FV Disc Brakes

[BLS]

It doesn't take an insider to see FV has participation issues. Regarding my earlier post with the participation numbers for majors, the most recent major at NJ had 4 cars. 4, that is 4 cars, at a "Majors" race. Similar numbers are occurring in other area's. There were 8 cars at Mid Ohio majors a couple weeks ago. This weekend, at Road America, the June Sprints, there are 5 cars. The June Sprints, Major race, 5 cars. We have a very large issue with the class.

There are FV cars (defined as ACVW and H beam type front) running successfully around the world. We know what they have done and what works. We have something similar here in FST, but with regional only status it is not going to grow beyond a certain level, IMO.

Competitors have a great deal of time and money invested in the current format. However, there have been many changes over the years. Incremental changes have been occurring. Incremental reduces the shock effect. Options reduce the shock effect. It doesn't matter if it "should have occurred 25 years ago", that doesn't by itself make it too late.

The current rules package is not going to increase participation. Will some changes help? We cannot know the answer without trying. We do know it is working in other places, but does it transfer? I don't know. I do have a sense of what is happening if no changes are made.

It would be nice to know what "flexible" refers to.

[jpetillo]

I think we can't keep going back and arguing what we should have done in the past. Best intentions aside, we honestly have no idea if those ideas would have worked or not. We are where we are today and nothing can change that. Not that we won't continue to drag along baggage - it's human nature - but we need to look at the present and forward.

I personally think the committee's minutes stating "We are trying to understand the direction in which the community wants to go if other options are to be considered. Whether the SCCA decides to allow disc brakes in FV or not is anyone’s guess, but we will need as much feedback as we can get to get a true representation of the community's vision." is hard to argue against as an approach. We (FV) should decide what we want and how flexible the rules should be if the SCCA decides that disc brakes should be in our future.

The forums can help bandy about lots of ideas to consider, but posters typically represent only a small segment of the FV population, and then some posters have no stake in FV. So, everyone getting their feedback directly to the FV committee is the most important thing we can do.

[jpetillo]

BLS, well said.

I think the drop in FV participation in the east is mostly due to the runoffs being on the west coast this year. I think you might find that regional participation is slightly up as a result in the east. The runoffs location is important to the participation numbers. I think the runoffs being on the west coast is a good idea since they need a boost in participation. But it probably would take a few years. The east coast will spring back when the runoffs are closer.

[BLS]

John,

Yes, the west coast runoffs has at least some effect on participation. But I could go back to numbers from last year and they are not that great either. Or go further back to nationals and we see a declining trend.

Regional participation seems pretty good in the NE, but in the SE I don't see it. regional races at great tracks like Road Atlanta and VIR, etc. and there are often 1-3 cars entered. Roebling in two weeks has 6 cars entered.

West coast runoffs, economy, less interest in open wheel, they all play a part. I don't know the answer, but I believe the same will result in the same.

I personally think the class needs some revitalization to attract the subset of racers that would be interested in FV. It's just an opinion.

YMMV,
Barry

[Steve Bamford]

Has anyone looked at the participation numbers for Mid Ohio next month for an all FV run group? You might have to re think some of what you have written.

[Bill Bonow]

Steve,

Has anyone reviewed the June Sprints participation numbers?
The lowest it has been, ever.
In 1963 they had (6) FV's

You can't really use a single "specialty" event to gauge trends.

[Steve Bamford]

Yes I followed the races on race monitor, it is not just FV at the Sprints, did you see the FM participation numbers as an example? 2 cars!

I believe there are many things hampering FV numbers but the Mid Ohio events shows there still can be big fields if you have offerings people are looking for. This is not an anniversary event so it does show people will show up for FV events if offered & lots of notification. There are 27 entries currently with three weeks to go...with others who I know who still haven't entered.

Bill, yes it is a one off event. With that said it could turn into more then that going forward possibly.

[Mark Filip]

BLS, well said.

I think the drop in FV participation in the east is mostly due to the runoffs being on the west coast this year. I think you might find that regional participation is slightly up as a result in the east. The runoffs location is important to the participation numbers. I think the runoffs being on the west coast is a good idea since they need a boost in participation. But it probably would take a few years. The east coast will spring back when the runoffs are closer.

The Pro FV race is also going to take away from the Glen majors. I think there is only 1 signed up so far and approaching 30 FVs for the pro race. Does not seem like many on the east cost care about the runoffs this year.

