What do we do if Honda is getting out of the game?

[problemchild]

I never said that I believe all engine builders are crooks, I am appreciative for all they do for the sport, I believe the dyno can provide a great baseline but side by side racing is the ultimate measurement device and the numbers you mention of active FIT cars tells the story. If you go back 11 years when it was introduced Kent drivers complained that they could not compete off the corners with the FIT cars, despite requests for adjustments nothing was done. When a racer cannot win they generally stop racing or move to a series where they can compete. That explains the numbers, the Kent cars were either parked or they moved to vintage with a few still competing, but by straining their engines well above the recommended RPM's for a cast crank. I have numerous pictures I can share of Kent blocks with large holes and shattered cranks for those claiming there are no reliability issues. And in regards to the non-compliant SCAT crank, we have made CRB well aware of the need to fix the verbiage, but like everything else it has fallen on deaf ears.

Please read post #102 and tell us what part of my history lesson is incorrect. I have been actively involved in the class since your "11 years ago" observation. My recollection is that racers were revving their engines to 7K long before that. I also recall that the FIT engines were over-restricted for the first few years, while the BOP was established in the FRP events. The kents had a huge advantage for the first few years before the FRP established BOP was applied. I believe you are familiar with RCFFS where kents and Hondas compete, generally in older cars run by family teams. The "Big Man" in the kent-powered Zink seems to win all the races. When you eliminate the new cars and the Pro teams, there does not seem to be a parity problem. One might argue the parity problem was reversed. Why can one 40+ year old Zink consistantly beat the FIT-powered Crossles and Van Deimens, but the other Zinks cannot?

I left the class in 1991 because costs were out of control. I came back when the FIT was introduced, because I believe it lowered costs. It is still stupid expensive, but that has nothing to do with Honda.

[Lotus7]

...From a lowly mechanics point of view working on a FF FIT is like kissing your sister...

You're just missin' the good 'ol days LOL

[billtebbutt]

From a lowly mechanics point of view working on a FF FIT is like kissing your sister. Biggest excitement I have had is when Johnny Rotten' trashes the clutch. Otherwise it's don't touch anything.

It's annoying at T10 (Mosport) watching a 3 car gap open up before the starter stand with the best Kent trying to hang on.

Other gripe is the rain light on a sunny day followed by a front running Spectrum on fire at 3R.

I'll save vacuum tests and harness legality for another day.

Kenny,

You clearly met my sister!!!!!

bt

[problemchild]

For those that have not read the entire thread, it appears that suppliers have been found that will take over the HPD reduction of support, so the original thread topic has shifted to the long term health of the class. It really should be another thread, but people keep adding to this one.

There is a small group of people that question the use of the SCAT crank in the FF kent race engines.

So I did my own study of the kent engine SCAT crankshaft compliancy challenge.


From the 2021 SCCA GCR

12. Kent Engine
a. General
1. Components shall not be interchanged between the Kent and Cortina versions of the engine unlessspecifically authorized.
2. The engine shall not be altered, modified, or changed in any respect unless specifically authorizedherein. When a system is specified to be “unrestricted” (e.g. paragraphs p and q), the restrictionsof this paragraph do not apply.

b. Block
1. Bore may be enlarged for clearance between cylinder and piston.
2. Cylinder sleeves may be fitted. The top surface of the block may be milled or surface ground toobtain the maximum compression ratio specified above. Any steel center main bearing cap may beused. The oil pump mounting face on the block may be machined for the purpose of fitting an oilpump.
3. The 1600 Fiesta block is permitted as a replacement part.
4. The Ford Racing block, part number M-6010-16K, is permitted as a replacement part.

k. Crankshaft
An alternate cast steel crankshaft meeting original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions and weight is permitted.
Weight: 24 lbs. 8 oz.
MinimumMax Stroke (at piston): 3.056” +/- .004”
Crankshaft pulley: unrestricted
The crankshaft from the Cortina engine may be used.
The crankshaft from the Fiesta engine may be used.
The crankshaft may be shot peened.



From personal experience, I know that the castings for various blocks do vary significantly, especially between Fiesta and kent. Therefore I conclude that the height, bore location, bore size, crankshaft location, and crankshaft bearing locations, are the "absolute" dimensions that need to be maintained.

From personal experience, I also know that the castings and machined surfaces of the Fiesta crankshaft vary significantly from the Cortina crankshaft. They differ so much, that I needed to make spacers to use the fiesta crank in the cortina block.

