigger brakes, stronger suspension and stronger chassis. The cost of competing in FA would be much higher than the majority of us currently spend. If the SCCA rewords the rules to make sure there is no use of ecus and intakes from different years (as I have asked them to in a letter to the CRB) I will be running Majors and the run-offs this year. I would encourage my fellow FB owners to do the same as well as write letters to the CRB asking that the consolidation with FA be delayed to give us a chance to bolster our numbers. The only way we can save FB is to get them out of the garage and enter them in Majors this year.

Your unofficial Father of FB, JEREMY HILL

[lowside67]

I may well be misunderstanding how this process works, but doesn't this mean that the "decision" is already made?

The below items were approved by the Board of Directors in their December2018telecon.

FB1. #25823 (January 2019 Fastrack - Formula/Sports Racing Committee)
DiscontinueF1000 as an Independent U.S. Majors Class
Effective 1/1/2020, remove GCR section 9.1.1.G in its entirety in connection withincorporation of F1000 cars into the FA class.

Car must complywith currentFormula 1000 (FB)Preparation Rules,except that throttlebodies and ECUs areunrestricted

https://www.scca.com/downloads/43453...roval/download

-Mark

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I may well be misunderstanding how this process works, but doesn't this mean that the "decision" is already made?

Yes, but if Thomas' post is accurate:

Someone has told me that they spoke to 2 members of the BOD and they did not realize they were voting to eliminate FB as a class, only that they thought they were voting to allow FB to run as a FA if desired. Apparently the wording was a little vague. If true, then we need to keep writing in our letters to the BOD to stop this.

They obviously have further things to discuss as those 2 board members are probably NOT happy.

As he said - keep writing...

[lowside67]

That seems awfully hard to believe - the proposal is 2 lines long, and one is "eliminate the existing FB section" and the second part is "add FB to FA with the following changes..."

Color me skeptical that this is still "open for discussion".

-Mark

[Thomas Copeland]

Since I consider this important I will share with everyone the contents of the email I received from my Area BOD rep:

Thanks, for your letter. You make some very good points. As I'm sure you are aware, there are FA and FB competitors scattered among the FSRAC and CRB. While we (BoD) feel that the thought processes were worked out before the decision was made, we are currently reviewing the subject with the FSRAC and CRB. There will be discussions with all three groups at the convention in several weeks.

I'm looking forward to a transparent and comprehensive statement on the situation shortly thereafter.



This is in addition to the information I received earlier about the 2 other BOD members.

In my letter couple of weeks ago to my BOD rep I wrote extensively about the safety issues, speed and the differences in the cars and their construction. nearly two pages worth. I am seriously concerned that somebody is going to get seriously injured or worst. This isn't a game. We are talking about peoples lives here.

If this rule stays intact chances are from what I've heard most of us in F1000 that have an option will be looking elsewhere to run our cars. That's not because we are being stubborn or taking an "up yours" attitude toward things. We really want to stay racing in SCCA. But we also see the glaring safety issues here even if the CRB doesn't. And while racing itself carrys some risk and all of us understand that, and this is a completely unacceptable and totally unnecessary risk. This idea of having FB and FA compete head-to-head is just not safe. Period.

I can understand their rationale for why they would want to do this. But they did not think this all the way through. They couldn't possibly have.

PS- I would certainly like to know what FB competitors he's talking about. I don't know any that would be for this.

[Thomas Copeland]

Okay, now that I wrote that above, I don't honestly think they are going to change their minds. This plot goes too far back. I think they might slow down FA.

[John Mosteller]

I might possibly be one .I requested a one off reclassification for my FB into FA with an engine off of the P2 engine table a while back but have only been told that my request will be in the next fastrack.So I don't know if I will receive approval or not.

[Thomas Copeland]

This idea of racing F1000 and real FA's head-to-head is absolutely insane.

[zdr01]

When FB first started we built a total of 7 FC to FB conversuons for FB .at that time Glenn Cooper won the first pro series Championship as well a the June Sprints with one of these conversions. That said, not a single one of those cars is still racing in FB. Now admitedly these cars have all seen better days but it is still important to remember that these cars are all gone from FB racing.

