Car Costs - 1984 to 2015

[reidhazelton]

Found this in another thread:

I have the original advertisement comparing the Van Diemen, Swift, Reynard and Lola. The original list price for the rolling chassis was $14,950. The Swift was $16,400, Reynard $15,950, and the Lola $14,995.

I know this has been beat to death already. Given inflation, the cost of a similar car today should be $36.6k. I don't think you can get a basic, new roller for under $50k. It's been well documented on this forum that many cars exceed $80k.

Would fields increase if there were data logger bans, $800 price-cap on shocks, spec tires, sealed Hondas, sealed gearboxes (no fancy big $$$ stuff), spec ratios (maybe limit it to 10 legal ratios)?

[SEComposites]

Hopefully this thread won't go the way of other FF threads!
In my view FFs should not have expensive data loggers (yes some would test with them and remove for racing) should definitely not have $15k damper packages - single adjustable only (yes some would optimize multi adjustable so to be built into singles) and definitely we should all be on hard long life tires. No question. Ideally all weather too. I've not thought about a limited range of ratios but that's not a bad idea actually. Imagine a car with a motor that's lasts forever, tires that last ages and it's not possible to be outspent with dampers and data. I think FF has plenty of life left in it if it's brought back into line.

[reidhazelton]

Hopefully this thread won't go the way of other FF threads!

Fat chance of that!

What is the bet on when it turns into a Honda/Ford thread? I've got tree-fiddy by the 12th post.

[bobmelvin]

Nice piece, Reid.

Could we possibly come up with approximately how many of those were sold/produced? The key here has to be the current low volume -- in addition to the new tech 'required' to run anywhere near the front.

If manufacturer 'A' (very reputable chassis maker) said they would produce 50 2017 Model Wheezies for $37,500 each if they could get the orders., would that order book fill up?

Plus, there isn't really any such thing as a new Kent -chassis-, so you really start with an engine package added to the roller of say $15k. Now we are at $50+k.

Want to add wheels? How light$? Corners? I'll take six.

It's a tough one but I'm with you on exorbitant costs for a class which used to be claimed by club racers.

Keep agitating.

Bob Melvin
COR

[TimH]

I don't see why a formula originally designed for driver education should forbid data logging..

[SEComposites]

Wheels is another bug bear of mine! Weller steel wheels are just fine! And they cost peanuts!

[Purple Frog]

Apples to apples.
Probably today someone could reproduce rollers of the '84 cars for $36,600 MSRP.
But would anyone in 2016 buy rockers, Bilstein shocks, analog gauges, fabbed sheet metal uprights, and barn door aero?
The modern cars are not only faster, but safer. Time marches on. The majority of Apexspeed folks won't go back to flip phones to save money.
Even with the proposals making a lot of components changed to "spec"; the folks at the pointy end of the grid will still spend tons to make their "spec" work better.

My first '88 Reynard had shocks so specialized that you had to take them apart and change internals in order to change ride heights. or... carry multiple sets of shocks in the trailer. and that was 1989...

[bobmelvin]

Well said, Frogman. I'm into safety too. And not just for you retired 1 percenters!

Seriously, it seems the VW guys are having some kind of fun in cars costing a whole lot less than $70k. What about just calling it Spec FF and adding the rules for shocks, data, steel wheels, hell jump off the cliff like the rest of the crazies around the world and run .....Oh My God...cheap tires.

Sorry, didn't want any heads to explode out there.

Bob Melvin

[Spengo]

Will data logger bans do much? I know a lot of the systems out there are crazy overpriced but there are also really simple ones that do 99% of what you need for much less money. Even something as simple as an AIM Solo helps a lot as it has the most important feature of all which is GPS data. Seeing your splits as you drive around the track is incredibly helpful. Also on your computer it lets you compare laps based on position rather than just time and when synced with your onboard video just that alone can give you a ton of info on how to drive fast and tune your chassis. Everyone uses data logging even in go karting these days.

Spec shocks, gears, tires, etc. are all sound ideas though. Obviously classes that are all about car development like F1000 probably shouldn't go this way but something like Formula F? Not a bad idea at all.

[reidhazelton]

Apples to apples.
Probably today someone could reproduce rollers of the '84 cars for $36,600 MSRP.
But would anyone in 2016 buy rockers, Bilstein shocks, analog gauges, fabbed sheet metal uprights, and barn door aero?
The modern cars are not only faster, but safer. Time marches on. The majority of Apexspeed folks won't go back to flip phones to save money.
Even with the proposals making a lot of components changed to "spec"; the folks at the pointy end of the grid will still spend tons to make their "spec" work better.