It says that an alternate cast crankshaft can be used and then lists dimensions that it must meet.

I would conclude that the SCAT crankshaft is compliant. I would consider non-compliant arguments as tortured.

But, by the same token, it would be very easy to add the line.
The SCAT crankshaft Part # xxxxxxxx may be used. Modifications to the block to allow clearance are permitted, providing they serve no other purpose.

So, why don't we get someone of high regard in the SCCA process, to write a letter requesting that the SCAT part number be added to the GCR, and other class racers write letters of support of that request. I don't know the back stories, so if anyone knows other political obstacles, please declare them.

I will break my pledge never to write another letter, to support this initiative, but I should not be the one to write the initial letter. Who should be asked to write that initial letter? Volunteer?

[Daryl DeArman]

There is a small group of people that question the use of the SCAT crank in the FF kent race engines.

So I did my own study of the kent engine SCAT crankshaft compliancy challenge.


k. Crankshaft
An alternate cast steel crankshaft meeting original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions and weight is permitted.
Weight: 24 lbs. 8 oz.
MinimumMax Stroke (at piston): 3.056” +/- .004”


It says that an alternate cast crankshaft can be used and then lists dimensions that it must meet.

It doesn't list the dimensions that it must meet. It states that it must meet the "original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions". It does not list what those dimensions are. It does go on to further list only 2 parameters, the minimum weight and the allowable stroke.

I would conclude that the SCAT crankshaft is compliant. I would consider non-compliant arguments as tortured.

I disagree. I would argue that those concluding that the only dimensions the SCCA is concerned about is stroke and minimum weight are applying a tortured interpretation. If they were only concerned about those dimensions there is no need to state original Ford and SCCA dimensions...(whatever those are)

But, by the same token, it would be very easy to add the line.
The SCAT crankshaft Part # xxxxxxxx may be used. Modifications to the block to allow clearance are permitted, providing they serve no other purpose.

So, why don't we get someone of high regard in the SCCA process, to write a letter requesting that the SCAT part number be added to the GCR, and other class racers write letters of support of that request. I don't know the back stories, so if anyone knows other political obstacles, please declare them.

Agreed. I'd argue there are NO political obstacles. I'd propose it's quite the opposite.

[R. Pare]

Dumb question: Wasn't the Scat crank specifically named by the SCCA when it was approved?

[Daryl DeArman]

Dumb question: Wasn't the Scat crank specifically named by the SCCA when it was approved?

Don't know. But if it was it would be a very simple E&O process to get it back in the next Fasttrack update to the GCR.

[tstrong]

Dumb question: Wasn't the Scat crank specifically named by the SCCA when it was approved?

My notes show that in the very beginning SCCA enterprises was listed as the/a source for the SCAT crank, However I believe the rule was as listed above by Greg. From memory I believe that was because for a short period of time there were actually two aftermarket cranks available the SCCA/SCAT crank, and one sold by Dave Bean Eng (not sure of the origin of the casting).

In any case, I totally agree with Greg’s proposal (maybe less the rationale / interpretation) above to add the P/N and be done with it. This is similar to the JAE1600 P/N that was added for the light flywheel.

I am no longer an SCCA member so don’t think I should write the letter, but sure hope someone could take this on. I will provide any support requested. Todd

[Joefisherff]

And to add to the mix, Pegasus and I assume others sells a "drop in" version of the SCAT crank that does not require machining of the block so simply adding the part number to the rule does not fix the issue, here is the verbiage from their site:

This SCAT crankshaft is designed specifically for SCCA Formula Ford (legal per FCS 9.1.1.B.12.k). It is as close to SCCA minimum weight (24 pounds 8 ounces) as possible while still allowing grinding of journals without going underweight.
This crankshaft is cast and machined specifically for SCCA-legal Formula Ford 1600 engines. A properly built, lightened, and balanced FF1600 engine should observe a redline of 6800 RPM. We do not recommened exceeding this RPM limit. This crankshaft has not been designed, tested, or approved for use in GT-spec engines.

Note: This "drop-in" version does not require any modification to your engine block. The counterweights on this version have been ground slightly to clear the stock main bearing webs in the block. This leaves less material for balancing. Extreme care and accuracy is required when balancing this crankshaft for competition use.

[problemchild]

And to add to the mix, Pegasus and I assume others sells a "drop in" version of the SCAT crank that does not require machining of the block so simply adding the part number to the rule does not fix the issue, .