[Bill Bonow]

Copied this from another fine thread we have here at ApexSpeed (in the FV section).

It was posted by Mr. Stan Clayton who gathered the data from a club we all know and love, the SCCA.

These two charts speak for themselves. These show trends that need to be recognized.

Again, made from SCCA data:

[Steve Bamford]

SCCA offerings have something to do with the issue.

[jpetillo]

Data without full context can be dangerous! This does show a trend, but without seeing how the rest of the classes fared, we really can't pass judgement. For example, have the number of classes stayed the same? If so, then this trend is perhaps significant. If there have been new classes added, then we have to share. New classes takes racers away from other classes. I think we need to see all the class participation graphs to see where FV stands. Is that data available?

[Bill Bonow]

John,

Stan will have to get you that detail. I just repurposed his previous post from another thread.

However as a general note, the total number of classes has not changed all that much over the past 30 years. New classes have been added (SRF and SM being the most significant) and old ones have gone away through combining or elimination.

Been involved with FV for 34 years, I agree with the general point of the charts that tells me the FV numbers have been on a gradual reduction over the past 30 years.

Steve,

Yes, SCCA club racing seems to changing direction in its offering to the club racer.
Some think it is good, most think it sucks.

I think we are talking about the CRB asking for flexible rules to allow regenerative carbon disc brakes in FV to make the proposal more palatable for the typical FV racer?

[Bill Bonow]

We would need some understanding of why they evolved the way they did, and that we could draw from. For example, did all of their changes really work, or did they back peddle with some of the changes.

Well, please remember that you threw the bait out there.....

As I like to refer to the other VW AC open wheel class as to not offend, the "it" rules are almost identical to the Australian FV 1600 rules. The only technical difference is they use 15" x 6" wheels to our 13" x 6" and they use fan/belt cooling where we do not.

In 2002, we simply took the FVANSW (CAMS) rules and built a car.

The car counts in Australia have increased dramatically as did new car production.

In Australia, no back pedaling. Here in the US, "it" has moved forward with minor changes/improvements and the GCR rules are untouched in 5 years

If you would like to speak with someone from the FVANSW to understand their evolution, PM Ray Filetti here at ApexSpeed. His board name is Rayzor. I'm sure they will be happy to give you a full technical history of their evolution.

Here is another reference point: https://www.facebook.com/groups/110798678960764/

[Stan Clayton]

More data to argue about...

[Daryl DeArman]

More data to argue about...

Dilution....more classes, more events....less people attending

[BLS]

Dilution....

I don't see it quite that way. Stan's chart (thanks) shows a national drop that corresponds to the economic drop. Of late, national races have increased, but national participation is rebounding as well.

Compare that chart with the FV participation chart and you can see a problem...

[Stan Clayton]

Dilution....more classes, more events....less people attending

I trust you have some data to support this conclusion? Because total national entries for 2013 was 10,180, versus an average of 9706 for the previous 30 years. That's not an indication that less people are attending.

Not to pick on you, Daryl, but I have heard the argument for 20 years that adding classes and races somehow dilutes participation. Yet the argument ALWAYS comes from people in classes that are LOSING participation...as if not adding those new classes would have resulted in sustained participation in the losing class.

To illustrate the point let's look at FV versus FF. Back in 1969 FV had about 2000 national entries and was far and away the largest class in SCCA. For 1970 the BoD (BoG then...) approved FF and within two years it displaced FV as SCCA's largest class. Fast forward 44 years to now...is ANYONE suggesting SCCA should not have approved FF? Seriously? I thought not.

But not to worry, a decade and a half later SR(F) did the same thing to FF, followed by the SM blockbuster and more recently the ST classes. The bottom line is that SCCA reacts to (and sometimes even anticipates) changes in member preferences, AND ACTS ON those shifts in interest. That's how a club stays relevant to its members.

On a tangentially related note, SCCA's failure to integrate the IT classes into national racing back in the mid-90's led directly to the formation of NASA, which is now literally as large as SCCA. Later on the rise of Lemons and then Chumpcar (each about as large as SCCA national entries) emerged from dissatisfaction with NASA and SCCA...then Lemons (yes, Chumpcar is a spinoff of Lemons). IOW, clubs react to their members interests or those members go elsewhere.

