FV Track width change approval

[Amon]

Before everyone gets out of sorts on this, this is is nothing new to FV. we have been fighting rules clarifications for 50+ years.

Lets assume there were no disc brakes.

The track rule was written in 2006 to allow the 4.5" wheels.

The goal was to keep the 4" wheels at 51.4 (no spacers) and allow the 4.5 to run up to 52.5

The prime directive is - if it does not say you can do it, then you cannot do it.

So if people are bending the turkey legs, putting extra spacers in the link pins or on the spring packs, offsetting the offset bushings * or whatever else in order to get the 4" wheels out to 52.5", then they are violating the prime directive and shame on us if we did not correct it sooner.

*this is all speculation on my part, I have no idea what people are doing, other than I was told some people are....

If Michael's system, whatever the cost, met the rules - technically AND in spirit - we have no complaints with him.

What he and his dad seem to be claiming - is that people are or can push the rule in one instance to take advantage of a poorly written rule in another.

This will happen every year until FV is buried in the ground as it is human nature to take advantage of rules to their benefit. And it is the responsibility of us who run under these rules, do decide if the fight is worth fighting.

The question is: Is the wheel rule properly written? If not change it. If it is, then what other ramifications might it have on any other component(s)?

ChrisZ

Chris,

So to answer your last sentence or two: Who is going to make that decision? A board that is comprised of several members already owning or having developed the narrow-track kits? The wide-track kits were made AFTER a ruling was made, not before and because the wide -track Manufacturers waited instead of rushing a kit to market in order to capture that specific market, they're now being told that they have to give up their investment in tooling & manufacturing costs. What about the drivers who bought the wide - track kits, they'd be illegal and now worthless after a considerable expense was made, so how is that fair? Does that really sound fair to punish those who waited on the decision and produced a product that is considered LEGAL at the time of MFG?

The OP said they can make narrow and wide-track kits, so do so and let's move on as the horse is out of the barn.

Mark

[FVRacer21]

Chris,

So to answer your last sentence or two: Who is going to make that decision? A board that is compromised of several members already owning or having developed the narrow-track kits? The wide-track kits were made AFTER a ruling was made, not before and because the wide -track Manufacturers waited instead of rushing a kit to market in order to capture that specific market, they're now being told that they have to give up their investment in tooling & manufacturing costs. What about the drivers who bought the wide - track kits, they'd be illegal and now worthless after a considerable expense was made, so how is that fair? Does that really sound fair to punish those who waited on the decision and produced a product that is considered LEGAL at the time of MFG?

The OP said they can make narrow and wide-track kits, so do so and let's move on as the horse is out of the barn.

Mark

Mark,

"The wide-track kits were made AFTER a ruling was made, not before and because the wide -track Manufacturers waited instead of rushing a kit to market in order to capture that specific market, they're now being told that they have to give up their investment in tooling & manufacturing costs."

Okay - please tell me who made this ruling - names and phone numbers please.

Don't know what your history is with FV but you can ask all the people who had to send their carbs back to Noble because he modified them according to how HE read the rules and the majority said no, or all the manifolds that went back after the last round of rules changes, or all the Lasers and others that had to have their body work changed after they lost a ruling (do you know why we have a "air has to turn 90 degrees" rule?). And I am sure this list is not complete.

If the Comp Board made a ruling without consulting the class members than shame on them.
If our Ad Hoc committee made a decision without consulting us then shame on them.
If someone manufactured a part based on a loophole then shame on them.

The fact that most of us are just hearing about this now, shows something is wrong with how the decision was made. The spec tire rule was debated for over 20 years. You might not realize this but the disc brake was debated for almost as long. Two days into this I am still trying to figure out what happened so I am only speaking about what is in this thread.

ChrisZ

[Amon]

Mark,

"The wide-track kits were made AFTER a ruling was made, not before and because the wide -track Manufacturers waited instead of rushing a kit to market in order to capture that specific market, they're now being told that they have to give up their investment in tooling & manufacturing costs."

Okay - please tell me who made this ruling - names and phone numbers please.

Don't know what your history is with FV but you can ask all the people who had to send their carbs back to Noble because he modified them according to how HE read the rules and the majority said no, or all the manifolds that went back after the last round of rules changes, or all the Lasers and others that had to have their body work changed after they lost a ruling (do you know why we have a "air has to turn 90 degrees" rule?). And I am sure this list is not complete.

