Current future status of F1000

[greg pizzo]

How about a 12a or 13b?

Isn't that a Pro Mazda ? just open the rules to do as you please with in the FA book
that has already started in Texas and other places and THOSE cars a Very inexpensive to buy and run

Most FA cars were designed around the dainty Toyota 1600 engine although the Honda K20 has been put on a swift its a way bigger engine and a lot heavier, BUT more reliable
the 13b's are about 50lbs lighter and also shorter

the Mazda MZR all aluminum engine could be used too

[Thomas Copeland]

Jake, I re-read your proposal over maybe 12 times. Because I really wanted to visialize how this concept would look in reality. With those mods to the car you mentioned it could work. I might want to increase the overall footprint around the cockpit as well. What kind of upgrade expense we talking about here? This is where you might get pushback.

I like it, but then I don't. Seems much simpler to just detune FA down to our level. What's the value add going with your concept? The risk vs reward doesn't quite add up yet. Would we be doing this just to make this nonsense more palatable? Remember you're going to be asking this from the same people that ran a railroad spike right through us in the first place.

[Daryl DeArman]

It might be an oversight but I don't see anything in the P1 rules that prohibits forced induction. This is one of those situations that I would want to get a ruling before I bolt one in my car...

Alternatively, keep it under wraps and show up at the RunOffs with it. What rule are they going to cite in a successful protest?

[Kazis31]

Might just pour gasoline in this fire.
Honda k 20 engine seems to do fine in USF4 and USF3 series.

Bone stock,reliable and powerful.

[JakeL]

But it simply failed on it's principle of cheap engines.
You can argue that, but I suspect if you ask anyone NOT in the class they'd agree.

I'd be curious to know why that's the case? I bought two Kawi motors back in 2013 for about $4000. Aside from a freak failure that Coop had (bolt backed out of the transmission), both are still there. Hard to say how many hours are in the one in my car now, but it's a LOT.

Once we got over the DSR insanity of trying to run wet sumps, the reliability is pretty damn good.

Compared to the cost of built DSR engines, or some of the eye-watering P1 and P2 engine costs, I feel like it's a steal.

Are there classes where engine cost is lower? FF these days, maybe FE?

Adding some humor to this, most of the friends I grew up racing with have moved over the NASA. They hear me relay about the costs to run in SCCA classes and they just smile, shake their heads and say "wow, participation is going down huh? Can't imagine why..." ;-)

-Jake

[JakeL]

I like it, but then I don't. Seems much simpler to just detune FA down to our level. What's the value add going with your concept? The risk vs reward doesn't quite add up yet. Would we be doing this just to make this nonsense more palatable? Remember you're going to be asking this from the same people that ran a railroad spike right through us in the first place.

Cope, I think you're right, actually. I agree that it makes more sense to bring the Atlantics back, since there's no more of them being built. The F1000/ProFM level (although we're faster than the FM's) is a good target, IMO.

However, I think it's completely untenable from a political standpoint. If you were an FA owner, would you want to be pegged back to F1000 performance? No. You'd never race in SCCA again.

This may be a case of where at most 49% of participants are going to end up happy. Just a bummer overall, really. We'll just have to see what CRB says, decide what to do, and proceed.

Apropos to above, I personally love the idea of low-stress, stone reliable engines. It's why I liked F1000 - the stock engines are super reliable when you don't screw around with them. Same for the Pro FM rotaries, the DP02 engines, and the K20s.

-Jake

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I'd be curious to know why that's the case? I bought two Kawi motors back in 2013 for about $4000. Aside from a freak failure that Coop had (bolt backed out of the transmission), both are still there. Hard to say how many hours are in the one in my car now, but it's a LOT.

Once we got over the DSR insanity of trying to run wet sumps, the reliability is pretty damn good.

Compared to the cost of built DSR engines, or some of the eye-watering P1 and P2 engine costs, I feel like it's a steal.

Are there classes where engine cost is lower? FF these days, maybe FE?