So SCCA is trying to keep FV relevant to member interests. Some folks say that it's just fine the way it is, while others argue that it should judiciously update to maintain interest...a la international FV. I recently sold my FV so no longer directly have a dog in this fight, but it should be clear from my posts that I am in the latter camp. I don't want to see FV continue the long slide to irrelevancy it has been on for 20 years, so support limited changes to the class. IMO, adding BJ beams and disc brakes helps keep the class current and engaged while not significantly deviating from its class philosophy, so I support it.

YMMV, of course!

[Daryl DeArman]

Stan,

When I say "less people attending", I am referring to the Average National Race Entries.

Less people attending the average National, not the total number of entries per season.

I'm looking at the years 2006 onward, which correspond to the uptick in classes entered.



As to dilution of the racing, here's my take (using round numbers for illustrative purposes):

200 entries avg with 20 classes and 50 Nationals = 10000 entries. AVG 10entries/class

100 entries avg with 40 classes and 100 Nationals = 10000 entries. AVG 2.5entries/class

I would certainly argue that most would consider the later example dilution, despite no change in total race entires.

[Stan Clayton]

As to dilution of the racing, here's my take (using round numbers for illustrative purposes):

200 entries avg with 20 classes and 50 Nationals = 10000 entries. AVG 10entries/class

100 entries avg with 40 classes and 100 Nationals = 10000 entries. AVG 2.5entries/class

I would certainly argue that most would consider the later example dilution, despite no change in total race entires.

So? As I wrote above, "th[at] argument ALWAYS comes from people in classes that are LOSING participation...as if not adding those new classes would have resulted in sustained participation in the losing class."

So, where is the proof that not adding new classes would sustain (much less grow) the numbers of racers in a losing class? Look, SCCA has been adding classes since within a few years of its formation. First the Brits increased the displacement of their 2-seat sh*tboxes, so SCCA added more Production classes to fit them in. Then they added GT classes to accommodate those dissatisfied with the Prod rules. Then came the earliest Formula and Modified (now P1 & P2) classes. And so on.

So when do you start counting it as "dilution"? When the club grew from 5 classes to 7? From 15 to 21, or from 30 to 28?

More to the point, if you think FV should stay the course...IOW not make ANY changes, what is your plan for keeping participation healthy? Specifics please.

[jpetillo]

More data to argue about...

Looking at the graphs alone, without reading Stan's and others messages yet, it shows that there was over a 30% increase in the number of National classes by 2007. That's quite a bit. The two upper graphs show that the increase in races sort of balanced with the decrease in the avg. participants per race.

It would be good to know what the cause was for the 30% increase in classes in just two years. That increase in such a short time is unprecedented according to the graph, and something like that often has a similarly significant effect (with consequences that are often not good, but that's a guess).

I'll read the other comments tomorrow when I get the chance.

Thanks for the graphs, although we still need more to tell the story. John

[Daryl DeArman]

So, where is the proof that not adding new classes would sustain (much less grow) the numbers of racers in a losing class?

Obviously, I can't turn back the clock and prove what would have happened.

Look, SCCA has been adding classes since within a few years of its formation. First the Brits increased the displacement of their 2-seat sh*tboxes, so SCCA added more Production classes to fit them in. Then they added GT classes to accommodate those dissatisfied with the Prod rules. Then came the earliest Formula and Modified (now P1 & P2) classes. And so on.

Giving 2 classes National status and revoking National status from 2 others isn't "adding" classes in the context I am using "adding" classes.

So when do you start counting it as "dilution"? When the club grew from 5 classes to 7? From 15 to 21, or from 30 to 28?

I start calling it dilution when the average racers per class per event has a downward slope.
Again, you can't have 2x the classes, 2x the events and 1/4 of the average entrants per class and think the quality of the racing hasn't been diluted. Just because the total entries are the same??? That's a bean-counter perspective (same revenue) not a racer (1/4 of the folks in class to race against.)

More to the point, if you think FV should stay the course...IOW not make ANY changes, what is your plan for keeping participation healthy? Specifics please.

I don't think FV should stay the course. I have tried to tone down the delivery of my opinion as I sold my FV in 2006. However, I'm now in a place again to buy a car and race again, and it won't be a FV. It's not FST or F600 for me either even though both classes offer certain appealing attributes....their downfall is there isn't the level of competition in SoCal that I am looking for in either class.