Imo this is simply because the rules have changed very significantly in the time since they were built. I bet that those 7 cars would still be racing in FB without the MANY rules changes that dramatically increased the cost to compete. High tech is cool and fun untill it kills a class.

Now this is simply my opinion and thus carries no more weight than anyone elses comments

...I think I have the first or one of the first conversions you made. I own the ex-Tyler Thielman 99 VD car and plan to run FB this season. I guess if the class goes off and dies Ill be putting a Prototype body on it and go out as a P1/P2 car. Either way it should be fun and still competitive at my skill level. -Zac

[JakeL]

Question...

P1 already has spec lines varying from 1000# to 1475#, in tube-frame WF-1's vs composite tub DP02, 016 conversions, and Normas. Why is that exact same range OK for them and not for FA/FB?

Or is the implication simply that P1 has accepted the risk and moved on? CSR/DSR raced together for years, I guess I never thought about it.

-Jake

[Stan Clayton]

Question...

P1 already has spec lines varying from 1000# to 1475#, in tube-frame WF-1's vs composite tub DP02, 016 conversions, and Normas. Why is that exact same range OK for them and not for FA/FB?

Or is the implication simply that P1 has accepted the risk and moved on? CSR/DSR raced together for years, I guess I never thought about it.

-Jake

I'll just come right out and say what lots of folks are probably thinking: the whole FA vs FB safety issue is a red herring to stall or divert the BoD & CRB from going through with their plan. Case in point: Thomas Copeland's comment this morning that "This idea of racing F1000 and real FA's head-to-head is absolutely insane." That's odd, Thomas, because a couple of weeks ago in the other thread you wrote "In a way this might actually be good for us that own F1000 cars. Means we will probably be at the runoffs for years to come. That's good." So what is it...insanely dangerous or all-in-all a pretty good deal for a class on the verge of winking out of existence?

More to the point, FBs have been racing with and fighting for corners with FAs since 2007. That's a dozen years with literally hundreds and hundreds of races, and literally thousands upon thousands of corner-to-corner FA-FB interactions. And except for some incidental contact, and banding together to run off that one guy who's an inconsiderate and dangerous lout, until a few days ago no one thought much of the issue.

As Jake is trying to gently tell you guys, this is not a winning argument. Let it go.

[Thomas Copeland]

Stan, I've had a re-think about it since I wrote that. True to me it's just a letter on the side of a car. A, B, Whatever. Means nothing,

But we can not speed up F1000 any more that we are already going. It's just too dangerous. FA will have to be reduced down (way way down) to F1000 speeds to make this even close to working.

Currently F1000 can not compete and win against a competitively driven FA so why bother? This crap I've read from one BOD member in response letter I saw (we are sharing the letters we receive back) about FB already having the performance envelope of FA is just that, a bunch horses$it. Those FA's at the runoffs were not driven to their full potential.

But even after they slow down FA, F1000 will always lose out when there is contact between it and FA. That's a given. There's no point in arguing it because everybody knows this. Look at the accidents that have already occurred between the two classes. Do I really have to drag all those videos up to prove my point? This isn't theory, and it isn't some damn experiment.

This question is how can we make FA and F1000 race head-to-head and make the racing safe. The CRB has given us no answers for that. They just threw us off the deep end. They are endangering our lives unnecessarily. And until they give answers, because I have none right now, they shouldn't be doing this.

Nothing when it comes to safety should ever be considered a red herring.

[lowside67]

It might be worth trying to have a consolidated discussion with the FA guys. From occasionally hopping over to that forum, it seems like the biggest issue keeping people from driving those cars is the frequency and cost of rebuilding the motors since they are so high strung. Perhaps the answer is a smaller restrictor and a significantly lower rev limit for the FA motors which would kill two birds with one stone - slow them down so they play with PFM, FB nicer and also encourage FA owners to come out and run more since the life expectancy of the motors would go up?

-Mark

[SEComposites]

This might be a stupid question, but why not have the Formula Atlantic class split into class A and class B. Then you don’t have to do any performance adjustments.