Adding some humor to this, most of the friends I grew up racing with have moved over the NASA. They hear me relay about the costs to run in SCCA classes and they just smile, shake their heads and say "wow, participation is going down huh? Can't imagine why..." ;-)

-Jake

Well the marketing machine wasn't in touch with you back in 2014 when I looked a the class. I went to the track here in Cali and talked to people running them. I was told, yes, $2000 for that ebay motor and then send it too Moon for a $6k tuneup to be competitive.

Maybe that was wrong but I doubt I'm the only one that was swayed away. If I was the only one then there wouldn't be a participation problem.

Nasa v SCCA v Vintage = all politics. The cars are the cars and cost the same to operate no matter what club.
I have not found any club to be significantly cheaper than the next. People's opinions are usually determined by their personal conflicts with members or management.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Might just pour gasoline in this fire.
Honda k 20 engine seems to do fine in USF4 and USF3 series.

Bone stock,reliable and powerful.

Yep. Tried to buy one from HPD for an FC and they said NO. Too busy with F3/F4/FF.

I asked if it was even a possible future plan and they said no.

Go knock on their door. They're in your 'hood !

[ghickman]

As someone who has spent the last year dealing with engine issues on a budget, I have to ask:

I know there is a lot of love for FB. I like it too. It was the first class I looked at.
But it simply failed on it's principle of cheap engines.
You can argue that, but I suspect if you ask anyone NOT in the class they'd agree.

I think you are an awesome cheer leader for FB but you are wrong about the expensive engines.

I ran 4 full seasons with the same 2 engines. I ran the piss out of them. Greg told me run em up to 13,200 just don't miss shifts. Keep oil in them and don't let them get hot. I rotated the engines out once a year so come RO's time I had fresh power.

When I'd send them back to Greg Moon it would cost me $3k for a rebuild. No big deal really when I considered how fast I was going and how much fun I was having. My engine budget was way less than we I raced FF's 30 years ago. In FB my major expense was traveling and entry fees you'll have that in any class.

[Kazis31]

Yep. Tried to buy one from HPD for an FC and they said NO. Too busy with F3/F4/FF.

I asked if it was even a possible future plan and they said no.

Go knock on their door. They're in your 'hood !

HPD only sell engines to their programm members.

Formula F
USF4
USF3
Formula lites FL-15

They are great engines ,reliable ,torque and run looong time.

I don't blame Honda for focusing on their classes .

My next car will be F4 or FL purely based on K 20 or j 24 engines in it.
and carbon tub of course.
There are well maintained f4 cars with k20 engine 4 seasons old still pulling hard and with no HP loss.

[Garey Guzman]

Isn't that a Pro Mazda ? ...

I have a Swift DB4 with a 12a that I need to put back together.

[John LaRue]

Jake L and others - How many of the existing FB cars do you think would convert to built engines and modified body/tunnels? Will this further hurt the class given some will be competing with FRP under the existing FB rule set?

The issue is still under consideration - a final decision was not made at the FTF meeting.

John

[Jnovak]

Jake L and others - How many of the existing FB cars do you think would convert to built engines and modified body/tunnels? Will this further hurt the class given some will be competing with FRP under the existing FB rule set?

The issue is still under consideration - a final decision was not made at the FTF meeting.

John

FA and most of the SCCA open wheel classes are in very serious entry numbers trouble and imo this is mostly due to the costs of racing at a competitive position in these classes and the relatively low amount of track time.

The real questions are: Where are the expenses and what can be done to reduce costs and increase track time?

[Thomas Copeland]

FA and most of the SCCA open wheel classes are in very serious entry numbers trouble and imo this is mostly due to the costs of racing at a competitive position in these classes and the relatively low amount of track time.

The real questions are: Where are the expenses and what can be done to reduce costs and increase track time?

This isn't exactly true for F1000. FRP costs are more than SCCA, so it's not a cost issue, (but you do get more track time).

There are still multiple car constructors currently involved in building F1000 race cars. That means this class still has growth potential. So it's not in imminent danger of packing up any time soon. And the expense of racing in F1000 have been way over-blown, mainly by those who are not even actively involved in the class.