I do not understand. If it drops in, without clearancing the block, then this removes even more of the tortured ambiguity that some are claiming makes the SCAT cranks non-compliant.

I was hoping some well-connected SCCA cheerleader would takeover leadership of this campaign but no one has stepped up.

Presumably, any concerned FF racer should write a letter requesting this clarification to the kent engine components, Section k: crankshaft section of the GCR.

The SCAT crankshaft Part # xxxxxxxx may be used. Modifications to the block to allow clearance are permitted, providing they serve no other purpose.

I think if we all include the same wording in our requests, and request it as a clarification, there would be no reason that it would not be well-received. Please suggest to your FF friends that they also write their letters.

Can someone provide the correct part-number?
Can someone provide the link for letter submission.

I will wait until Monday, giving anyone else time to fill in the part number and offer unintended consequences discussion, and at that point, submit my letter.

Lets get this done!

[Jim Garry]

Agreed, which is why I'm tired of SCCA types, who are happy where they are, not giving others (vintage racers) respect as competitors and racers. Been going on for the 20 years I've been involved.

I have never met an SCCA member who expressed disrespect toward vintage racers.

[Daryl DeArman]

This SCAT crankshaft is designed specifically for SCCA Formula Ford (legal per FCS 9.1.1.B.12.k). It is as close to SCCA minimum weight (24 pounds 8 ounces) as possible while still allowing grinding of journals without going underweight.
This crankshaft is cast and machined specifically for SCCA-legal Formula Ford 1600 engines. A properly built, lightened, and balanced FF1600 engine should observe a redline of 6800 RPM. We do not recommened exceeding this RPM limit. This crankshaft has not been designed, tested, or approved for use in GT-spec engines.

Note: This "drop-in" version does not require any modification to your engine block. The counterweights on this version have been ground slightly to clear the stock main bearing webs in the block. This leaves less material for balancing. Extreme care and accuracy is required when balancing this crankshaft for competition use.

Apparently there are different versions of the SCAT crankshaft in use. Some that require some removal of material from the block to install, and others that don't. Pegasus is specifically stating that the counterweights on THIS version of the SCAT crank have been ground slightly.

[Daryl DeArman]

I do not understand. If it drops in, without clearancing the block, then this removes even more of the tortured ambiguity that some are claiming makes the SCAT cranks non-compliant.

There is more than one version of the SCAT crank in use/for sale.

Pegasus is selling a version that has been further machined so that it does drop in. They are stating such in their description.

[reidhazelton]

I'm going to take a stab here and say none of this crankshaft stuff matters. It's a pretty simple textualist's approach to reading a rule or law. Here is why - the GCR only lists the stroke and weight specs:

An alternate cast steel crankshaft meeting original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions and weight is permitted.
Weight:24 lbs. 8 oz. Minimum
Max Stroke (at piston):3.056” +/- .004”

There are three elements, and only three, here. (1) cast steel, (2) 24lbs 8oz, (3) 3.056" stroke.

As I read it, those three specs are all that matter. It would be unreasonable to assume "meeting original Ford...and SCCA dimensions" refers to ALL dimensions. The "original dimensions" in this matter are 24lbs 8oz, and 3.056 stroke. That's it. Without a spec for the dimensions for each counterweight there is nothing in the GCR to define them.

In other words, if someone protests a Scat crank, what's the illegality? That it doesn't fit in an unmodified Kent block? Under the existing crank rule, that is not a requirement. If the crank you have is cast steel, 24lbs 8oz, and 3.056 in stroke, you're fine no matter the size of the counterweights. Given all the variation in cranks and blocks from the 70s, spec'ing out every possible dimension of a crank and a block was impractical. The way counterweights work, there is really only one place you can put them so the engine still works. Rather than spec it out, just leave that to physics. If it's off by .050, so be it. It doesn't really matter so long as it is still the min weight. Just as it would be foolish and wasteful to have lines of GCR rules that spec out the dimensions of the key way slot or the thread pitch tolerance. Those areas are controlled by compatibility with existing parts.

Taking the logic behind the illegality claim to the extreme - a Scat crank that does not have "FORD" cast into it is also illegal because the material comprising the "FORD" logo is also a dimensional aspect and therefore illegal. Should Scat have made a crank a bit smaller, or finish grind the weights so they fit in an unmodified block? Yeah, that would be nice. But, they didn't. So here we are.

Is your crank cast steel? Is your crank 24lbs 8oz? Does your crank have a 3.056 max stroke? If you say yes to all three, you are legal. Those are the parameters, end of story according to the GCR.