[RobLav]

FAA and FAB?
Sounds like something out of the Federal government.

[lowside67]

This might be a stupid question, but why not have the Formula Atlantic class split into class A and class B. Then you don’t have to do any performance adjustments.

Because then you are back to dividing a small number of cars into even smaller classes. The whole reason we are in this situation is because there were not enough FB guys to make its own class - no reason to think "FA-B" would be any different...

-Mark

[Mike B]

Because then you are back to dividing a small number of cars into even smaller classes.

So what? Then it becomes a self-solving problem without meddling by the CRB. In a 20 car field there could be 20 classes and it would have zero impact on the club or the schedule of that event. Of course, most real competitors would get bored if they were the only car in their class and will go somewhere else or change classes (the self-solving part). More likely, competitors will band together and create a series or some other incentive to grow the numbers of their class within that run group. Again, no impact to the club or weekend schedule. In fact it might result in more revenue for the club, the opposite of the likely outcome of the current proposal.

There is a simple solution to this. The CRB writes a single sentence rule: "At all Nationals, Majors, Super Tour, and Runoffs, FA shall be grouped with FB."

This is already what happens at most events and it allows both classes to continue on their merry way. It doesn't require schedule changes and preserves the current revenue for the SCCA. It also avoids the headache that the CRB has created for itself of trying to equalize performance of two very disparate classes (although I don't think that is on their agenda, nor their goal with this change).

This is a form of what Ben is proposing sans the need to buy new decals...
What am I missing?

[crowe motorsports]

1) I will say the Board has been responsive.
2) Car count is the mandate.
3) I have not analyzed the car count methodology to make an opinion if it is reasonable.

Mr. Crowe,
Thank you for sharing your opinion on the recent changes to the Formula B class. As members of the Board of Directors its our job to review changes proposed by the Club Racing Board and approve those we find appropriate. We rely on the expertise that sits on the Club Racing Board and its committees to research and discuss these changes and conclude they are the best steps going forward before they are presented to the BOD.

As the BoD liaisons to the CRB we asked that they put together a letter to explain the reasoning behind their proposal. It may not change your opinion, but we feel it's a good explanation of why the club is going in this direction.
Thanks again, Marcus Meredith, Peter Jankovskis, Bob Dowie

From the CRB...
The BoD, CRB, and FSRAC appreciate the concerns you have expressed regarding the merger of FB into FA. As we all know, the participation figures for FB have steadily declined over the past several seasons, and in 2018 FB had only 39 entries over 34 Majors weekends, with just 7 cars appearing at the Runoffs. Participation in FA has been better than FB in Majors events, but FA’s Majors numbers have been supplemented by the entry of uncompetitive, non-FA cars from pro series such as F4 and Pro Formula Mazda, and, as with FB, only 7 cars appeared in FA at the 2018 Runoffs. As a result, both classes were in jeopardy of losing their Runoffs invitation.


Based upon the running two-year minimum entry requirement, FB would be required to average 6.4 entries per Majors weekend in 2019 to earn an invitation for 2020. Historically, only the top classes have attained this kind of participation; FB’s numbers have never approached this level at any time in its history. At the time of this writing there are just two FB entries at the Homestead Majors and only one FB entry at the Sebring Majors/Super Tour. With these events being among the better attended Majors, this does not bode well for the future. At the conclusion of the Sebring event, one-third of the Southeast Conference schedule will be complete. In short, it is simply not reasonable to expect that FB cars will appear in sufficient numbers in 2019 to save the class.


The action of merging FB into FA is expected to create one healthy class from two unhealthy classes, which is not only for the good of the participants in FB and FA, but also for the SCCA as a whole. If this action is not taken FB will most certainly lose its Runoffs invitation and, as such, would be expected to ultimately lose its Majors status completely.


The loosening of the restrictions on the intake and ECU is not expected to result in significant performance improvements in FB cars, but it is anticipated that these changes will permit additional motorcycle engines to be used, since the “stock” ECUs (which have proven incompatible with car installations) will no longer be required. Although FB cars are not expected to have significant performance improvements, they have already proven that they can perform within the FA envelope, and FA performance is currently in the process of being trimmed back. The BoD, CRB, and FSRAC believe these changes will provide an excellent platform for a healthy, competitive FA class going forward.