Many of the F1000's left the SCCA for the same reason many of the other open wheel competitors left, because of the way they were treated by the SCCA. They're sick of the politics. They just want to race without being constantly screwed with. Many would probably come back to SCCA if the SCCA acted like they actually cared about this class (or any of the other open wheel classes for that matter).

The ball's in SCCA's court. Show us you really care.

[Farrout48]

Available time on track is mostly a function of the number of run groups and amount of dead time spent between sessions.

Reducing the number of run groups depends on what classes you can combine and how many cars on track you want. Much has been written about putting all of the Formula cars into one group given the speed differences between P1/FA and FV. Combining some of the tin tops into run groups would have to be done as well. If you can reduce the run groups by 2 or 3, the time saved is significant. It is also possible to combine Qual Practice groups and then separate them for the Races.

SCCA is not very efficient in getting the next run group out on track. One way to help that for qual and practice would be to station checkered flags at both S/F and another Worker Station located before the turn in for Pit Lane or just one checker at that station before Pit Lane entry. Might only save 3-4 minutes but that time could be added to the time on track. SCCA also tends to require the track to be empty before the next group is released on track. This can be complicated or made a necessity at tracks where the cars coming back have to cross over and interfere with the new cars coming out on track. At Barber, we arranged the grid exit and entry so as to not conflict the old and new groups. If these can be deconflicted, it would be possible to let the next group out while the previous group is nearing the pit entry.

All of the above is considered heresy by many Race Officials and drivers.

The cost of track rental, race workers, sanctions, insurance, etc. tend to regulate the entry fee. There are ways to establish a bare bones event and turn a financially unsuccessful race into a successful one. We were able to do that at Barber. Deleted were the very expensive Saturday night dinner and the fantastic trophies. Other necessary items were also made as inexpensive as possible. Swapping BBQ sandwiches and a Beer Swap for the Saturday dinner saved $7K. Making our own worker lunches rather than paying the track caterer saved big $$$. Even doing the bare bones approach, the daily expense was still $30K.

One complicating factor to track time is running a enduro during the weekend. That adds a Run Group to the Qual/Practice and the Enduro can be 45 or 90 minutes. Many drivers like the enduro for the extra track time. At many weekends, the Enduro brings in the extra revenue necessary to make the event a financial success.

At Barber, the cost of a Friday test day was prohibitive. The solution was to add run groups on Saturday (lesser time on Sunday) as a Time Trial which enabled the TT drivers to attend and gave the Road Racers the extra practice time at less cost than a Friday. We actually had more Racers take advantage of the Saturday practice than would have come for a Friday Test Day. The extra TT/Practice entries reduced the Race entry fee but made the weekend a financial success. A Win/Win.

If any Region Race Directors want to talk further, I have plenty of spreadsheets showing what can be done.

[R. Pare]

If you goal to kill either class, these are great suggestions.

Why not just run the 2 car types as separate classes in the same group?

[Jnovak]

If you goal to kill either class, these are great suggestions.

Why not just run the 2 car types as separate classes in the same group?

I'm not at all sure but I suspect that the CLUB is trying to increase the number of entries per class. Thus maybe 10 or12 FA entries as opposed to 4 or 5 ATLANTICS?

[Mike B]

I'm not at all sure but I suspect that the CLUB is trying to increase the number of entries per class. Thus maybe 10 or12 FA entries as opposed to 4 or 5 ATLANTICS?

Why does it matter? The revenue for 5 FAs + 5 F1000s is the same as the revenue for 10 FAs. As it is now, the Club revenue for F1000 in 2020 will be $0.

[lowside67]

Why does it matter? The revenue for 5 FAs + 5 F1000s is the same as the revenue for 10 FAs. As it is now, the Club revenue for F1000 in 2020 will be $0.

I think the math is hoped to be more like for fields of 2-3 (which is the current reality - there were barely 5 FAs at the Runoffs let alone any other race) per class, nobody is actually getting any real competition. So if they could bring these cars together competitively, then people might think it was actually worth incurring the costs and effort to come out and race.