PS. I'm not saying Art and Daryl's claim doesn't have merit. Should the Scat crank fit as supplied? Yes. Could the rule be written more clearly? Sure. But, as written, the Scat crank is compliant based on what is spec'ed in the rule.

[problemchild]

I have been advised that people are working to clarify this, and will give it the weekend, before sending in my letter.
As a person who seeks solutions, rather than creating problems, I find the process very frustrating.
it seems like such a simple task.

I am thinking that, in typical SCCA fashion, they are concerned about anti-trust in naming only one supplier, and douchebags making bogus parts with correct serial numbers, so are instead trying to create wording that allows you to use the SCAT crankshaft without actually using the words SCAT or listing a part number. We shall see.

Cheers!

[Daryl DeArman]

I'm going to take a stab here and say none of this crankshaft stuff matters. It's a pretty simple textualist's approach to reading a rule or law. Here is why - the GCR only lists the stroke and weight specs:

An alternate cast steel crankshaft meeting original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions and weight is permitted.
Weight:24 lbs. 8 oz. Minimum
Max Stroke (at piston):3.056” +/- .004”

There are three elements, and only three, here. (1) cast steel, (2) 24lbs 8oz, (3) 3.056" stroke."

Reid,

Absent knowing what the "original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions" were we can not conclude that there are only 3 elements that must be satisfied.

The following requirements must be met:

(1) cast steel
(2) meets original Ford Kent dimensions and weight
(3) meets original SCCA dimensions and weight
(4) minimum weight of 24lbs 8oz.
(5) 3.056" +/- .004" stroke.

If any of those are redundant there's no need to list them.

So, either (A) criteria 4 and 5 are further restrictive than 2 and/or 3. Or (B) we can eliminate 2 and 3.

Eliminating 2 and 3 could open up a whole new can of worms, so I'm thinking 2 and 3 are more restrictive than just stroke and weight.

[Daryl DeArman]

I am thinking that, in typical SCCA fashion, they are concerned about anti-trust in naming only one supplier, and douchebags making bogus parts with correct serial numbers, so are instead trying to create wording that allows you to use the SCAT crankshaft without actually using the words SCAT or listing a part number. We shall see.

Cheers!

Interesting.

Even naming SCAT as an alternate part doesn't make it only one supplier, you are still free to utilize an OEM Ford crank if you wish

Can you not call up SCAT and order a crankshaft directly? Do all the engine builders and parts houses have to order a crank through a single source who gets it from SCAT?

If SCAT said, "I'll make this crank but only in batches of 100" (for example) and some engine builder purchased 100 in order to make it happen, then doesn't the community owe it to that engine builder to at least purchase the cranks through him until his supply is exhausted? As long as he's not refusing to sell the parts to competing engine builders what's the issue?

[reidhazelton]

Reid,

Absent knowing what the "original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions" were we can not conclude that there are only 3 elements that must be satisfied.

The following requirements must be met:

(1) cast steel
(2) meets original Ford Kent dimensions and weight
(3) meets original SCCA dimensions and weight
(4) minimum weight of 24lbs 8oz.
(5) 3.056" +/- .004" stroke.

If any of those are redundant there's no need to list them.

So, either (A) criteria 4 and 5 are further restrictive than 2 and/or 3. Or (B) we can eliminate 2 and 3.

Eliminating 2 and 3 could open up a whole new can of worms, so I'm thinking 2 and 3 are more restrictive than just stroke and weight.

You're introducing elements and assuming they are relevant. The GCR defined what matters - it's only those three. If your reasoning bore out, they would need to include a tolerance drawing to define ALL dimensions. One must conclude there are only three, because that is all that is listed. Doing otherwise would entirely negate the authority of the rule book as people would be free to add in parameters that are not listed. If your reading of "Ford dimensions" was accurate, even a tolerance drawing would run afoul of your rule. For example, the "FORD" logo cast into the crank. If the Scat crank has to meet "ALL Ford dimensions" it would have to include that logo as that is a dimensional aspect. Your reading would mean every possible dimension would need to be identical between the Ford and Scat crank and then would need to be included in the GCR.

Also, as the rule is written there is nothing stopping you from making your own crankshaft, from steel, to the min weight, with the correct stroke.

Lastly, it's not a matter of redundancy, but of specification. Crank has to be of Ford and SCCA specs - then, the GCR lists those specs that it referred to in the previous line. It would make no logical sense to require an alternate crank to be identical, and then only list three specs. In that case, the GCR would be useless and self-defeating.