My first '88 Reynard had shocks so specialized that you had to take them apart and change internals in order to change ride heights. or... carry multiple sets of shocks in the trailer. and that was 1989...

Agree time marches on, but so does mfg technology. Today, I'd bet a fabbed upright will cost double or triple that of a CNC upright once you make 40 of them. Same for bodywork. You can make a old brick, or a new slippery bit and the part cost is about the same. Sure there is R&D there, but cost to physically make a 92 VD engine cover and a Mygale engine cover is the same.

Basically, this is the Trans Am 2 model. Look at those fields, especially compared tot he TA1 guys. Double the car counts.

Here is how I see it:
Right now, $4k shocks. Cap it to $800ea. That saves $12k. Stock, unblueprinted (Sorry Lee) gearboxes. Save $8k. Limit ratios to 10 usable gears, that saves $300/set. Tires...been there. That alone right there knocks about $25k off the car.

The gearbox cost is one that has substantially risen. Anyone price a new LD200 lately!? The Honda package is substantially more than what a Kent/Cortina engine was back then also. Those we can't much control, but the other areas we certainly can.

I am not saying this is right or the right way to go, but I think it's pretty clear the current way is going to be short lived.

As for data, I've never used it in my car. I think it actually hampers driver development in the worst way. Learn to set up a car by the seat of your pants or rely on the data guy for the rest of your life. How many 'pro' drivers, even in F1, can't set up a car and need a Kevin Harvick/Jensen Button type to be the teammate? To me, if you can't tell the engineer what the car is doing you're an incomplete driver.

[2BWise]

I'm not old enough to be able to compare racing in the 80s or 90s with today. Car costs comparatively don't make much difference to me. New cars are simply too expensive to purchase and even if they were 36k it'd still be more than I'd want to spend. Used cars' comparative value is just too much lower not to prefer buying an older model. Especially, since late 90s/early 00s VDs are just as fast as the new cars.

The only factor that limits my ability to be out more often is resources; running costs and time. If I could afford to pay someone to maintain my car I would. These aren't Pinatas where you set 'em up in the spring and don't touch it again til next season (or if you do too much bumping). Secondly, the expenses of running a weekend are not to be scoffed at. $350 for a regional entry, plus tires, towing costs, food, can't skimp on the beer. There's a reason I camp and run tires from Berget. It's so I don't have to drink Natty Lite!

Want to get costs down then get more people to each event, but how do you manage that. There's competing events some weekends, but there's also an event within a 4 hour tow every weekend (at least here in the MI area). No one can run every weekend, so we pick and choose where we go and end up competing with ourselves for numbers. Fewer events would definitely bring in more racers and in turn bring some of the costs down, plus it'd be more fun since there would be more people to race against.

[fitfan]

i am happy to admit i am an incomplete driver, which is why i want data so i can see whats helping vs hurting me - both in driving, and in set up.

that said - i just need the basics to debrief my lap/session and understand what works, what doesn't where on track the changes make a difference - not shock motion or tire temps...

one adage is that. no matter what you regulate. people who have the money to spend will spend it. you might be successful in 'closing the gap' but you can never eliminate it. people with the money and resources will figure out a clever way to spend their way to an advantage. ---formula Vee --

another thought is the reverse that where there is a will there is a way, and declining numbers may indicate a lack of interest, not exactly a cost of running at the front end issue. to that end, building a community regionally that really comes together to support each other and has a bit of a 'fraternity/brotherhood' might be the better place to spend the effort to grow groups. = a fair budget / time investment for a normal person, do all those things and yea you may run mid pack but hey 20 of your friends are all doing the same and running mid pack with you, so lets go have fun. there is nothing preventing anyone from running that way, the question is where are all these people that could or should be running that way, and why aren't they participating together? - a season of tire cost, hauling around the US vs a region, a fraternity of people 'in the same boat' all of those are big contributors IMO. i don't think sealed engines, illegally drivetrain prep, illegal shocks, would make a significant difference, my personal perspective!

for example - you make it a 800 dollar shock rule and someone will prep 4 or 5 pairs of shocks and be swapping them out on friday to dial in the valving for the track and conditions just like they had 3 ways....