Admittedly I am only standing on the sidelines, but there is no way I would tow halfway across the country to race against 3-4 competitors in my class. With 9-10, it would be a much more compelling opportunity.

-Mark

[problemchild]

If you goal to kill either class, these are great suggestions.

Why not just run the 2 car types as separate classes in the same group?

I do not understand this approach by SCCA. Yes, while it is a symbolic gesture to reduce classes as some "answer" to SCCA having created too many classes, the gesture does absolutely nothing to solve any problem. The number of cars in a run group is what effects the quality of racing ..... not the number of classes in that run group. When both classes are in the same run group, introducing any parity measures will just result in competitors spending money, or refusing to spend money, either parking their cars, or racing with other promoters. Nothing proves my theory more than looking at the last 2 years of F1000.

What SCCA needs to do to "respond" to their "too many classes" issue, is let classes die off naturally, and only introduce new race cars into existing classes. I will use the FC changeover from FSV to F2000 as an example of that. While I am sure there were a handful of pi$$ed off FSV owners, we had a couple hundred FC cars racing within a decade,

If you're worried about trophies ..... instead of combining FA, FB, FC into one class and giving 1st, 2nd, 3rd, just leave them as 3 classes within the same run group, and just give the winners a trophy.

This is classic SCCA. Spend ungodly amounts of time and bother to disenfranchise racers, by trying to fix self-inflicted problems that will never be fixed. Please identify real problems, and find ways to solve these. IMO, reducing costs, and improving the on-track experience, is the answer to any and every problem.

[Jnovak]

I do not understand this approach by SCCA. Yes, while it is a symbolic gesture to reduce classes as some "answer" to SCCA having created too many classes, the gesture does absolutely nothing to solve any problem. The number of cars in a run group is what effects the quality of racing ..... not the number of classes in that run group. When both classes are in the same run group, introducing any parity measures will just result in competitors spending money, or refusing to spend money, either parking their cars, or racing with other promoters. Nothing proves my theory more than looking at the last 2 years of F1000.

What SCCA needs to do to "respond" to their "too many classes" issue, is let classes die off naturally, and only introduce new race cars into existing classes. I will use the FC changeover from FSV to F2000 as an example of that. While I am sure there were a handful of pi$$ed off FSV owners, we had a couple hundred FC cars racing within a decade,

If you're worried about trophies ..... instead of combining FA, FB, FC into one class and giving 1st, 2nd, 3rd, just leave them as 3 classes within the same run group, and just give the winners a trophy.

This is classic SCCA. Spend ungodly amounts of time and bother to disenfranchise racers, by trying to fix self-inflicted problems that will never be fixed. Please identify real problems, and find ways to solve these. IMO, reducing costs, and improving the on-track experience, is the answer to any and every problem.

A great letter Greg! You should send it to the CRB & the BOD.

[Mike B]

The number of cars in a run group is what effects the quality of racing ..... not the number of classes in that run group. When both classes are in the same run group, introducing any parity measures will just result in competitors spending money, or refusing to spend money, either parking their cars, or racing with other promoters.

If you're worried about trophies ..... instead of combining FA, FB, FC into one class and giving 1st, 2nd, 3rd, just leave them as 3 classes within the same run group, and just give the winners a trophy.

This is what I was getting at but stated more eloquently.

[Daryl DeArman]

The number of cars in a run group is what effects the quality of racing ..... not the number of classes in that run group.

I've got to disagree. I don't race people that aren't in my class and I don't appreciate the wankers in the faster class meddling with the slower class race, unless of course I have the opportunity to use one as a pic.

30 cars in the field: 27 FC's, 1 FF, 1 FV and a sole FA. It's not going out on a limb to suggest that the FF, FV and the FA probably didn't have a quality race. Half the number of entries all in one class, say 15 FF's would probably consider the quality of their race much higher.

Please identify real problems, and find ways to solve these. IMO, reducing costs, and improving the on-track experience, is the answer to any and every problem.

