Allowing Mazda motor and sequential transmission into FC

[Lenny T.]

A little common sense on how to rebuild the FC class you could buy

A) Citation for 80-100K . Fat chance of finding one for sale
B) Mygale 60-80 K . maybe 3 built in FC spec
C) USF MZR 30-40 K Roughly 40 out there and looking to be added to class.

[problemchild]

From the January 2022 GCR Fastrack.

FC1. #31756 (Steve Thomson) Allow USF2000 cars in FC per FRP rules Thank you for your letter. The Club Racing Board does not recommend this change. Introduction of the MZR-powered USF2000cars would serve to reopen the debate about balance of performance issues in FC, which would likely result in a decrease in participation in the class. In addition, USF2000 cars are an integral part of the FX class. During the 2021 U.S. Majors seasonUSF2000 cars accounted for approximately 20% of the entries in FX, and the class would have been unable to achieve an average of 4.0 cars per event without their participation.

From the 2022 Runoff Entry List.

#	Name	Class	Vehicle	Hometown	Sponsor
4	Kevin Fandozzi	FX	2012 Mygale FC	St Joseph, MI	Insight Driven | Hoosier Tire | LTD
8	Austin Hill	FX	2014 Elan DP-08 Mazda	Frankfort, OH	Southern Ohio Equipment Co, G-Loc Brakes, Big Tex Trailers, PJ Trailers, CM Truck Beds, Rc Trailers,
31	TR Trevor A Russell	FX	2001 Van Diemen RF01, Van Diemen	Tucson, AZ
72	Dimitrios Tsesmetzis	FX	2005 Van Diemen RF 052USA	Mamaroneck, NY	Global Racing Team

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

My personal overview, certainly not fact supported, not because the facts may not support it, because I won't spend the time.

Atleast two of the FX Runoff entries are actually Zetec powered.

The guys with the Formula Renaults can not be bothered with the Runoffs.

The guys with the older FMs feel disenfranchised and can not be bothered with the Runoffs.

The FM service provider is now building and selling FE2 clones (to the casual observer) with the target market of non-SCCA racing.

Too many Mazda powered FC cars are sitting while FC needs more entries.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

Perhaps it is time that the powers-at-be at SCCA (including some FC people), stop with the delusional concept that it is better to grow FX than support FC. All the arguments for and against are in the previous 4 pages, so no need to rehash once again. It is clearly time to get the specific ex USF2000 VD cars included in FC. There is time to make this happen for 2023.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

Please contact any and all SCCA power figures you know (lots hanging out in Virginia next week) and convey your thoughts. Perhaps even forward this message. I would specifically target the SCCA power figures with FC connections, as they have the most influence, and appear to not be supporting this movement.

Cheers!

Note: I will essentially be "on-the-road" supporting my business and the SCCA Runoffs later today. No need to argue with me personally as I will not be monitoring Apexspeed. Please turn any venom into honey and direct toward SCCA power figures ...... rather than me or each other. Thanks!

Note #2: Just to quell any Runoff schedule banter, SCCA has honored their commitment to those who supported FX this year, although, I am sure the SM and SRF3 guys will not be impressed. The FX class runs with other classes on the test days, and with FE2 for Q sessions. They race last on Friday, which would be considered the lowest impact time slot. I expect this single class status was maintained because 25% of the field also races in FA and another 25% of the field races in FC. Both those drivers did support SCCA Club racing events.

[rockbeau25]

Baffling to me that 4 cars that are essentially FCs get grouped with FE2 rather than FC for qualifying.

[Mike B]

In addition, USF2000 cars are an integral part of the FX class. During the 2021 U.S. Majors seasonUSF2000 cars accounted for approximately 20% of the entries in FX, and the class would have been unable to achieve an average of 4.0 cars per event without their participation.

FX: the answer to the question that nobody asked.

The statement above makes it clear that the SCCA will not move USF2000 cars because it would be admitting they made a mistake in creating FX. They will continue to prop up FX until changes are made in the FSRAC and CRB.
On the other hand, I look forward to the livestream of the four car FX Runoffs race. I wonder if the announcers will mention that half the field are actually FCs...