[TimH]

To me, if you can't tell the engineer what the car is doing you're an incomplete driver.

Ah, but this is a class for driver development. Not many of us are as complete as you, Reid. We not only misreport what the car is doing but even what WE are doing. How many times have I been sure I was at full throttle at the apex and the AIM proved me wrong...

[reidhazelton]

Ah, but this is a class for driver development. Not many of us are as complete as you, Reid. We not only misreport what the car is doing but even what WE are doing. How many times have I been sure I was at full throttle at the apex and the AIM proved me wrong...

I didn't mean it like that.

Just saying what better place to learn setup and how to communicate that? If a driver doesn't learn it in FF, will they in FC/FC/FA? But I do see your point - use data to teach development rather than rely on it. Cynical old me thinks if the option is there for data, it will be used as a setup tool rather than a teaching tool.

That said, how about putting a cap on the data system cost, or list allowed systems? With the Honda it's likely not that much more with the ECU link to the logger. You get GPS and engine info. No shock pots, 4 wheel speed sensors, sphincter sensor, ect.

[Ralph Z.]

The initial intent of this thread was to gage "demand" by lowering cost. Assuming costs were lowered by Reid's initial description, how many additional cars would appear on the grid?

Any takers?

I would give serious consideration.

[TimH]

Any takers?

Frankly, I'm having too much fun with CF to consider anything else.

[John LaRue]

You can buy a used Swift DB1 for less than $12k - given that the horse is out of the barn I don't think there is much of a demand for 80's technology as Mike has said. The problem as I see it is that even if you did cap shocks at $800 each there would be nothing that would keep someone from re-working the internals to create a $4,000 shock from an $800 unit. Reid FWIW I think your post from a few weeks back was spot on.

[reidhazelton]

You can buy a used Swift DB1 for less than $12k - given that the horse is out of the barn I don't think there is much of a demand for 80's technology as Mike has said. The problem as I see it is that even if you did cap shocks at $800 each there would be nothing that would keep someone from re-working the internals to create a $4,000 shock from an $800 unit. Reid FWIW I think your post from a few weeks back was spot on.

Good point. You got me there. Sealing shocks or having a spec shock would solve the issue but that is not practical nor is it in keeping with a formula-class philosophy.

I thought it was pretty spot on too, obviously. I felt it went over like a lead balloon though, which is where this idea came from. If we ship the old car off to the Vintage graveyard, do we really want $80-$100k FFs going forward? Is that sustainable?

If the costs to run a car are lowered (Honda and street tires), but the cost to purchase is $80k, will that really matter how cheap it is to run? Even if I had mega-wealth and money was no object, personally I would have a very hard time dropping that much money on an FF for several reasons.

[andyllc]

Maybe I am completely out to lunch here but I thought this started about cost of new cars, we then quickly morphed into operating costs (completely different subject).
How many guys in SCCA (since this is what we are talking about, not the pro series) actually run 12K shocks? I am certain the answer isn't 0 but is it really more than 5? Really? Can you name them (to yourself, don't have to post it here)? Is that the reason they win?

Also, I don't think this class was ever intended to be THAT spec. That is why there is SRF3

[LJennings]

What is the current price for a new FE? How many are they selling? They have sold 60(?) cars in 8 or so years, and most were sold at a "loss leader" value position.


I think car counts are bigger than the price of chassis. Study the economy and manage a few recent college graduates and you will start to understand.

[reidhazelton]

Maybe I am completely out to lunch here but I thought this started about cost of new cars, we then quickly morphed into operating costs (completely different subject).
How many guys in SCCA (since this is what we are talking about, not the pro series) actually run 12K shocks? I am certain the answer isn't 0 but is it really more than 5? Really? Can you name them (to yourself, don't have to post it here)? Is that the reason they win?

Also, I don't think this class was ever intended to be THAT spec. That is why there is SRF3

Operating and new car costs are tied together. My point was that if we have lower operating costs with the intent to grow the class, will that matter if cars cost $80k?

The issue is not weather or not $12k shocks are a need, but are they a deterrent for the class if it becomes the perception you do need them? You don't need a $90k FF to win, it sure helps, but you don't need it. Is that really the sales pitch we want to give people who are asking current FF drivers about the class?

[andyllc]

Operating and new car costs are tied together. My point was that if we have lower operating costs with the intent to grow the class, will that matter if cars cost $80k?

