Formula X expansion

[dalz]

I took a look at the new CRB and was surprised to see that several new types of cars were added to the new catch-all FX class, including Formula FX Ireland (looks like an FE), FRP Zetecs (I guess now any non-Pinto FC can compete in the class if they want), the defunct Pro Super Vee, and Formula Renault 2.0.

Now I understand that car classes run their course and this new idea has merit on getting cars out of garages and on a track, but I'm concerned at the speed disparity. FR2.0 is a near-FA car, similar to (maybe even faster than) a Pro Mazda. Same with a Super Vee, especially with modern tires and suspension bits. All SVs are at least 35 years old; do these aluminum monocoque cars even meet current safety specs?

I know all the cars must be ready to have a data logger hung on them at any time for use by The Club, but I don't see how this motley bunch will ever approach parity. Perhaps someday we have most of our open-wheel cars in FX1 and FX2 classes?

[John Nesbitt]

May not be an issue. From GCR 9.1.1.J Formula X, Section A Purpose and Philosophy:

It is recognized at the inception that parity among the various cars that are eligible, or which may be classed, may not exist or be achieved by reasonable means.

[dalz]

Well, with the data loggers it seems like there is an attempt at equalizing performance to at least a level of safety. Otherwise it's just an exhibition class for a majority of the cars, which doesn't seem to be within the scope of club racing.

[lowside67]

FR2.0 is a near-FA car, similar to (maybe even faster than) a Pro Mazda. Same with a Super Vee, especially with modern tires and suspension bits.

A 2010-current FR2.0 makes 210hp at 1250 minimum weight with driver. That’s nowhere near FA power, and combined with a flat bottom instead of tunnels and reasonably small wings, it makes nowhere near FA downforce. It also runs the same size tires as a PM.

-Mark

[dalz]

A 2010-current FR2.0 makes 210hp at 1250 minimum weight with driver. That’s nowhere near FA power, and combined with a flat bottom instead of tunnels and reasonably small wings, it makes nowhere near FA downforce. It also runs the same size tires as a PM.

Thanks. So maybe it's not a bad fit.

I still have doubts about Super Vee.

[Kazis31]

In 70's
proper super vee at Long Beach was 3 sec slower than formula 1 of that same era.
what are the doubt's based on?

[Thomas Wirtz]

Let's not forget the 1980s Ralt RT5 is a safe, fast chassis and Bertils (RIP) was building SCCA legal 1.8 230 hp engines
I wish I had one. : )

[Thomas Copeland]

Why isn't F1000 in there then?

[Bardahl77]

How about putting Lola T330s in there? McLaren M10?

[dalz]

In 70's
proper super vee at Long Beach was 3 sec slower than formula 1 of that same era.
what are the doubt's based on?

I guess that they're all 35+ years old, and safety has come a long way since then. And as you reference, a well-prepared one will be very fast. Are the driver's feet ahead of the front wheel centerline in an RT-5? I thought that alone would DQ it from any contemporary class.

[jphoenix13]

There are a couple of FSV's (Ralts) that race in our run group in SOVREN. The FM's are included in the big bore group 5&6 most of the time to keep us out of the CF group. The super vee's are fast, the drivers are experienced and the cars top notch and have good power, I recall one driver told me 240 hp. Sure looks like it when they go past on the straight, they do just fine in the corners as well.

In conference we run as FM in group 3 wityh CF, FC, FF, but also any open wheel run F-Libre in group 6 as well, double the racing.

[Thomas Wirtz]

Are the driver's feet ahead of the front wheel centerline in an RT-5? I thought that alone would DQ it from any contemporary class.

I don't remember and it's hard to tell looking at photos but I still want one.

I was able to drive one several times at Road America and it was the most fun I had in a open wheel car.

[RussMcB]

<snip> Are the driver's feet ahead of the front wheel centerline in an RT-5?

Nope.

[dalz]

Nope.

Okay, thanks.

[provamo]

what ya brung

[mmi16]

Why isn't F1000 in there then?

I believe they are running as FA's.

[Rick Kirchner]

IT was the Ansons, especially the SA-6, that were "cab forward".

[John Nesbitt]

what ya brung

FS would be the likely place for run what ya brung cars. FX is intended for recognized classes that do not have sufficient numbers for their own Runoffs class.

Again, from the FX preamble, "The class is not intended for unique one-off or prototype open wheel cars which are not widely available; those should be classed in FS."

[ric baribeault]

Speed disparity is not necessarily relative to the chassis itself. I’ve been in plenty of multi-class races where cars in my class, and even a few in the class below, were quicker than the class above me. Perhaps lap times might be a safer approach.

[Bardahl77]

Speed disparity is not necessarily relative to the chassis itself. I’ve been in plenty of multi-class races where cars in my class, and even a few in the class below, were quicker than the class above me. Perhaps lap times might be a safer approach.

You mean like a DSR getting under 2 minutes at Road Amercia?