[Daryl DeArman]

You're introducing elements and assuming they are relevant. The GCR defined what matters

I didn't introduce them. The GCR did. The writers of said rule made them relevant by including the verbiage.

If your reasoning bore out, they would need to include a tolerance drawing to define ALL dimensions.

Nope. They don't need to define ALL dimensions. Camshaft profiles are just one example within the GCR where the information available to scrutineers must be met but aren't specifically called out in the GCR, only referenced by part number and then maybe include max lift and/or duration.

It would make no logical sense to require an alternate crank to be identical, and then only list three specs.

I don't read "meeting certain specs" to mean "identical". The additional specs could be more restrictive.

Think Federal / State laws / local municipality codes and Venn diagrams.

[Peter Olivola]

I didn't introduce them. The GCR did. The writers of said rule made them relevant by including the verbiage.



Nope. They don't need to define ALL dimensions. Camshaft profiles are just one example within the GCR where the information available to scrutineers must be met but aren't specifically called out in the GCR, only referenced by part number and then maybe include max lift and/or duration.



I don't read "meeting certain specs" to mean "identical". The additional specs could be more restrictive.

Think Federal / State laws / local municipality codes and Venn diagrams.

I'm not on the SCCA BoD. I'm not on the SCCA CRB. I'm not a member of the SCCA Court of Appeals. I'm not a member of the SCCA FSRAC.

As a working steward, in the event of a mechanical protest or RFA, the only thing I can rule on in this situation is something with a stated dimension or reference to a dimension available elsewhere. The only things that meet those criteria are

An alternate cast steel crankshaft meeting original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions and weight is permitted.
Weight:24 lbs. 8 oz. Minimum
Max Stroke (at piston):3.056” +/- .004”

The additional verbiage referencing original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions is entirely superfluous since there is no way to determine what that references beyond the three otherwise defined dimensions.

It doesn't matter what federal, state or municipal regulations state. It doesn't matter what best engineering practices are. The only thing I can judge a crankshaft against is those three defined items. Meet them and the crank is compliant. Any other argument would be considered to be an argument without supportable justification.

The CoA might rule otherwise, but until it does, and only for the current year, would I find otherwise. The CRB might call for a change and the BoD might adopt it. Until then, I will rule only on compliance of those three items.

[Purple Frog]

Reid and Peter =

As a tech inspector I can only measure stuff that is objective and defined with measurements.

And.... OBTW... how many FF engines have been torn into in the last 12 years? My guess = 0 If anything, maybe, whistlers are being used, then almost never. I've been in a lot of Runoffs teardown sheds...just saying.

Just how many Kent guys are building titanium cranks with spent nuclear material as counterweights... while bitching about the cost of tyres?

There seems to be a lot of tilting at windmills here.

This is the BS that is killing the class and driving folks to spec racing.

Now back to the regularly scheduled whining.

[Daryl DeArman]

As a working steward, in the event of a mechanical protest or RFA, the only thing I can rule on in this situation is something with a stated dimension or reference to a dimension available elsewhere.

As a tech inspector I can only measure stuff that is objective and defined with measurements.

How would either of you enforce the camshaft profile rule since the profile isn't defined in the GCR for competitor reference?

Are those Ford and SCCA crankshaft dimensions referenced in the rule not available to you elsewhere, like the camshaft profile specs are?

1. Camshaft
   
   
   1. Regrinding camshaft lobes is permitted, providing they are ground to meet FORD and SCCA profile.
      
   2. Camshaft Lobe Centers: 109° +/- 2°
      
   
   Lift at top of pushrod:
   Inlet: 0.231” +/- .002” Maximum
   Exhaust: 0.232” +/-.002” Maximum
   Lift at spring cap: (Valve Lift)
   Inlet: 0.356” Maximum
   (Zero tappet setting)
   Exhaust: 0.358” Maximum
   
   
   1. Recontouring of the valve stem contact pad of the rocker arm is permitted, provided the maximumlift at the spring cap is not exceeded
      
   2. Offset camshaft/sprocket dowels are permitted.
      
   3. Camshaft profile and lobe centers shall be checked using the official procedure published bySCCA.
      
   4. A camshaft that is a replica of the original camshaft and of the same material may be used.
      
      
      
      
   
   

[Peter Olivola]

How would either of you enforce the camshaft profile rule since the profile isn't defined in the GCR for competitor reference?