Absolutely agreed! The real problem is too much of the target market is finding other things and places to spend their money. The only way to convince people to spend with the SCCA is the SCCA must produce a better product for the dollar. Most people want more track time and less alphabet soup. How do you get from here to there "naturally" more quickly than you lose customers?

In my opinion, so many people do so few events a year that there is no reason to have most all of the classes at each event.

If the average racer does 3 events a year, host 6 well-subscribed events per year in your region/division with "odd" classes at events 1, 3 and 5 and "even" classes at events 2, 4, and 6. Neighboring region/division does the same but makes your odd classes their even classes and vice versa. Now somebody that wants to do 6 or 9 events a year doesn't have to travel too far to do so, and those that want to do 3 will have better quality events, and folks won't have to choose between conflicting events in neighboring regions/divisions.

[Thomas Copeland]

I do not understand this approach by SCCA. Yes, while it is a symbolic gesture to reduce classes as some "answer" to SCCA having created too many classes, the gesture does absolutely nothing to solve any problem. The number of cars in a run group is what effects the quality of racing ..... not the number of classes in that run group. When both classes are in the same run group, introducing any parity measures will just result in competitors spending money, or refusing to spend money, either parking their cars, or racing with other promoters. Nothing proves my theory more than looking at the last 2 years of F1000.

What SCCA needs to do to "respond" to their "too many classes" issue, is let classes die off naturally, and only introduce new race cars into existing classes. I will use the FC changeover from FSV to F2000 as an example of that. While I am sure there were a handful of pi$$ed off FSV owners, we had a couple hundred FC cars racing within a decade,

If you're worried about trophies ..... instead of combining FA, FB, FC into one class and giving 1st, 2nd, 3rd, just leave them as 3 classes within the same run group, and just give the winners a trophy.

This is classic SCCA. Spend ungodly amounts of time and bother to disenfranchise racers, by trying to fix self-inflicted problems that will never be fixed. Please identify real problems, and find ways to solve these. IMO, reducing costs, and improving the on-track experience, is the answer to any and every problem.

Exactly.

Several of us have stated this before. But just try and get the SCCA to see it that way. Like arguing with a rock.

[S Lathrop]

Exactly.

Several of us have stated this before. But just try and get the SCCA to see it that way. Like arguing with a rock.

I have to remind myself that SCCA is the Sports Car Club of America. It is not the Formula Car Club Of America. Formula cars are just tolerated. Sometimes I think that those who drive formula cars are viewed with some suspicion as to their sanity.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I have to remind myself that SCCA is the Sports Car Club of America. It is not the Formula Car Club Of America. Formula cars are just tolerated. Sometimes I think that those who drive formula cars are viewed with some suspicion as to their sanity.

FE? ESR? Just tolerated? The only cars they sponsor/build are formula.

Maybe you mean all except FE.

[S Lathrop]

FE? ESR? Just tolerated? The only cars they sponsor/build are formula.

Maybe you mean all except FE.

You forget Sports Renault. The Grand Daddy of all the SCCA classes. And all the offspring. Remember the Shelby CanAm? Maybe that is why Enterprise chose to poach FC.

[JEREMY HILL]

Jake L and others - How many of the existing FB cars do you think would convert to built engines and modified body/tunnels? Will this further hurt the class given some will be competing with FRP under the existing FB rule set?

The issue is still under consideration - a final decision was not made at the FTF meeting.

John

John,

The idea is to provide a viable option particularly for anyone not within tow distance of the FRP events. I do not agree with Jakes suggestion to allow tunnels at least until we see how the power increase works out.

Jeremy

[JakeL]

Jeremy,

Agreed, actually. I'm on the fence about the tunnels thing, then figured "well, when negotiating, ask for more than you want..." ;-)

As to John's question for who would actually convert...hard to say.

Not many, but at least I'd have a place to race my car. As it is, it's FRP or nothing...so I'm desperately trying to make the FRP option work, or I'll just join the crowd who is saying "f*ck it, I'll just run at my home track."