If the Comp Board made a ruling without consulting the class members than shame on them.
If our Ad Hoc committee made a decision without consulting us then shame on them.
If someone manufactured a part based on a loophole then shame on them.

The fact that most of us are just hearing about this now, shows something is wrong with how the decision was made. The spec tire rule was debated for over 20 years. You might not realize this but the disc brake was debated for almost as long. Two days into this I am still trying to figure out what happened so I am only speaking about what is in this thread.

ChrisZ

Chris,

I agree with the majority of your most recent post, especially your second and third paragraph. The fact remains that you can't punish drivers who ordered the wide-track kits by declaring them illegal after they've made the expensive purchase and those purchases were made at a time when they were and are still considered LEGAL. The focus should be placed on those who made the rule (s) and not those who purchased legal brake kits as that's unfair and unwarranted.

Mark

[Steve Davis]

....
If our Ad Hoc committee made a decision without consulting us then shame on them.
....

ChrisZ

Just to be clear .. the original FV Ad Hoc Committee put special effort into COMMUNICATING with the FV drivers about things we were discussing and often asked for input on those items. But that Committee was REPLACED by an OFFICIAL SCCA FV Committee - members determined by Topeka. Since it's inception, there has been almost ZERO communication with the FV Drivers. The new committee has been acting on its own and has not, to the best of my knowledge, ASKED ANYONE FOR INPUT on any subject they might be considering. We don't even know what they are talking about until it shows up as a 'new rule' in the CRB Minutes with ZERO input from the 'community'.

[Hardingfv32]

Since it's inception, there has been almost ZERO communication with the FV Drivers.

There is a reason for this. They are generally restricted from communicating with competitors by the CRB. Have to get permission from the CRB before saying anything. We all know the CRB is not great on communication.

Steve, what details do you remember about the 4.5" approval process? The old Committee might of had an input.

Brian

[FVRacer21]

Just to be clear .. the original FV Ad Hoc Committee put special effort into COMMUNICATING with the FV drivers about things we were discussing and often asked for input on those items. But that Committee was REPLACED by an OFFICIAL SCCA FV Committee - members determined by Topeka. Since it's inception, there has been almost ZERO communication with the FV Drivers. The new committee has been acting on its own and has not, to the best of my knowledge, ASKED ANYONE FOR INPUT on any subject they might be considering. We don't even know what they are talking about until it shows up as a 'new rule' in the CRB Minutes with ZERO input from the 'community'.

Steve,

As upset as I am about the procedure, I am not ready to throw anyone under the bus without facts.

"Since it's inception, there has been almost ZERO communication with the FV Drivers." That is different from my experience, as you can see on the FV Forum and in discussions and meetings with the people I know on the committee. No process is perfect, but using something like Kaizen, or continual improvement should be our goal.

If my use of the words "shame on them" was taken the wrong way then I profoundly apologize. I was reacting to other statements that did fit your last sentence and having been an SCCA member for over 40 years, I thought we had moved passed that - hence the anger. But I realize it has happened before and it will happen again. **

The problem with social media is that while you want to take the time to figure things out, you do not want to see wrong information get a toehold.

I am sorry if my emotions got ahead of the facts - 35 of those years have been with FV and all of us have put more in than we have taken out. That is the beauty of FV.

And for those who are not aware, thank you for all you do and have done with the original committee, the Forum and Registry.

ChrisZ

** You should never respond when you are having a bad day at work

[Steve Davis]

There is a reason for this. They are generally restricted from communicating with competitors by the CRB. Have to get permission from the CRB before saying anything. We all know the CRB is not great on communication.

Steve, what details do you remember about the 4.5" approval process? The old Committee might of had an input.

Brian

Brian,
I could be wrong, but my memory has NO RECOLLECTION of significant discussions about the 4.5 wheels beyond .. "Gee 4" wheels are getting hard to come by and NEW ones are basically impossible". The smallest thing available new at the time was Dune Buggy or Street Rod 4.5 wheels ... I also have NO mention of wheel width discussions in any of the HUNDREDS of emails that I have archived from years past. Perhaps Bruce Livermore (who always seems to have better email organization as well as MEMORY than the rest of us) might remember for sure. I know it 'came up', but I think we just rubber stamped it as "we HAVE to allow this and it's not an advantage" just so people can get NEW WHEELS. It was obvious that the track requirement would have to be increased to allow them .. based on the centerline of the tires with equal backset based on the STOCK later model 4.5 wheels available (used) at that time. NO THOUGHT was directed towards "equalization" of track width between 4 and 4.5 wheels. 4.5 wheels were considered an 'ever so slight' DISadvantage. Personally, IMHO, all this talk about the ADVANTAGE of the additional 0.5 track width is a waste of good internet bandwidth.