[problemchild]

I don't think we need to disparage anyone who is racing the FX class at the Runoffs. I know all 4, 2 are occasional customers, and certainly have no problem with any. My local dirt-track runs the Novice Sportsman after the Modified Main Feature. It lets the competitors on to the track to race, while most of the crowd heads for the gate. I consider this a similar situation.

This Runoffs turn out may be the trigger to get this sorted out for 2023. Let's take advantage of the situation!

[rockbeau25]

The FRP podium today was Zetec - MZR - Pinto. I’m sure that’s not the first time that has happened, but if that isn’t proof these cars can coexist I don’t know what will be.

[dalz]

Several years ago, I raced in the USF2000 series supporting IndyCar. The series, at the time, offered a National class so club-spec FC Zetec cars could compete at the same time in the big show. The twist is...I was driving a USF2-spec car--MZR, 5sp. sequential. This was fine because my engine was re-mapped to make 170hp to match the Zetecs. I also had to weigh an additional 50 lbs. compared to every other car, pro MZR and club Zetec. We felt this was a bit harsh because, according to my team, the 5 sp. has no advantage over the 4 sp. FC 'box. It's heavier and has more inertia. Of course another gear is nice so maybe it's close to a wash.

I just wanted to offer this info to help the conversation. I'm hoping the USF2 cars can get into FC because...I also race an FM.

[rockbeau25]

I've been seeing a handful of Facebook posts saying this is close to being completed. Anyone know where it stands? Spec-line USF2000 or MZR as a new engine option?

[John LaRue]

See Race Memo:

https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/067/767/RM%2023-07%20USF2000%20MZR%20F2000%20FC%20Classification.p df?1683816997

[Matt Clark]

So the entire car package was made as a Spec Line, and not just the engine/gearbox?
That seems a bit of a waste, considering the car is the same another DP08 with a Zetec or Pinto. What is the issue with not allowing the same chassis rules as the rest of the field?

[problemchild]

So the entire car package was made as a Spec Line, and not just the engine/gearbox?
That seems a bit of a waste, considering the car is the same another DP08 with a Zetec or Pinto. What is the issue with not allowing the same chassis rules as the rest of the field?

Because the same influential people who have blocked this inclusion for the last decade, want to keep the USF cars at a disadvantage, This does give people a place to run these cars and will add to FC participation numbers.

The better news is that there is such a disparity in driving and preparation within the FC class, that well-driven and well-prepped USF cars can beat all but the top 5 or so FC cars in the country, which makes them competitive for podiums, if not wins, at almost any event other than the Runoffs and Sprints. Considering the price point of these USF cars, that is reasonable.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

So the entire car package was made as a Spec Line, and not just the engine/gearbox?
That seems a bit of a waste, considering the car is the same another DP08 with a Zetec or Pinto. What is the issue with not allowing the same chassis rules as the rest of the field?

Probably to prevent existing FC from adopting the MZR.
Isn't the sequential box already allowed (some USF cars had Zetecs) ?

I am surprised they didn't limit the box to 4 spd. BUT this is progress.

[rockbeau25]

Probably to prevent existing FC from adopting the MZR.

What good reason is there for this?

Our entire class consists of engines that are either 50 or 30 years old. Parts are in short supply. I don't understand why there should be opposition to introducing a more recent, readily available engine that's already been proven to be equalized to the current engines. Not saying it has to be the MZR though it is by far the most logical choice.

This is certainly a step in the right direction, and I look forward to seeing bigger fields with cars that say C on them instead of X. I just hope it's a stepping stone into adding the MZR as an engine option.

[Matt Clark]

Fair points, Greg.

I know they can run competitive in FRP as-is, but it just doesn't make sense not to allow "standard" replacement parts from an identical chassis, so there can't be many reasons beyond your conclusion. Maybe I am wrong here, but if I bang a corner up with my DP08 MZR, why can't I borrow or buy an arm from my buddy pitted next to me with a DP08 Zetec, and not have to get the special USF2000-stickered one?
Keeping the engine/gearbox combo as a required pair & not allow mix/match would probably even be semi-reasonable, even though mixing should also be allowed in my mind. If I bust up a sequential gearbox in a MZR car, I can't put in a H-Pattern box to replace it?