[bill gillespie]

Ok, the last paragraph got my attention in this food fight......how is FA performances being trimmed back ? ...news to me, and many others.....and yes, I do have a dog in this fight .
regards,
Bill

[J Leonard]

How about sending 016's back home to Champ Car and all others back to 1600cc ?

[bill gillespie]

How about sending 016's back home to Champ Car and all others back to 1600cc ?

I think the Mazda Rode to Indy rules out the former O16 home, but who knows about next year with Mazda bailing out !

[Thomas Copeland]

Nobody wins here. FB loses. FA loses. SCCA loses.

I don't understand the logic in scaling back classes. I just don't. It doesn't make one damn bit of difference if there is 1 class or 500 classes. We all run in the same mixed class run group for crying out loud.

We run in the same mixed class run group at the Majors and we run in the same mixed class run group at the Runoffs. What difference does it make if we are FA or FB? Who cares? We run together whatever the letter they put on the side of the car anyway.

What are they gaining here? Where's the value add? I don't see anybody gaining a damn thing here. All I see is lose-lose-lose.

The only thing the SCCA is really saving on here is podium ceremonies and trophies. Who cares about a $5 trophy?

All this demonstrates is the complete fallacy of this car count criteria. It was an incredibly dumb idea when they came out with it, and it's still an incredibly dumb idea now.


Somebody please explain to me what are they actually gaining by doing this? Less classes? Why is that so important? It's same number of cars. I don't get it.

[reidhazelton]

Somebody please explain to me what are they actually gaining by doing this? Less classes? Why is that so important? It's same number of cars. I don't get it.

Around 2012, I think, SCCA sent out a survey and one of the large take-a-ways was that competitors wanted larger fields. Adding more classes only dilutes the concentration of cars per class. However, the flipside of that does not seem to be working either. Class consolidation doesn't seem to fold cars into other classes, but forces them out, i.e. S2000. In an effort to avoid tossing people out, they renamed Nationals to Majors and attempted to draw more cars from a larger geographic area. That increased cost, and time significantly. If you live in Denver, your first Majors is at NOLA. That's what 18 hours one way? This only pushed out more racers as people with 2 weeks vacation can't burn all of that just driving to events. There was significant pushback during the CSR/DSR/S2000/SRF merger and competitors voiced a desire to go back to the 2.5 rule for getting the class quantity down, in an attempt to create larger fields. Now we have the new entry minimum.

It is pretty clear class consolidation, as it is done now, is not working. One issue I see is a lack of credible data to use to achieve parity. When you only have a handful of cars, it's hard to get a sense of the true performance potential of the cars.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It seems the 'run what ya brung' events like ChumpCar and NASA is doing well comparatively. Maybe the defined rule sets is a thing of the past?

[Stan Clayton]

Somebody please explain to me what are they actually gaining by doing this? Less classes? Why is that so important? It's same number of cars. I don't get it.

You're overlooking that the ONLY reason we have National Classes is to determine eligibility to compete at the Runoffs. The Club actually tracks 70+ classes, not counting Vintage, some of which are recognized only by one or a few Regions (e.g., Shelby Can-Am). The GCR has an additional handful of Regional-Only permanent entries in the book; ASR, FS and the IT classes come to mind, but they are never eligible for the Runoffs. The Club keeps them in the GCR to ensure there is a class for practically ANY car to race, at least at the Regional level.

Regions are still free to retain FB as a regional class, and no doubt some will, but FB has declined to the point where the CRB and BoD consider it nonviable as a national class, and since it is a good match for FA, have decided to merge it into that class. This process of culling and merging National Classes has gone on for 70 years. If I recall correctly, Formula Junior was the first national formula class to get the axe. FA used to have 5-liter V-8 engines. FB is just the latest.

But it all comes back to the Runoffs, where classes want their own races and there are only so many hours in the day. It has nothing to do with a cheap plastic trophy and massed race groups.