[Bill Bonow]

I think we are talking about the CRB asking for flexible rules to allow regenerative carbon disc brakes in FV to make the proposal more palatable for the typical FV racer?

I'm just as guilty as anyone, but let's get back the tread topic, disc brakes on FV.

I know all those New England FV guys are just waiting for the final approval so they can run out and bolt them on

[sracing]

But are those "flexible" enough?

[Mark Filip]

I'm just as guilty as anyone, but let's get back the tread topic, disc brakes on FV.

I know all those New England FV guys are just waiting for the final approval so they can run out and bolt them on

I think 99% of the New England FV drivers could care less about disc brakes and won't do a thing.

[Michael_Clark]

More data to argue about...

Guys,

All comments about disc brakes, or no disc brakes, aside. Stan's chart seems very revealing to me. The real hit of the economic downturn did not occur until 2009. Yet FV Nationals participation started dropping off significantly prior to that. Is it not interesting that the FV class participation number dropped off in 2006, which coincides with the move of the RunOffs to Topeka?

You can argue all you want about car configuration, but if the ultimate goal, the RunOffs, are out of reach for the highest concentration of participants, why run the series?

I say this with great respect for all of the West Coast racers who have had to travel too far east prior to 2006.

Mike

[BLS]

Mike, perhaps you have "national race entries" in the chart confused with FV national entries. The chart you show is not the FV participation, it is all national entries.

The FV slide began around 1990 and has continued on the same basic trajectory to now. Nothing unusual happened with FV levels at 2006. Look at comment #289 for the FV chart.

Regards,
Barry

[Stan Clayton]

Mike, perhaps you have "national race entries" in the chart confused with FV national entries. The chart you show is not the FV participation, it is all national entries.

The FV slide began around 1990 and has continued on the same basic trajectory to now. Nothing unusual happened with FV levels at 2006.

Regards,
Barry

Actually, IIRC FV participation peaked in 1970-71 at about 2000 entries, then declined by about a third over the next decade-and-a-half before enjoying a slight resurgence in the late 80's. As you note, though, FV participation has been on a fairly steady slide since 1990. Sorry I don't have year-to-year data to include in the chart.

[Stan Clayton]

I start calling it dilution when the average racers per class per event has a downward slope.

I hate to break it to you, but that was happening by the late-40's, within just a few years of the club's founding, and has happened regularly since. People's interests in racing change; they try a class only to decide it's not for them and move to another class. If participation in the former class remains strong enough SCCA keeps it and adds the class folks were moving to. It's the nature of club racing to cater to the interests of the membership, NOT to carve a class structure in stone and then tell potential members they can race any class car they like...so long as it's one of these classes.

[With apologies to Henry Ford... ]

Again, you can't have 2x the classes, 2x the events and 1/4 of the average entrants per class and think the quality of the racing hasn't been diluted. Just because the total entries are the same??? That's a bean-counter perspective (same revenue) not a racer (1/4 of the folks in class to race against.)

Give it up, Daryl...that dog won't hunt. Moreover, you're just flat wrong. In the earliest years, SCCA held a small handful of races in (IIRC) just one state with just 5 classes. Within ten years it had more than doubled the number of classes; had spread across the country with dozens of local Regions, and was holding hundreds of local events per year. By your metric that would be dilution, but it's just the nature of growth.

I don't think FV should stay the course. I have tried to tone down the delivery of my opinion as I sold my FV in 2006. However, I'm now in a place again to buy a car and race again, and it won't be a FV. It's not FST or F600 for me either even though both classes offer certain appealing attributes....their downfall is there isn't the level of competition in SoCal that I am looking for in either class.

This comment is the final facepalm for me, Daryl. After all your rants about class growth and dilution, and my challenges to you to come up with a better plan, what is you solution? Leave FV and move to a locally growing class.

You win. I surrender.

But thank you for proving my point.

[Daryl DeArman]

I hate to break it to you, but that was happening by the late-40's, within just a few years of the club's founding, and has happened regularly since. People's interests in racing change; they try a class only to decide it's not for them and move to another class. If participation in the former class remains strong enough SCCA keeps it and adds the class folks were moving to. It's the nature of club racing to cater to the interests of the membership, NOT to carve a class structure in stone and then tell potential members they can race any class car they like...so long as it's one of these classes.

Just because it is the nature of the club, and been happening for a while doesn't mean it isn't dilution.