Definitely progress... but still a missed opportunity.
How are things going to be handled when a new FC engine is introduced now?

[BeerBudgetRacing]

What good reason is there for this?

So it remains a line spec car and not another engine option.

[Spengo]

Unfortunate, should have just kept things simple and allowed it as an alternate engine. The MZR the USF cars use is pretty old too though so while I am happy we now have a big batch of extremely affordable and nice FC cars even that is just a bandaid for the problem of dwindling Zetec supplies. I guess our hopes for a potential new FC engine lie with the Sigma discussed in the Road Atlanta FF thread.

[Mike B]

Are they still building DP08s with an MZR?

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I guess our hopes for a potential new FC engine lie with the Sigma discussed in the Road Atlanta FF thread.

That's 20 years old already and doesn't produce the target HP.
So, I would say that isn't an option.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Sigma_engine

[Matt Clark]

That's 20 years old already and doesn't produce the target HP.
So, I would say that isn't an option.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Sigma_engine

But it's literally in development & should be on track later this year. QuickSilver is getting the numbers out of it, alongside the Ray chassis stuff.

[Lotus7]

... going back to the MZR discussion...

Is the post a few above this one correct in that only USF-identified chassis components are allowed on MZR cars in scca FC?

i.e. paying full Haas markups?
and how long will they be available given the USF cars have all been superceded?

[Matt Clark]

... going back to the MZR discussion...

Is the post a few above this one correct in that only USF-identified chassis components are allowed on MZR cars in scca FC?

i.e. paying full Haas markups?
and how long will they be available given the USF cars have all been superceded?

Per the RM21-07 Memo & document referenced/linked within that, that certainly appears to be the case. It gives specific part numbers for basically all body components, and has the sentence "Components must bear the intact approved seal applied by the authorized Van Diemen distributor" in the suspension section.

https://www.scca.com/downloads/67761...fc-v2/download

[BeerBudgetRacing]

But it's literally in development & should be on track later this year. QuickSilver is getting the numbers out of it, alongside the Ray chassis stuff.

Are there really that many engines available of the specific model that will be needed?

So were going to take a 1.6 or 1.7 and up-tune it out of reliability ?

It seems 155hp is attainable but that is what is yielded from a racing version.
https://www.burtonpower.com/tuning-g...ng-guide.html#

To me the goal of any new engine should be low mods and low increase in power to attain the desired power.
That translates into reliability and reduced long term cost.

[BrianT1]

Per the RM21-07 Memo & document referenced/linked within that, that certainly appears to be the case. It gives specific part numbers for basically all body components, and has the sentence "Components must bear the intact approved seal applied by the authorized Van Diemen distributor" in the suspension section.

https://www.scca.com/downloads/67761...fc-v2/download

I don’t believe that’s true. A arms, bell cranks, etc are the exact same as from Brad Baytos as they are from Haas other than cost. I think what they are saying is, the car has to stay in usf2000 spec. Meaning you can’t run the low aero wing like they do at Road America or some other special whizzy bits that may come from alternate supply.

I think them having this as a spec line car because it’s the exact same Vandiemen as with a zetec or pinto that’s been around for 20 years is a good thing. If they opened up motors or gearboxes it would be a slippery slope. Let’s see how this brings numbers up and then take baby steps for the future. Unless someone is in line to dump 20k to upgrade to a new engine package this seems like a more sane model for now.

Brian

[Lotus7]

If they opened up motors or gearboxes it would be a slippery slope.
Brian

But they specifically aren't opening up the motor or the gearbox:
they are restricting chassis and aero components, which have always been essentially free in the concept of a "formula" class.
Fixed spec already exists in their inhouse FE2 class for those that want it.

[Matt Clark]

Are there really that many engines available of the specific model that will be needed?

So were going to take a 1.6 or 1.7 and up-tune it out of reliability ?

It seems 155hp is attainable but that is what is yielded from a racing version.
https://www.burtonpower.com/tuning-g...ng-guide.html#

To me the goal of any new engine should be low mods and low increase in power to attain the desired power.
That translates into reliability and reduced long term cost.