Are those Ford and SCCA crankshaft dimensions referenced in the rule not available to you elsewhere, like the camshaft profile specs are?

1. Camshaft
   
   1. Regrinding camshaft lobes is permitted, providing they are ground to meet FORD and SCCA profile.
   2. Camshaft Lobe Centers: 109° +/- 2°
   
   Lift at top of pushrod:
   Inlet: 0.231” +/- .002” Maximum
   Exhaust: 0.232” +/-.002” Maximum
   Lift at spring cap: (Valve Lift)
   Inlet: 0.356” Maximum
   (Zero tappet setting)
   Exhaust: 0.358” Maximum
   
   
   1. Recontouring of the valve stem contact pad of the rocker arm is permitted, provided the maximumlift at the spring cap is not exceeded
   2. Offset camshaft/sprocket dowels are permitted.
   3. Camshaft profile and lobe centers shall be checked using the official procedure published bySCCA.
   4. A camshaft that is a replica of the original camshaft and of the same material may be used.
   
   

Camshafts are handled by the SCCA technical staff in Topeka. It would be the responsibility of the SOM to ensure custody and secure transport.

[reidhazelton]

I didn't introduce them. The GCR did. The writers of said rule made them relevant by including the verbiage.

If that is true, cite to the rule in the GCR that specifies the counterweight dimensions.

Or, let's play this out. PurpleFrog will be tech inspector. I'm a FF competitor with a Scat crank. You're an FF competitor with a stock Ford crank. What is your protest?

[Daryl DeArman]

If that is true, cite to the rule in the GCR that specifies the counterweight dimensions.

Or, let's play this out. PurpleFrog will be tech inspector. I'm a FF competitor with a Scat crank. You're an FF competitor with a stock Ford crank. What is your protest?

Purple Frog has already stated as long as your crank is cast steel, meets weight and stroke that he would determine it's compliant. I disagree. It may very well be, it may not be. I would hope the CoA would rule otherwise IF your crank doesn't meet whatever the "original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions are".

If the technical staff doesn't have such dimensions/drawings then I lose.

If they do have such drawings and however limited they are (or generous the tolerances) determine the SCAT crank which requires block grinding to be installed still satisfies those drawings/specs then I lose.

If the drawings/dimensions are detailed enough that it's apparent that your crank does not meet such specs then I win and the rule gets changed under E&O.

I don't believe anybody wants the SCAT crank to be determined non-compliant. The rule just needs to be clarified or changed.

[Urban_Legend]

It's real simple supply and demand marketing.....We all know that if SCCA wants to run as a business, they are really bad at it.

There used to be only 4 primary formula classes FV, FF, FC and FA for a limited number of drivers....supply and demand.....

But no......SCCA added F4, FE, FM, F440, F500, F600 and the spec racer classes to that........but did they do that because the number of available drivers was increasing?...no. Did they do anything to make the lower levels more affordable to draw in more drivers?...no. So they did two things, diluted the fields and made it more expensive to race....

I started racing in 1984 with a Royale RP-3A with a Cortina in it. It got me around the track in regional races in the SE division. I was a newly minted engineer from GA Tech making a whopping $25K per year with $15K in student loan debt....I pulled the car to the track in an open trailer behind my pickup truck. I raced on used tires cast off by the national drivers....I also paid to attend the Jim Russel School at Charlotte Motor Speedway...There were no such thing as track days back then, so that is all the track time I was able to get. But the point is, I was out there driving.......

Unfortunately that driver does not exists in SCCA any more...they got pushed out/priced out....All of the young lower and middle class kids are doing time trials with their tin top street cars and race an have a great time racing a junker in Lemons....they have not got a clue what SCCA sprint racing is all about.

Two things that started FF on it's slow death was the introduction of the Swift DB1-1.....which doubled the cost of racing in the class overnight......and the added insult to injury, the introduction of the FIT.....

SCCA should have realized that it needs a regional entry level low cost formula driver's class and never have allowed such a technology jump with the DB-1. That should have only happened in FC and FA....

As long as the SCCA caters to the trust fund babies who's mom's and dad's can shell out $80K to $100K per year with the faux dream that junior will some day go to Indy, formula racing at the club level will die a slow death. The other detriment to this approach is that it seriously limits the talent pool....with this approach, SCCA is essentially saying that only the silver spoon kids are good at driving....

So whoever at SCCA was involved in pricing the kit to put a FIT into a FF in the first place was just plain stupid........