[RussMcB]

Can someone remind me why FX was created (rather than just let those cars run in FS)?

To me, the main difference is FX cars can run at Majors and Runoffs, but I'm not sure why something like a Formula FX Ireland or Formula Renault should have that stature (for lack of a better word).

I do understand why a one-off car such as my own (formula car with a Hayabusa engine) should not be in a Runoffs class. That could get out of hand quickly. But why does the FX catch-all class have Runoffs stature? Seems like that is the opposite of trying to reduce Runoffs classes.

[Peter Olivola]

Can someone remind me why FX was created (rather than just let those cars run in FS)?

To me, the main difference is FX cars can run at Majors and Runoffs, but I'm not sure why something like a Formula FX Ireland or Formula Renault should have that stature (for lack of a better word).

I do understand why a one-off car such as my own (formula car with a Hayabusa engine) should not be in a Runoffs class. That could get out of hand quickly. But why does the FX catch-all class have Runoffs stature? Seems like that is the opposite of trying to reduce Runoffs classes.

FX is a way to include additional formula classes into the Majors program without creating separate classes. Rather than expanding the number of classes, which has been the club's history, this, at least, holds the line. If any of the included classes dies off, it doesn't affect anything. If any of the included classes can generate enough numbers to justify being broken out into their own class this is a way to provide the opportunity to do so.

Until we can get the world to agree on a finite number of formula car classes and all the others go away, we will be dealing with proliferation. This isn't a perfect solution but it may be the right way to deal with the reality that the club doesn't control the world.

[dalz]

How fast is a FR2.0? Have they ever raced in North America? I can't find lap times from tracks that other cars in the class have raced on. I've seem the "dimensions" for it on paper. Just wondering.

[Fred Michael]

How fast is a FR2.0? Have they ever raced in North America? I can't find lap times from tracks that other cars in the class have raced on. I've seem the "dimensions" for it on paper. Just wondering.

They raced as Franam and Formula TR in the US from like 04 to 07. I can't remember exactly how fast they are but they are comparable to the other cars in FX. There are not many of them around in the US

[Daryl DeArman]

They raced as Franam and Formula TR in the US from like 04 to 07. I can't remember exactly how fast they are but they are comparable to the other cars in FX. There are not many of them around in the US

Not a whole lot of data to make apples to apples comparison.

Another thing to consider is that the folks who were campaigning FranAm cars were (A) typically much more serious racers than weekend warrior club racers, (B) had Mom & Dad to pay repair/crash damage and (C) didn't worry much about going to work on Monday.

That being said, tracks where the FRAN-AM series ran as well as SCCA the pole times are faster for the FranAm cars than FC/FE/FM track records, sometimes as much as 3 seconds on a 90 second lap.

[Hartley]

I took a look at the new CRB and was surprised to see that several new types of cars were added to the new catch-all FX class, including Formula FX Ireland (looks like an FE), FRP Zetecs (I guess now any non-Pinto FC can compete in the class if they want), the defunct Pro Super Vee, and Formula Renault 2.0.

Now I understand that car classes run their course and this new idea has merit on getting cars out of garages and on a track, but I'm concerned at the speed disparity. FR2.0 is a near-FA car, similar to (maybe even faster than) a Pro Mazda. Same with a Super Vee, especially with modern tires and suspension bits. All SVs are at least 35 years old; do these aluminum monocoque cars even meet current safety specs?

I know all the cars must be ready to have a data logger hung on them at any time for use by The Club, but I don't see how this motley bunch will ever approach parity. Perhaps someday we have most of our open-wheel cars in FX1 and FX2 classes?

I just ran my USF2000 MZR car in the FX class at a Major at Miami Homestead last weekend. I was shocked to see FC cars running in the FX class as FX cars, FX letters on cars. So why are FC cars allowed to run in FX if MZR cars cannot run in the FC class? We thought it was a mistake until we saw the FX letters on the cars and in timing and scoring. Pulled out the 2021 GCR and low and behold the FC cars are listed along with the new additions listed above.

[racerdad2]

I just ran my USF2000 MZR car in the FX class at a Major at Miami Homestead last weekend. I was shocked to see FC cars running in the FX class as FX cars, FX letters on cars. So why are FC cars allowed to run in FX if MZR cars cannot run in the FC class? We thought it was a mistake until we saw the FX letters on the cars and in timing and scoring. Pulled out the 2021 GCR and low and behold the FC cars are listed along with the new additions listed above.

I believe it's called "entries"...

[dalz]

Would many FC Zetecs double-dip (race as FC and FX in one weekend) if it was possible? That would be a lot of miles on a high-tech car in a weekend. I could see racing as one on Saturday and the other on Sunday, then having 2 races at the Runoffs.

[Hartley]

They ran in FX and FC at Homestead. BTW I spoke to a new FM driver at Homestead that was more than annoyed to be smoked by much faster FC cars. He was told when he bought the older FM car that it would be ‘competitive’ in the FX class. Not sure how this move by SCCA will rebuild the orphan classes.