Being that this is the same engine as the SRF3, I would guess there are more than enough engines for everyone to convert if they want.
I cannot speak to any of the other points, other than to say it did surprise me too a bit, but I believe Erik at QS when he says he can make it work.

I don’t believe that’s true. A arms, bell cranks, etc are the exact same as from Brad Baytos as they are from Haas other than cost. I think what they are saying is, the car has to stay in usf2000 spec. Meaning you can’t run the low aero wing like they do at Road America or some other special whizzy bits that may come from alternate supply.

I think them having this as a spec line car because it’s the exact same Vandiemen as with a zetec or pinto that’s been around for 20 years is a good thing. If they opened up motors or gearboxes it would be a slippery slope. Let’s see how this brings numbers up and then take baby steps for the future. Unless someone is in line to dump 20k to upgrade to a new engine package this seems like a more sane model for now.

Brian

And that is possible... I am just going off where it spells out exactly what the requirements are, which says it has to have the stickers & such.
But like is said above, the motors/gearboxes arent opened up. They are restricting you from doing chassis changes that are allowed on identical chassis with other engines. Why would you not be allowed to run low-drag wings or wizzy bits? All that is doing is purposely hindering you, so why even bother attempting the Runoffs at that point? Seems to be counter-productive if you are trying to expand the field size.

[problemchild]

While I agree that the rule, as written, is lacking, why is anybody surprised? Inclusion of the USF cars is only a decade late which is typical of the SCCA process. Influential SCCA people did not want this to happen and they certainly don't want to hear anything about the next FC engine.

Having said that, I will agree that the USF cars and FC engine evolution should be treated as separate issues. It was difficult enough to get the USF inclusion. Now the FC community can independently pursue cleaning up the new rule and finding the next FC engine.

[S Lathrop]

This rules package will be good for FC numbers the short term. Having an engine package that is current or close to current is a good and necessary thing.

But I don't see anyone making a new F2000 or doing a conversion of a popular FF to F2000 because they would have to use engines that have been out of production for decades and no longer have any form of factory support. Say good by to the Piper and the Citation, at least any new car designs in F2000.

If I wanted to make a car to smoke the competition, I might think about a Pinto powered car. But that would just be a one time project with no future.

Running a non-VD car in FC will not be as rough as running F2000 cars against the Ralt RT4 as we did when F2000 first started in SCCA.

The days of classic formula car racing where there were a set of rules, the formula, and you built a car to those rules are gone. Spec car racing is now the norm.

[Rick Silver]

My guess is it is possible to bring a new current motor into the FC class if the competitors want. I helped lead the effort to bring the Zetec into FC in ~ 2006. I was the FC rep on the SCCA formula car advisory committee at the time and I think Dave Gomberg was on the board and supported the idea. I may get some of the facts wrong but as I remember we did the following.

The Zetec was current and available as a crate engine and had been introduced to the pro series which was robust at the time. So it made sense to write a set of SCCA rules. Myself, and a group of FC competitors, IIRC Tim Minor and Chas Shaffer and few others were directly involved. Quick Silver and Eric and Sandy also played a very important role. The engine was dynoed and baselined at QS to match the Pinto as best possible in the shop. Then we got Summit Point to do a test day and on track comparisons. We had my car with a very good Pinto and a Zetec car, maybe more than one. We did side by side tests, drag races on the straight and QS tweaked the mapping and restrictor until things looked pretty equal. We always knew the Zetec spun up easier at the time, but that has been largely addressed since.

Then we wrote (the group of us and QS) a detailed set of rules that intended to absolutely minimize development and only use crate engines with factory OEM unaltered parts that were still available at the time. We submitted the detailed rule set and it got sent out for comment and approved.

The biggest difference then and now was the clear choice of engine already being installed in the pro cars. But if a clear choice of engine were identified and QS was on board, some sort of FC driver/team driven process could be followed again.

[rockbeau25]

The biggest difference then and now was the clear choice of engine already being installed in the pro cars. But if a clear choice of engine were identified and QS was on board, some sort of FC driver/team driven process could be followed again.