Those left are the rest of us who were around in the 70's and 80's to get hooked on the sport and have taken our business over to Vintage where a decent CF can be purchased for $15K and run on a set of treads that last a season. There are large fields and there is some great competition.

The day that the SCCA realizes that the majority of amateur drivers live in a three bedroom two bath house with a two car garage.....and they target low coast alternatives for them to come out and race......will be a day that things may turn around and the SCCA may turn into a "club" again.

Anybody else can take their money and start their own pro series....

I guess im an anomaly then..

Engineer
Mid-20s
not a trust fund baby...
Purchased a mid 90's VD roller
Purchased what Honda kit parts were available (not much unfortunately) because i wanted to develop a chassis not fix a 60 year old motor.

im in at 17k minus an oilpan. The cost of racing is what it is. if you want to do it, you find a way. i cant afford a prep shop or a pro team to run with, so im doing it on my own. realistically the only thing holding me back is not having an oilpan for the honda..

i did a honda conversion in 2015 on a db6 as well.

For perspective i have also been a crew chief for a vintage team maintaining 5+ fords on a given weekend plus a few twin cams. the work involved in even keeping the fords on track every session really ruined the fords for me. when i found out honda was pulling out, i still bought in because i wouldnt be racing FF if i had to stuff a ford in my car.

point is, there is new blood coming in and i dont see that changing any time soon. just in my friend group we started with 1 car (the db6) and we now have 3 honda powered cars this year (if i can find an oil pan to finish the fab work). i expect to add another 1 the year after.

[swiftdrivr]

Maybe I'm the only one with a reliable Kent, but I can't recall an engine related DNS in years. Ran out of fuel, had a dash short out, a master switch failure, and brake problems, but no Kent Issues. basically, Rollin builds it, I put it in, and go racing. [ Well, when I remember to add fuel.].

[Bill Manofsky]

.

[problemchild]

Guys...I hate to rain on the picnic here.....and I hope I don't regret writing this post......just face it....Formula Ford does not exist any more.

Bill,

Do you even bother to read any other posts? AJ is a young man who is beside himself because he is having to wait 6 months to get his oil pan. He is exactly like the passionate young racers that most of us were 30, 40, or 50 years ago. We need more AJs. He is exactly what we need hundreds and thousands more of. I wish someone would free up an oil pan for him and wish I could.

There are several hundred Formula F racers. They love their cars, their engines (whether kent or Honda), and their racing.

There are hundreds of Formula Ford racers, probably 2 or 3 times as many. Most have gone to vintage groups, some hate Honda engined Formula F cars, but they love their cars, their engines, and their racing.

Other than FV in some parts of the country, Formula Ford/F/1600 is still the most successful formula class in the country, and in North America. For the most part, there is no hate or animosity. We don't attract the young racers like we wish we could but we have great people, great cars, and enjoy our racing.

Please stop with the doom and gloom!

[alangbaker]

Bill,

Do you even bother to read any other posts? AJ is a young man who is beside himself because he is having to wait 6 months to get his oil pan. He is exactly like the passionate young racers that most of us were 30, 40, or 50 years ago. We need more AJs. He is exactly what we need hundreds and thousands more of. I wish someone would free up an oil pan for him and wish I could.

There are several hundred Formula F racers. They love their cars, their engines (whether kent or Honda), and their racing.

There are hundreds of Formula Ford racers, probably 2 or 3 times as many. Most have gone to vintage groups, some hate Honda engined Formula F cars, but they love their cars, their engines, and their racing.

Other than FV in some parts of the country, Formula Ford/F/1600 is still the most successful formula class in the country, and in North America. For the most part, there is no hate or animosity. We don't attract the young racers like we wish we could but we have great people, great cars, and enjoy our racing.

Amen to this!

I don't meet any definition of young, but I didn't start racing until I was 51 and I'm now preparing for my 9th season.

I am so glad that I made up my mind to buy a Honda-powered car when the right one popped up, as it has made my racing much more enjoyable, and none of club racers at Mission is concerned that I'm running a Honda. We're all far too busy having a good time. We're fortunate that in time when grids have been getting smaller in a lot of places, we're having something of a resurgence; going from grids of perhaps only 4 cars back in 2015 to the point where I think we'll regularly see 8-10 cars this year.

I get that there will always be arguments about whether two engines can ever be completely equalized, but... ...who cares? We're racing for plastic trophies and fun.