[RussMcB]

Wait, what? A totally legal FC car can run in FX?

I don't get it.

And, I appreciate Peter's response to me above, but I still have a big question about what problem FX solves. By that I mean, what was the discussion that led up to someone saying, "Well, maybe we can create a whole new formula car class for Majors/Runoffs".

For decades we've been hearing there are too many classes. I understand regional classes like FS, ITE, etc., but don't understand FX (yet).

The only kinda thing that makes sense is Club Formula Mazdas have a place to run in the Runoffs. But even that doesn't make sense. They didn't do that for F1000.

[dalz]

Well, the number of classes technically didn't go up; FM was replaced by FX.

No offense to the new FM racer at Homestead, but there was a shortfall in research on his part if he dived into National/Majors racing with an FM and he wanted to contend in those races.

[John Nesbitt]

Wait, what? A totally legal FC car can run in FX?

I don't get it.

And, I appreciate Peter's response to me above, but I still have a big question about what problem FX solves. By that I mean, what was the discussion that led up to someone saying, "Well, maybe we can create a whole new formula car class for Majors/Runoffs".

For decades we've been hearing there are too many classes. I understand regional classes like FS, ITE, etc., but don't understand FX (yet).

The only kinda thing that makes sense is Club Formula Mazdas have a place to run in the Runoffs. But even that doesn't make sense. They didn't do that for F1000.

I was not in the room, but I suspect that the primary motivation behind FX was to provide a glide path for deprecated open wheel classes. It softens the blow for FM owners, and props up Majors/Runoffs entries.

If it also provides an incubator for a new, growing open wheel class, that would be an unlooked-for bonus.

The inclusion of FSV, USF2000, and Pro Formula F2000 gives a hint of possible future additions. FX could end up as the reincarnation of the old Formula Continental (pre F1000).

[Daryl DeArman]

He was told when he bought the older FM car that it would be ‘competitive’ in the FX class. Not sure how this move by SCCA will rebuild the orphan classes.

I don't believe the goal is to rebuild the orphan classes. The goal is to give everybody a place to race so they don't go elsewhere while simultaneously increasing the quality of the RunOffs.

[Purple Frog]

I believe the "FC" cars that ran at Homestead and this weekend at Sebring had MZR engines, thus the FX designation. And maybe different gearboxes...

[dalz]

I believe the "FC" cars that ran at Homestead and this weekend at Sebring had MZR engines, thus the FX designation. And maybe different gearboxes...

That's all spelled out in the latest GCR. Zetecs, MZRs, 4 speeds, 5 speeds, get the weight right for your combo and jump into FX.

[djones]

Didn't I see a rule prohibiting proper Fsv skirts? What's the point of you can't utilize the ground effects?

[dalz]

Skirts....

Countless types of race cars built since the Reagan administration don't have skirts but still utilize ground effects.

[problemchild]

I don't believe the goal is to rebuild the orphan classes. The goal is to give everybody a place to race so they don't go elsewhere while simultaneously increasing the quality of the RunOffs.

Or, more specifically, the quantity of the Runoffs.

[phantomjock]

My Brother-in-Law was living 15 minutes away from Summit Point. So naturally,having nearby lodging available, I wanted to check it out. In my research, I noted the Washington DC Region had developed (and is executing) a concept of Bracket Racing.

...racing based on the lap time potential of the car and driver and not based on rule-bound car preparation that stifles creativity and drives up the cost of racing. It is also the intent of the Sprint Bracket Road Racing {SBRR} series to open the doors to competitors from other race organizations as well as to lower the barriers to entry in to SCCA Road Racing.

It appears they classify "laptime potential" based on actual qualifying times and not the lap records for each particular car. One thing nice, CAR MODIFICATION is virtually "unrestricted," similar to SPO/SPU (that I am currently classed in).

In a quick summary, the Car and Driver are classed in a "Bracket" so if a driver chooses to buy a car that is "too much" they can compete in a lower bracket and work their way up n the brackets as they gain experience. Everyone gets to "run-what-you brung." NOTE: They limit the Brackets to Closed Wheel - but could such an approach also be viable for the Open Wheel classes?

The webpage has a lot of detail including sample brackets listed for Summit Point (Main Course).

I don't mean to suggest this is The ANSWER, but an approach that could be considered by other regions. OK, I get it; you might have a novice in an FA competing with FVee hotshoe, but the spirit is there and would help "fill the Grid." Thoughts? Not my idea, just bringing an alternative to the discussion, and possible solution to current and future conditions. Might even be adapted at a National level? I may have been previously considered and abandoned, but it seemed like a useful enough approach to share.

More details (including 5 page pdf):
https://www.wdcr-scca.org/bracket-racing

Cheers - Jim

[Jnovak]

My hope is that performance targets will be eventually defined and that adjustments can then be made to attempt equalization between groups of close to equal performance,

Not an easy task but??