Correct me if any of this is wrong, but the pro series cars still use a 2L MZR, and they're still available as a crate engine. They're not in a club legal car anymore but the supply of engines hasn't gone away.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Correct me if any of this is wrong, but the pro series cars still use a 2L MZR, and they're still available as a crate engine. They're not in a club legal car anymore but the supply of engines hasn't gone away.

Correct. The FE is running an MZR as is the latest USF2000 Tatuus.

[JoshuaJustice]

Wasn't the MZR car being in FX the reason so many FMs didn't bother to run in FX at the Runoffs level? Could this actually be better for FM (FX) participation even if it doesn't really move the needle for FC?

[dalz]

Wasn't the MZR car being in FX the reason so many FMs didn't bother to run in FX at the Runoffs level? Could this actually be better for FM (FX) participation even if it doesn't really move the needle for FC?

Hopefully. FX seems to have a good group of cars now that are close in speed. FM, 1st-gen F4, any Zetec FC that wants to double-dip, FormulaSPEED, and a couple obscurities. The outlier is the ridiculous old Super Vee. I don't know how many FM racers feel the bridge has been burned and won't be back.

[S Lathrop]

Hopefully. FX seems to have a good group of cars now that are close in speed. FM, 1st-gen F4, any Zetec FC that wants to double-dip, FormulaSPEED, and a couple obscurities. The outlier is the ridiculous old Super Vee. I don't know how many FM racers feel the bridge has been burned and won't be back.

"The outlier is the ridiculous old Super Vee"

What are you referring to? Air-cooled FSV of the mid 1970's?

For many years the air-cooled FSVs were legal to run as a F2000. Fortunately no one did to my knowledge. I am certain that my Z14 and the Lolas would have easily been faster than the Citation F2000. In a Goodyear tire test at Phoenix, the Z14 air-cooled FVS turned laps significantly faster that the fastest water cooled FVS that day. The speed gap was enough that in a race distance the Z14 would have either lapped the water cooled cars or come very close to doing so.

[dalz]

Yes, the SVs, up to the Ralt RT-5s of the '80s. I'm sure nothing else in FX could touch a well-prepared one. Although there has been discussion about whether they would be allowed to use their sidepod skirts. (Skirts! Cue music from The Knack!) That might slow them down a bit, but certainly not enough to keep them from disappearing from everything else.

[TimH]

IIRC the lap record for FA at PIR (Phoenix) is held by a FSV (with skirts).

[Steve Demeter]

"The outlier is the ridiculous old Super Vee"

What are you referring to? Air-cooled FSV of the mid 1970's?

For many years the air-cooled FSVs were legal to run as a F2000. Fortunately no one did to my knowledge. I am certain that my Z14 and the Lolas would have easily been faster than the Citation F2000. In a Goodyear tire test at Phoenix, the Z14 air-cooled FVS turned laps significantly faster that the fastest water cooled FVS that day. The speed gap was enough that in a race distance the Z14 would have either lapped the water cooled cars or come very close to doing so.

I did run a Lola AC SV until 1994 at which time they were simply moved to FA by the SCCA with a 2 liter engine. Also at the same time the old roll bar specs were no longer grandfathered in. So I sold it to a guy who went vintage racing on the West Coast. But on a good day I could keep up with the mediocre F2000 cars (bad driver in the SV).

[RussMcB]

I thought a watercooled FSV (like a Ralt RT5) would be a killer in FX, too. But, I have not heard of any running in that class. I know there are plenty out there, probably running in vintage.

They have been in FA for a long time, too, right? I wonder, can they run in either FA or FX now?

I didn't think skirts (that can run near the track surface) were ever allowed in SCCA Club Racing, but I could be wrong.

I'd have never thought an aircooled FSV might be faster than an RT5 with tunnels (but again, could be wrong about that, too).

I haven't really added anything to this discussion, have I? :-)

My old '83 RT5. Great car.

[Steve Demeter]

I think that Steve L and I were referring to an air cooled SV being potentially faster than an early F2000 car, not a Ralt SV.

[kea]

The suspension worked better on even those early F2000, to the point that the better HP of the Air Cooled SV still was not competitive. Although some people hope otherwise.

[Steve Demeter]

Keith I did say on a good day keeping up with the mediocre F200 cars, not the fast ones....