FM proposed to go into a new catch-all FX class in SCCA ???

[problemchild]

Truly funny

As George Thouroghly-Good says "Everybody funny now!".

I find it funny that SCCA totally disregarded their own policies, guidelines, and rules for 4 decades, as they kept threatening to reduce classes while they kept adding classes ...... then, they have gotten out the label makers, and suddenly feel the need to relabel classes, which will still be running together on track in the same race groups. I am not sure which analogy is more appropriate .... "letting the horse out of the barn" ..... "herding cats" ......"rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic", but elements of each apply. After 4 decades of doing nothing, there really is little that can be done now, other than symbolic gestures, that only serve the purpose of disenfranchising racers. Perhaps sad is a better adjective than funny.

[Daryl DeArman]

As George Thouroghly-Good says "Everybody funny now!".

I find it funny that SCCA totally disregarded their own policies, guidelines, and rules for 4 decades, as they kept threatening to reduce classes while they kept adding classes ...... then, they have gotten out the label makers, and suddenly feel the need to relabel classes, which will still be running together on track in the same race groups.

If you truly subscribe to the theory that the racing/experience doesn't change when everybody is still running on the track together in the same group, how does getting out the label maker disenfranchise anybody?

[problemchild]

Little or no change is happening in the moment that a racer is on track for his 15-40 mins per session. If I bring a spectator to watch the big bore formula group this year, they will see little difference from the same group last year. The racers in that group will have the same experience. Daryl loves to rearrange context, but the long term consequences are often much more based on what happens out of the car. Clearly, that SCCA is implementing these changes, and people are reacting as they are ..... is having a significant effect, as is intended. I am sorry to disagree, but I see absolutely nothing positive about these changes. It is a blatant effort to assign different labels to people than they chose for themselves, and disenfranchise those people.

[Thomas Copeland]

Little or no change is happening in the moment that a racer is on track for his 15-40 mins per session. If I bring a spectator to watch the big bore formula group this year, they will see little difference from the same group last year. The racers in that group will have the same experience. Daryl loves to rearrange context, but the long term consequences are often much more based on what happens out of the car. Clearly, that SCCA is implementing these changes, and people are reacting as they are ..... is having a significant effect, as is intended. I am sorry to disagree, but I see absolutely nothing positive about these changes. It is a blatant effort to assign different labels to people than they chose for themselves, and disenfranchise those people.

You're basically running with the same cars on track you ran with before. All they've done is eliminate runoff car classes and basically participation (entries) at the runoffs.

This is the stupidest business model I've ever seen!

We have too many customers!! Let's get rid of some of them!!

[Daryl DeArman]

Little or no change is happening in the moment that a racer is on track for his 15-40 mins per session.

True, if you consider the 2-3 guys that were battling for a class win in FM, now battling for 5th place in FX is little or no change.

If I bring a spectator to watch the big bore formula group this year, they will see little difference from the same group last year.

Likely true, rather than ask why are there 7 cars in 6 different classes racing on the track at the same time, they'll ask why are all those different cars in the same class when clearly some are much faster than others?"

Daryl loves to rearrange context

Just trying to figure out where and why you stand where you do. I've never subscribed to the theory that the racing is the same in multi-class run groups, and I've never "raced" anybody that was out of class. So, when someone else does, I'm trying to see things from their perspective for understanding. Then, when the complain about having to change the letters on their car, I wonder how they reconcile that argument.

I am sorry to disagree, but I see absolutely nothing positive about these changes.

No worries about disagreeing. Maybe there's a silver lining in all this. . . maybe FM gets rejuvenated and brings their show to NASA or SVRA makes a place for them. Maybe people sell their FM's and buy FE2's and race FE2 like it was FM 20 years ago.

[Daryl DeArman]

You're basically running with the same cars on track you ran with before. All they've done is eliminate runoff car classes and basically participation (entries) at the runoffs.

This is the stupidest business model I've ever seen!

We have too many customers!! Let's get rid of some of them!!

No, it's we have too many items on the menu. Let's get rid of some of those items. Some customers will find something else on the menu. Some customers will go get their deleted menu item across town. Hopefully we can provide our remaining customers with a better product. Many, many customers were complaining about too many items on the menu and it taking too long to get your order. 14 bazillion classes and too little track time, run-offs event takes too long. . .