If your business revenue increased by 8% but you had to work 85 hours a week instead of 65 and it took 28 employees instead of 21 to do it would you think you are moving in the right direction?

Give it up, Daryl...that dog won't hunt. Moreover, you're just flat wrong. In the earliest years, SCCA held a small handful of races in (IIRC) just one state with just 5 classes. Within ten years it had more than doubled the number of classes; had spread across the country with dozens of local Regions, and was holding hundreds of local events per year. By your metric that would be dilution, but it's just the nature of growth.

They were growing with the market. Not spreading themselves thinner supporting the relatively same market.

This comment is the final facepalm for me, Daryl. After all your rants about class growth and dilution, and my challenges to you to come up with a better plan, what is you solution? Leave FV and move to a locally growing class.

You specifically asked for my solution IF I thought FV should stay the course. Again, relative to this thread: I don't think they should.

14 of 28, that's HALF of the classes last year didn't even average enough entrants to fill a podium. That is pathetic. If you think adding more classes and/or events that disproportionately adds more total entries is good for the SCCA I can't help you.

[rave motorsports]

IMHO - a decision just needs to be made, not having a clear direction and plan for anything hurts more than any other factor. Please just somebody make the decision. I had a lot of these same talks with Bill Noble clear back 10 years ago. If any business ran this way it would have been broke years ago. Even if the decision is keep it the same, make it, believe in it, promote it, and live with the consequences, good or bad. " The Discussion" is doing more harm then good.

[Daryl DeArman]

If any business ran this way it would have been broke years ago. Even if the decision is keep it the same, make it, believe in it, promote it, and live with the consequences, good or bad.

Preach it.

[sracing]

IMHO - a decision just needs to be made, not having a clear direction and plan for anything hurts more than any other factor. Please just somebody make the decision.

IMHO 2 .

As long as the decision is leave FV alone. You want disc brakes?, Go to one of a dozen other classes. You want doors?, same thing. You want disc brakes with an ACVW engine go FST. Don't screw with a hundred guys that have an FV that works just fine. Why make them invest $1000 to $2000 etc. into a class that will not be here in a few more years based upon the charts being shown. (Especially since drum brakes are the least of the issues hurting the class.)

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

Bam Bam

SCCA offerings have something to do with the issue.

Substitute "something" with "everything" in the above quote.

For me personally, a 33 year FV driver, I am frustrated with the race groupings. I want quality track time. I don't really care about the cost of the entries if I feel like I am getting a quality experience.

Currently in the SF region the entries are averaging around $500.00 and we get an average of 90 minutes of track time. That in its self is pretty bad but what is even more frustrating is I spend the entire time on the track looking in my mirrors to avoid the FF's CF's and now FC's which are much faster cars and are always in a hurry to get by, even in practice. I have had traffic issues cost me race positions, and I have traffic issues benefit me, either way someone isn't happy.

I know several former FV drivers that have either sold their FV's and moved to something like SRF, or have just retired from the sport directly because of this issue.

I understand the issues facing SCCA with class groupings are difficult. I don't have an answer to this problem. What I do know is that I will most likely sell my FV after the runoffs this year unless we(the local FV guys) can put together a small series of races, sanctioned with whoever wants our entries, where we can get our own track sessions without any other classes. I know VARA is interested and I am sure there are others.

In the business world I would say that the current SCCA product just isn't a quality product. I think SCCA doesn't quite get that point.

Maybe the up coming FV only race with 27 entries and 3 hours of track time, will send a message.

[Stan Clayton]

IMHO - a decision just needs to be made, not having a clear direction and plan for anything hurts more than any other factor. Please just somebody make the decision. I had a lot of these same talks with Bill Noble clear back 10 years ago. If any business ran this way it would have been broke years ago. Even if the decision is keep it the same, make it, believe in it, promote it, and live with the consequences, good or bad. " The Discussion" is doing more harm then good.

Me three.

I couldn't agree more. Moreover, as I wrote above I now longer have a dog in this fight, having sold my Vee, but share the opinion that making a decision is key. As I learned lo those many years ago in Officer Training School: "One mark of a good officer is the ability to make a decision. If correct, so much the better!"

Kidding aside, I think Enterprises has done a terrific job of communicating the issues the SRF cars face, as well as laying out their path forward to SRF-Gen 3 to the competitors. It's clear SCCA has the long term health of the class in mind, and a solid plan for the future. They could do worth wrt FV!