I started this thread because I wanted to get us all thinking about the future of our class; both the immediate future and looking further down the road. I'm delighted to have learned that someone has taken up the task of building the specialized parts to let us continue to use the Fit engine. I hope it can be done for a reasonable profit for the companies involved.

I also hope that the Kent continues to be shepherded along with replacement parts made legal to keep all those cars—and there are lots of them—up and running reliably.

Let's go out and have a good racing season. I'm hoping that by the back half of it, my good buddy from across the border can once again join us...

...and that Dave and I will once again be racing wheel to wheel, my Van Diemen versus his Lola...

...Honda versus Kent.

[Bill Manofsky]

.

[Daryl DeArman]

What will you all do when SCCA finally drops the Kent and Cortina from the GCR? With this latest from Honda on the FIT, I can see that happening as early as next year. Topeka is at a fork in the road and do you really think they will pick the path that takes them back to the Kent?

IMO, they couldn't care less whether the parts you are using have not been produced by the OEM in 40+ years. If your class has entries you'll have a place to race.

If the entries fall to a level that it no longer makes sense for SCCA to provide a run group to race in there will be other places to race said car.

[Bernard Bradpiece]

Bill,
I am empathetic to your lament of how SCCA in its infinite wisdom screwed the class up, but that horse left the barn years ago. The question is where are we now and where do we go from here.

Given how matters transpired over time, the market has taken over from SCCA machinations and so it should. SCCA is not a place to go to race open wheel. For example, Bob Wright has taken up the challenge and defacto become what SCCA was in its heyday, certainly on the East Coast - maybe there is a clone on the West coast. Vintage racing has blossomed.

If you want to run open wheel a la how people who used to run the Majors, you run with Bob/Formula F, if you want to run a Ford on slicks or Honda on a lower level you run with Bob/Right Coast. He also has F2's and F1000. If you want to run vintage on treads (as has been the rule in the rest of the world for 50 years), there are any number of clubs out there with strong entries. For reasons of history I run FFCS which till the recent break had grids of 25 to 45 cars. Other groups are equally as successful.

Racing has changed in the last 50 years, as it changed the 50 years prior. Technology has moved on - and this includes the massive sophistication in karting. So the youngsters coming through Karts looking for a professional future are mainly focused on F4 - a worldwide recognized formula (not certain if SCCA has seen fit to "improve" that class as they "improved" the Ford class - give them time).

What we know as Formula F or Kent or Vintage has become what "club" racing should have been. Monoposto has a set of regs that deal with Club and vintage based on SCCA. Most clubs follow similar rules. Bob's rules, I assume are SCCA based. If rules need updating and amending, we actually do not need SCCA. Ideally we would have a loose affiliation with all other clubs that run F, Ford and vintage and use a similar set of rules.

I am certain we can collectively find ways of improving the package, but lets not fix what aint broke. For the first time in many years we are looking healthy. Sure there are not swaths of new cars being built but there is no shortage of used cars (and some new if required) and that seems to satisfy the current demand for a class that is no longer the critical stepping stone, but which many hundreds of racers across the country enjoy as weekend warriors.

Look forward to meeting you at The Wild Hare in April

My 2 cents

BB

[Bill Manofsky]

.

[Bill Manofsky]

.

[R. Pare]

Did you include the volume defined by the head gasket thickness?

[Bill Manofsky]

.

[Daryl DeArman]

All that formatting stuff makes its difficult for me to parse out the formulas and check the math. Assuming the formulas and your math are correct, there are some assumptions that I think are leading to an interpretation error.

You have a max allowed bore
You have a min allowed cyl volume at TDC
You have a max allowed valve protrusion
You have a max allowed compression ratio


IF you build a motor to the max allowed bore, you must not also have the minimum cyl volume at TDC and max valve protrusion or you will exceed the max CR.

You can build a 9.3:1 max CR motor within the defined boundaries. Maybe your valves don't sit as proud in their seats. Maybe you have a .004" shorter stroke and therefore a bit more volume at TDC (+ about .5 cc). If you decide that you want your valves as proud as allowed and the longest stroke permitted you better figure out a legal way to maintain a cyl volume that meets/exceeds the minimum without exceeding the max bore. Perhaps you need a new block rather than decking the one you have, for example. Maybe fly cut the tops of the pistons (if you believe that's legal if FF)

Check the actual bore on that head gasket as well. Your math may be incorrectly assuming that it matches the cylinder bore exactly.

[Bill Manofsky]

.

[Bill Manofsky]

.