The cars are unbelievably fun and rewarding to drive, but if you're going to be doing a 1-car lapping day, might as well do it cheaply close to home.

-Jake

[R. Pare]

Hate to have to remind you, but tunnels that measure within the 25mm allowance are already allowed. Never understood why o one ever tried them, especially since they were discussed way back at the beginning of the class rules discussions.

[Thomas Copeland]

Cope, I think you're right, actually. I agree that it makes more sense to bring the Atlantics back, since there's no more of them being built. The F1000/ProFM level (although we're faster than the FM's) is a good target, IMO.

However, I think it's completely untenable from a political standpoint. If you were an FA owner, would you want to be pegged back to F1000 performance? No. You'd never race in SCCA again.

This may be a case of where at most 49% of participants are going to end up happy. Just a bummer overall, really. We'll just have to see what CRB says, decide what to do, and proceed.

Apropos to above, I personally love the idea of low-stress, stone reliable engines. It's why I liked F1000 - the stock engines are super reliable when you don't screw around with them. Same for the Pro FM rotaries, the DP02 engines, and the K20s.

-Jake

Also I doubt the SCCA would be receptive anyway.

Maybe should bring back the old West Coast F1000 Series. Then it doesn't matter. We do our own thing like we use to. Run either in SCCA or somewhere else. Could we get enough cars together for that I wonder.

[RussMcB]

Probably silly, probably suggested before,

Introduce a Claimer Rule to cap costs, then you'll easily attract new people to an affordable, exciting car class.

$xx,000 for a car, and maybe $20,000 for anyone who wants to run in the "B' sub-class.

I would have loved to stay in the class with my converted mid-90's FC car, but I was falling behind fast. Not that I ever expected to hang with the fastest guys, but would rather be 3-4 seconds slower than 9-10s. You need field-fillers for a class to survive.

Give me a minute before you reply so I can get into my fire suit. :-)

[TimH]

You need field-fillers for a class to survive.

There's more to racing than winning. A good scrap for 12th place is very rewarding.

[Daryl DeArman]

Give me a minute before you reply so I can get into my fire suit. :-)

What in the hell are you doing typing your opinions without it on in the first place?

[Jnovak]

I have to remind myself that SCCA is the Sports Car Club of America. It is not the Formula Car Club Of America. Formula cars are just tolerated. Sometimes I think that those who drive formula cars are viewed with some suspicion as to their sanity.

I never was interested in OW cars

until I drove a buddies FV for about 10 laps at Waterford. I got out of that car with the biggest grin on my face and that was it for me!

Thanks to Tom Shaver!

[Farrout48]

I have to remind myself that SCCA is the Sports Car Club of America. It is not the Formula Car Club Of America. Formula cars are just tolerated. Sometimes I think that those who drive formula cars are viewed with some suspicion as to their sanity.

I must be one of the insane. Being a Mechanical Engineer and a child of the 60's, I fell in love with DSRs when I saw 2 Legrands and an OMS at a TT event in 2005. Having raced (TT, HC, RR) in Miata, FV, FF, SRF, and DSR/P1/P2 (LeGrand, AMAC, WF1), I remain insane and will race my WF1 until I cannot recall which way the track goes or I lose the urge to beat anyone around me..

[S Lathrop]

FE? ESR? Just tolerated? The only cars they sponsor/build are formula.

Maybe you mean all except FE.

What about SCCA poaching class that their members built. This issue is not close to being as simple as your statement implies.

[John LaRue]

There is no doubt a problem with class proliferation and someone is going to be upset if and when they try to put the genie back into the bottle. The tail has been wagging the dog for many years as cars which do not meet the established formulas have either been given a class or allowed into a class based on performance, not compliance. That leads to problems as no one likes a BOP, certainly not those of us who come from a formula background where the best mouse trap wins.