[jpetillo]

As we can see, we have people telling us to evolve, we have people telling us to not change a thing, we have people telling us we need a plan, we have people telling us to solve the parts problems, we have people telling us the parts problem will solve / is solving / has solved itself, we have people telling us we need to grow, we have people telling us to be more stable, we have people telling us we need to make changes, we have people telling us to not make changes, we have people telling us to make a decision, perhaps any decision (we know how that last ones goes with a large, mature class like FV). There is nothing wrong with this, nor is the disparate and deep convictions wrong - it's just human nature. All classes share this same dilemma. Either way, we need to deal with this as the situation we're faced with.

With a committee, it's not a dictatorship. It can't be "any" decision, it has to be a sensible decision for a large class that has been around for a long time. No matter what, it will be met with much criticism, but that's par for the course for any committee decision.

I think it all boils down to attracting new people to the class. There are no cars that will come out of garages with a rules change - at least not enough to put a dent in the current car count.

Let me ask a question, what has been shown to be the best way to make a class grow, other than have it be a new class?

Is it…
- Keep the class stable? Does that mean lock down the rules?
- Make changes? Does that mean slow evolution, or incremental "let's now add this"?
- Make the cars prettier?
- Make the cars cheaper?
- Start a drivers club - locally/regionally/nationally?
- Start a web site - locally/regionally/nationally?
- Advertise the class - pamphlets/car shows/forums?
- Drivers experience? Can we get people in our cars for "test" drives?
- Safety (good safety)?
- Speed (fast but not too fast - just right, good cornering speed)?
- Can you put yourselves in the shoes of when you started? What drew you to FV, and how does the current situation compare - would you still join?
- Anything else?

With regard to new people…
- What age group do we currently see coming in - 22-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, 60-70, 70-80?
- What do the new people seem to like or dislike about the class?
- Do they feel that the cars too complex?
- Do they feel that the cars too simple?
- Anything else?

How about us drivers…
- What's the balance of folks in each age group - 22-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, 60-70, 70-80?
- What dowe like or dislike about the class?
- Are the cars too complex?
- Are the cars too simple?
- Anything else?

What makes people stay?
- Stable class?
- Evolving class?
- Restricted, but not spec class?
- Class allows innovation?
- Cheapest class?
- Easy to work on cars / easy set up (relatively speaking)?
- Other classes too expensive?
- Just like the FV class?
- Safety - speed not too fast, but fast enough and with good cornering speed?
- Anything else?

These are some of the things we need to ponder, and there are others and I hope folks will add to this list. We need to figure out the lowest hanging fruit of what will help increase class size and work on those first. We need to iron out what that priority list is so we don't keep re-posting the same circular discussions.

Maybe the forums can focus on answering/discussing the above questions with the goal of strengthening FV nationwide, but do so with constructive posts and leave out the negativity.

Perhaps this needs to be in another thread. Sorry for straying. John

[craigs]

Hi John - all great questions on long term vision.

But directly on topic:

What is the problem the committee trying to solve with disc brakes and ball joint beams?

How does this change solve that problem?

Thanks,

Craig

[Hardingfv32]

A lack of new front end parts, expensive brake shoes, and a brake system that is seen as antiquated.

Brian

[problemchild]

..... and a brake system that is seen as antiquated.

Will upgrading from the 66 Beetle to the 68 Ghia brakes solve that?

[Daryl DeArman]

Will upgrading from the 66 Beetle to the 68 Ghia brakes solve that?

In reality they may not be much newer at all but the perception will be vastly different.

We could run a 1909 Hand crank or a 1911 Delco starter, the electric start may not be much newer, but I bet the perception would be quite different.

[problemchild]

In reality they may not be much newer at all but the perception will be vastly different.

We could run a 1909 Hand crank or a 1911 Delco starter, the electric start may not be much newer, but I bet the perception would be quite different.

I don't think people are that stupid, but I have no graph to support that. If they are, should that be the target demographic? I fail to understand how changing from 1966 to 1968 (or 1971 or 1973) front brakes and wheels is going to attract people that were not here already.

If you are worried about the price of brake shoes, then make it a spec part (NAPA 19.99). When there are 4X as many cars parked as being raced (see graphs), I don't buy the supply problem either.