I might mention that I also SEVERELY DISAGREE with the SCCA restriction on Committee communication with the membership. I do agree that it IS (must be?) in place since it's followed so well, but it's totally AGAINST the whole 'Transparent Process' that is so needed for a MEMBER DRIVEN CLUB such as SCCA.

[Bruce Livermore]

Steve,

My recollection is essentially the same as yours: We got some fairly frantic input from the major FV suppliers of the time that NEW (aftermarket) 4” wide VW wheels were no longer available and that the 4.5” (also aftermarket) VW wheels were our only option as a source of NEW wheels. I don’t think we did much research on the subject ourselves and trusted the suppliers. The exact track increase was expected to be a bit more than ½” so I think we chose to round it up to a ¾” increase from the then upper limit of 51.7” bringing it to the 52.5”. We added the same ¾” to the upper limit for rear track. The changes show up between the 2006 and 2007 GCR’s. Of course within about a year, NEW 4” wheels were again available but there was no effort made to go back on allowing the 4.5” wheels and the track changes made to accommodate them. No one seemed to think that the extra track was in issue worth bothering with...

Some snap shots from history, from what I have in my library.

1965 GCR - Front Track: Standard VW – 51.4” Rear Track: Standard VW – 50.7”

1980 GCR - Front Track: Standard VW – 51.4” Rear Track: 49.8” +1/8” -5/8”
(I don’t know why the rear was changed, but it’s interesting that it was reduced.)

1994 FCS - Front Track: Standard VW = 51.4” – 51.7” (No Spacers)
Rear Track: 49 13/16” +1/8” -5/8”

2006 GCR – Front Track: Standard VW – Maximum 51.7” (No Spacers)
Rear Track: 49 13/16” +1/8” -5/8”

2007 GCR – Front Track: Standard VW – Maximum 52.5” (No Spacers)
Rear Track: 49 13/16” +7/8” -5/8”

2009 GCR – Front Track: Standard VW – maximum 52.5” (no spacers allowed)
Rear Track: 49.125” minimum, 50.750 maximum (no spacers allowed)

The 2009 changes were part of the overall rewrite of the rules the original ad Hoc committee undertook in 2008. Why we left in the "Standard VW" verbiage for the front track is a mystery to me except that there was a LOT of other stuff on our plate.

The spacer issue, the increased 51.7” front track and changes to the rear track happened before my time participating in FV (1994 – 2016) so I have no clue as to the reasoning. It's all very interesting and also a bit confusing…

Bruce

(My ears must have been burning or something )

[jpetillo]

This posting is mine and I’m not speaking for the FV Advisory Committee or SCCA.

I’ve read this thread carefully through twice and the arguments and points are valid on both sides. About the process, I can tell you that the FV committee and the FSRAC spent considerable time fact-finding and researching the rules and GCR changes on this topic, and there was much discussion between these committees before this issue was presented to the CRB. There are also discussions between committees with members outside the committees to best understand the situation. I know for a fact that this happened with this topic. This process is typical for almost every topic that comes up.

The committees were aware of pretty much every issue mentioned in this thread, and were also aware of positive and negative aspects of each before presented to the CRB. Although the FV Ad Hoc committee has no visibility into the Committees above us, we do know that this letter received a lot careful attention.

Steve D, Brian H, and Chris Z, thanks for your comments on the process and communications. Although we do have restrictions on what we can post, especially compared with the previous FV Ad Hoc Committee, the current FV Ad Hoc Committee has posted public notices at times, and we also now forward notices to Steve Davis for public dissemination through the FV Registry. If you are not registered with the FV Registry, please do so. That being said, we will try to be more informative to the community in the future.

Also, please don’t hesitate to reach out to the FV committee members. We’d be happy to talk.

Hi Bruce!

Thanks, John

[problemchild]

Not significant in the discussion, but some historical context ..... perhaps suggesting why the front track was increased more than the rear. Our FV representative on the CRB was selling offset linkpin bushings which were allowing more camber and potentially increasing track slightly. Quietly adding some extra front track to the rules while dealing with other matters would have removed any issues.