[Thomas Copeland]

Stan, I don't think having our own race at the Runoffs is as important to us as keeping our class together. You might get one or two dissenters but the majority will want to keep FB intact. So I'm not sure your argument holds too much water.

Who is SCCA appealing to with this anyway? Themselves or the competitors? Because I don't think many would like having their class consolidated in deferrance to running their own run group race.

[Daryl DeArman]

I don't understand the logic in scaling back classes. I just don't. It doesn't make one damn bit of difference if there is 1 class or 500 classes. We all run in the same mixed class run group for crying out loud.

The more cars and the closer the lap times, the more fun/intense the racing is for most folks.

The "logic" is that fewer classes with the same number of entrants results in better racing/better value for more folks.

The issue, in my mind, is what happens when SCCA discovers that more folks are attached to their cars/class than the club?

You either love the SCCA experience and you chose a car & class to race with them, or you love your car & class and you choose a place to race it. Close to 30 classes and less than 4 cars per class per event is trying to please everybody, and you end up pleasing almost nobody in the end.

[Daryl DeArman]

I don't think many would like having their class consolidated in deferrance to running their own run group race.

Given the two options, I'd guess you are likely correct.

[petawawarace]

It seems the 'run what ya brung' events like ChumpCar and NASA is doing well comparatively. Maybe the defined rule sets is a thing of the past?

Were running a Formula Libre series up here. It’s a run what you brung type class. We have Radicals, Stohrs, Formula fords, Formula Renault’s, Legends etc all running together. For the most part you have someone to race with. Sometimes it’s a Good Formula Mazda driver battling with a newer Formula Renault driver etc. We are all amateurs and we’re all having fun. There’s no pressure to have a special $15k rebuilt motor, or new tires. We can use cast-off cars for cheap. A lot of us run used F4 tires.

To be fair, as amateurs very few of us are driving the cars to their potential. The driver plays a much bigger difference than anything else.

[Jnovak]

I have been thinking about this quite a bit.

I think the club should give FB the chance to make numbers this year as originally stated. If they make the numbers target thats great if not they merge with FA for the 2020 season.

I think they will wind up with the FA merge in any case, but it will be much more fair to everyone involved.

The way it has been presented by the CRB/BOD so far looks like a manipulation of the situation.

Just one members opinion

[SteveG]

...
You either love the SCCA experience and you chose a car & class to race with them, or you love your car & class and you choose a place to race it.
...

This.

[RussMcB]

I have been thinking about this quite a bit.

I think the club should give FB the chance to make numbers this year as originally stated. If they make the numbers target thats great ... <snip>

According to post #105, that seems just about impossible.

[sprocketmensch]

Here is my letter to the CRB. I encourage you to write them so they know the range of opinions.

Letter ID Number: #26214 Title: Do not merge FB into FA, pleaseClass: FBRequest: Board members,
I respectfully request that you do not merge FB into FA. As an active FB driver, and NE Conference FB champion for 2018, I do not believe this will further the health of either class. FB's low Majors numbers in 2018 were primarily driven by our decision to run NAF1000 races at SCCA regionals to try to get more time and our own race groups. While only partially successful, it seems to have run afoul of your decision to count only Majors participation. This year we will be running our races at Majors so this won't be an issue. Although it seems like you have already cast the dye for us, I would ask that this be reconsidered.

I moved from FM to FB when it was clear that FM numbers were never going to come back in the northeast. FB allows me to run a modern racecar with an inexpensive engine in a class where spending more money is not an indicator of speed or ability to be at the front.

We already run with FA in all races - Majors, regionals, etc and even at last years runoffs. Having run with them for years now, it is clear to me that we cannot compete with a well prepped Swift 016 nor would I want to. The additional mass of that car, even if slowed down to FB speeds, makes it incompatible as a direct competitor as I know I would be the loser if we both went for the same corner and were to come together.