So long as there is a motive for promoters to build spec-cars to rules which do not match those of the SCCA there will continue to be pressure put upon the Advisory Committees and CRB to find them a home once they are discarded. These cars do not exist in sufficient quantities to justify their own class and do not meet the existing formula. They are orphans that look like a bargain. The club is in something of a no-win situation here. Hopefully we will soon have some tools to deal with the low volume spec cars that appear and want to race. I hope this will enable us to stabilize the existing formula classes and encourage what, if any, new car builds to conform with those rules.

Looking at FB, the class simply was never well subscribed on a national basis and fell to unsustainable levels in recent years. To give those cars a place to run if they so wanted, they were put into FA rather than eliminated from the GCR. Now there are requests to open up the engine and aero; a request to effectively adjust the BOP. If this is permitted then will such be viewed as a "must do" ? Will those who don't want to invest further into their FB equipment then simply walk away and refuse to "ante up"? Will it create a divide with those cars that have organized and raced with FRP or does that even matter? Again, regardless of what the club does someone is not going to be happy.

Candidly I tend to agree with Rice in that we should be more hands off and allow cars to cycle out and die a natural death. That is not so easy when those who are on death's doorstep are asking for help. The bottom line is that if you are interested in a class then you darn sure better take some ownership. In recent years both STL and B-Spec were on the chopping block with horrible numbers. At the eleventh hour the stakeholders got serious and organized. They began making calls and encouraging each other to participate. Both of those classes had extraordinary participation in 2019 and at the VIR Runoffs.

We have viable alternatives to SCCA in our formula classes, however keep in mind that these series are privately owned and may or may not be around in the future. I can't say enough about the great experience I have when racing with FRP, but we cannot afford to turn our collective backs on SCCA otherwise the classes will cease to exist. Most racers do not start out in the Pro Series; excepting those who are simply using it as a stepping stone to other levels. SCCA represents the pool for long term health of the Pro Series - this is a symbiotic relationship. I have worked hard to educate the BOD and others about the formula classes and their various pro series, most of which run under SCCA Pro. We gained recognition for FRP events in the path to Runoffs when they returned to SCCA Pro. Keep in mind however that those entries are not reflected in the SCCA figures so there is struggle to hit the 4.0 number for an automatic invitation to Runoffs.

We can bitch and complain about things on-line and there is certainly room for improvement. SCCA is never gong to be perfect, but nothing is. Let's collectively try to get off our asses and get to some races in 2020 and enjoy this for what it really is - a sport we are privileged and fortunate enough to be able to partake in. Also, take some ownership in your class and the rules. There is not a conspiracy or fleet of black helicopters seeing to ruin your class or your racing. There is a group of volunteers who give their time unselfishly trying to make things better for all. If you have an idea or a complaint, pick up the phone and give someone a call. I'd be shocked if your call or email is not well received.

And for those who have tried to reach me over the past two weeks - I have been out of town. I will get those calls returned!

Regards,

John

[Thomas Copeland]

John,

You conveniently forget the part where the SCCA underhandedly back-dated the car count criteria so we (F1000) didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of making up the numbers to maintain our class.

I don't need someone from the SCCA preaching to me about fairness. What the SCCA leadership did to F1000 was Bulls$it and anybody with any sense of decency knows it.



PS--- just for clarity, by someone I meant anyone (I'm not making this personal).

If the SCCA leadership, the BOD, or the CRB are now trying to project themselves as a fair and balanced guardian, you can forget that, because that genie is definitely "out of the bottle."

[Stan Clayton]

Jake L and others - How many of the existing FB cars do you think would convert to built engines and modified body/tunnels? Will this further hurt the class given some will be competing with FRP under the existing FB rule set?

The issue is still under consideration - a final decision was not made at the FTF meeting.

John

Competing with FRP does NOTHING to add cars to FA, so I don't see how allowing the FB cars that DO chose to remain in SCCA and want to become more competitive in FA hurts their participation.

Second, during my time on the CRB the only reasons not to take a decision after getting a recommendation from the FSRAC was if A) the CRB couldn't make ups its collective mind, or B) we had significant differences with what the FSRAC recommended, so sent it back for reconsideration.

What is the hangup, and why? We're all adults here. Please extend us the courtesy of keeping us informed.