[dalz]

So is the USF2 spec tire rule in place, as in, Cooper radials?

[SStadel]

Always looking for the unfair advantage Dale. Nice!

[porsche.steve]

If the SCCA can swipe with a pen the end of the FM class, then I propose we become FU. Leave FX to the others.

[Jnovak]

If the SCCA can swipe with a pen the end of the FM class, then I propose we become FU. Leave FX to the others.

Brilliant!

[Jnovak]

I hate to say this, but the SCCA did pretty good imo. They had 2 choices and they made the right decision IMO.

[dalz]

Always looking for the unfair advantage Dale. Nice!

Well, if they're on their spec radial, that is usually slower than the latest club bias-ply gumball. If they're allowed to use anything then an FM truly has no prayer. Every comparable lap time sheet I can scare up from every track the 3 new class-mates have shared shows that the difference is...not massive, with a few common-sense mandates in place. I'm open, I'm open....

[dalz]

From the Majors results so far, it looks like FM has yet to directly clash with its new FX class mates. I'm hoping an FM racer can comment when that happens.

[Jnovak]

Sadly, I guess we all saw it coming, but it still is a very sad day to see a scca spec class disappear.
They have essentially made all Formula Mazdas a track day car.
IMO It's time to drop the archaic restrictions like sealed engines, spec tires, rev. chips and high minimum weights.
They were there to insure parity between a spec class, but now we must beat new technology cars with old outdated technology.
The FM is plenty fast if you take the reins off her and let her run.

I really would like to hear input from Moses on this development. He has the largest vested interest in the loss of the FM class.

Write a carefully thought out proposal to the crb that you think will equalize the performance of the FM cars with the FC cars. Be realistic FX is the new solution as owb racing is in big trouble imo.

FM is not the only class moving to FX

[dalz]

Write a carefully thought out proposal to the crb that you think will equalize the performance of the FM cars with the FC cars.

My boss is working on it....

[Jnovak]

I am wondering:

1. if a class has been put into Fx because they did not makr their numbers, can they be moved back to their own majors class?

2. Can the Fx rules for any class be adjusted such that the class can be more competitive witlhin Fx?
Example: adjust the performance of the Fm cars such.that they are competitive with the Fc cars

3. If a class that was moved to Fx makes the required 4 entries per race, can this class be moved back to major's status or combined with another majors class?

Anyone know the answer to these complicated questions? I have more questions, but that's enough for now!

[dalz]

Good questions Mr. Novak. According to the boss, who I believe made several calls to involved principals the hour he first heard of this, "They are going to do BoP, they are just waiting for us to suggest something."

I drove a USF2 car de-tuned to match FC performance for the National class of the USF2 series. The engine was re-mapped to be 10hp less and I weighed an additional 50lbs. Right now I believe USF2 cars are significantly faster than F4 cars. Even if they don't care a whit about FM, I would think is not what The Club wants for a relevant, current car getting a chance to club race. If USF2 is slowed a bit I think we have a chance at a worthwhile season.

[Bob Wright]

I think the Club is going to gather data from the FX class. The current fastrack is requiring AIM mounting brackets for all FX cars.

As far as performance, the race at COTA next week will give some insight. The track record for a FC is 2:16.0. The MZR in my experience (fairly extensive) is in complete parity with the Zetec. Daryl Wills turned laps last year in the 2:15's in a FM. That's COTA. At some tracks the MZR should be faster others it won't be. As far as F4 is concerned; at Mid Ohio a F4 is a couple of seconds slower than a MZR, same for Road Atlanta. I think the F4 has less power, more weight and a bigger frontal area- not a great recipe for parity to either the MZR or the FM.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

As far as performance, the race at COTA next week will give some insight.

AutoClub Majors last weekend:

https://racehero.io/events/us-majors-tour/results

The FCs and F4 mized fairly well. Stupid to have the F3 in the same group 8.

Group 1 was FA/P1/P2/Fx and the FMs were at the back. FM times were similar to FC/F4 but then again 1/3 the distance is on the oval and the infield has a lot of straight parts.