The suggestion to allow built engines and larger engines in FB will only mean a dollars race for the engine of the week - exactly what I wanted to avoid by entering this class. Currently the Kawis and Suzukis are virtually on par. The only engine which had an advantage was JR Osbornes runoffs engine which was disallowed. I do not want to have to spend two to three times the cost on built engines and an engine race which will only get worse each year. Let the class stay competitive within itself and lets come up with measured rules which will allow newer 1000cc engines to enter the class with restrictions which keep the older engines competitive. I support an open ECU and perhaps a rev limiter and/or weight adjustment for newer engines.

FB is one of the few formula classes which is adding new cars every year. Currently JDR, Firman, Griip, Philly Motorsports, and Stohr are making new cars for the class. Phoenix, Astra, Citation etc will also produce cars on demand. FA has not had a new purpose built car for over 10 years. Keeping FB as its own class will promote more cars coming out on track. The only loss may be not enough cars for a runoffs class. I am willing to accept this if it will mean better competition all year long at Majors, regionals, and super tour events.

Many of us cannot make the time or spend the money to do the runoffs. I live in NY and I hope to this year as its at VIR but likely will never make one where the drive is over 1000 miles. Yet I actively compete at events all over the east coast and some in the midwest and south. I do not want those compromised for the sake of a runoffs class at a single event.

Last year FA and FB ran together at the runoffs. I don't see why this re-classing FB as FA would make this any better, add any cars, or help competition. It will only guarantee that most FB's won't even try for the runoffs knowing how futile and dangerous it would be. It will also cause FB drivers to have to choose if they want to run an independent series or stay in SCCA with a different rule set- not a choice I'd like to have.

While it may be reasonable to re-look at the FB ruleset for engines to ensure the continued health of the class, I urge you to do this by polling the active FB drivers and constructors, and not act without that measured input. Please do not act in haste and destroy one of the truly exciting and growing classes within open wheel.

In conclusion, I ask that the board stay its decision to merge FB into FA until data from the 2019 season can be seen and input from FB drivers and constructors can be heard.

Yours,
Doug Hertz

[John Mosteller]

In conclusion, I ask that the board stay its decision to merge FB into FA until data from the 2019 season can be seen and input from FB drivers and constructors can be heard.

FB is not being removed as a Runoffs class before the 2019 results are known .

FB
1. #25823 (Formula/Sports Racing Committee) Discontinue F1000 as an Independent U.S. Majors Class
Effective 1/1/2020, remove GCR section 9.1.1.G in its entirety in connection with incorporation of F1000 cars
into the FA class.

We are basically on probation this year and will removed as a Major class next year. Every Major class has to meet the same participation rule.

We are not at this time anywhere close to being able to make the numbers and do not deserve to be a Major class on our own if we don't make the numbers by the end of the year .The CRB/BOD could have made us a Regional only class in 2020 if we don't make the numbers . They aren't doing that as they are combining us with FA at that time so those of us that want to run Majors will still have a way to do so. If we end up combined with FA and you run a Major there is no rule that says you have to challenge a 016 for position .If you are afraid of them and you see one coming up in your mirrors wave him by and give him plenty of room . I'm with Stan on the safety issue being a red herring .If your car is so flimsy that running into or being ran into by a FA is that unsafe then it is way to unsafe to even be on track.What will happen if you lose control and hit one of the many 4000 pound jersey barriers at tracks nowadays .That will make a FA seem like a minor speed bump.Either your car is safe for competition or it isn't .If you have a car that is deemed to be safe for competition then safety beyond that is determined by the actions that you take .If you decide to go wheel to wheel with a 016 then you have determined it is within your safety margin .If its not nobody is forcing you to do it.

What did we expect to happen when in 26 out of 34 Majors last year there was no FB race. 15 with 0 FB entries and 11 others with only 1 FB running around with no one to race against .If the NAF1000 would have ran Majors at the tracks they went to last year instead of Regionals there would still have been 12 Majors with 0 FB entries and an additional 10 with only 1 entry . So either way there was no FB race at over two thirds of last years Major events .If we could have ran as a FA last year we would have at least had someone to race against in 32 out of 34 Majors .I would like to have someone to actually race against so I welcome the move to allow us to race as a FA this year in Majors with the early addition to the FA list.