The issue is not weather or not $12k shocks are a need, but are they a deterrent for the class if it becomes the perception you do need them? You don't need a $90k FF to win, it sure helps, but you don't need it. Is that really the sales pitch we want to give people who are asking current FF drivers about the class?

Reid
I dont feel like I need 12K shocks to win so that is why I was trying to see how many people were actually running them and if that was actually turning people away? I don't think it is. We would ALL love for the class to be less expensive but at the same time FF as a whole within SCCA has pretty good participation numbers compared to most classes.

[reidhazelton]

I think car counts are bigger than the price of chassis. Study the economy and manage a few recent college graduates and you will start to understand.

Exactly. Not that long ago, I was that college student who bought an FF and could be competitive. If I were graduating now, there is absolutely zero chance I would be racing given the cost of competitive cars now days. Zero.

There is one person I can think of who is under 25 and running on his own dime in FF. Not a very good trend if you ask me.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Maybe I am completely out to lunch here but I thought this started about cost of new cars, we then quickly morphed into operating costs (completely different subject).
How many guys in SCCA (since this is what we are talking about, not the pro series) actually run 12K shocks? I am certain the answer isn't 0 but is it really more than 5? Really? Can you name them (to yourself, don't have to post it here)? Is that the reason they win?

Also, I don't think this class was ever intended to be THAT spec. That is why there is SRF3

I think the point of the "operating cost" items (shocks/wheels/tires/data) is that these items drive the cost of a new roller up....

But, the issue is technology changes and doesn't always get cheaper. Changing the wheels/shocks/etc will not get more people to buy new rollers.

Chassis designers don't want to go backwards. They want to design new and improved and that requires new and improved components.

What everyone seems to want is a spec car but not call it spec...

There are non-scca group spec'ing tires, weight (Honda v Kent), etc. for their series. They are still SCCA legal. Adopting their specs is free. Just pick one and get everyone you know to participate.

[reidhazelton]

Reid
I dont feel like I need 12K shocks to win so that is why I was trying to see how many people were actually running them and if that was actually turning people away? I don't think it is. We would ALL love for the class to be less expensive but at the same time FF as a whole within SCCA has pretty good participation numbers compared to most classes.

That's like saying your the thinnest person at the Weight Watcher meeting.

I completely agree with you. You don't need $12k shocks. But, there are many who do think that, or are at least irritated by it. You don't see anyone showing up with Bilstiens or single Penskes, right? If they are not on the car, then the perception is they are a need. My opinion is that a triple shock is an advantage, and very useful. They are on my car.

With that, let's not get all myopic on shocks. There are pleanty of ways to make the cars cheaper to buy new, as well as run. Is that of interest to anyone? And the big question....is that a big enough interest to do something about it?

With that, I've done enough talking - work calls. I encourage others to chime in and express their thoughts and see where we end up.

[Purple Frog]

Sitting around...
I went back to a banner year for CFC in the SEDIV .... 2003. (I ran 10 weekends.)
I counted something like 12 guys/gals that raced with me.
We are talking about cars that sold on F2000.com for $12k or less at that time.
None of those guys/gals raced in 2015.
One raced in 2014.
Two were still racing in 2013.
Most were done before 2008.
Knowing most these guys on a first name basis I can safely say it wasn't the cost of the car that ended their participation for they already owned the cars.
#1 reason = the costs of time and money to campaign.
#2 reason = They wanted to go faster than CFC, moved up , then couldn't bear the costs of time and money to campaign.

With that in mind looks to me that lowering the operating costs is the key. e.g. tires, street fuel, lower entry fees, etc.

[SEComposites]

Perhaps the answer here is essentially Club Ford. I don't really understand why it's not more popular. Especially as most are vintage eligible too so you can run in various organizations. Perhaps a new outboard suspended car is an option? With a 2" bell housing rule too? Just thinking allowed.

[marshall9]

I am amazed at how few know what a FF is.

Some of the elders may remember back in 70's, it seemed that most race fans knew of FF, because so many of their heroes started out in them. In my view, shifter karts are the new FF for aspiring pros.

I agree that R&D are the main reasons for high FF costs, someone has to figure out a way to get sales volume up to spread these costs over more units. In most other sales arenas, price lowering will increase sales volume, but the product would have to be competitive to sell well.

I agree with Reid that a 35-40K complete FF would sell , but only if it wins. The DB1 was designed and built to dominate at Road Atlanta. When it did, people wanted it, especially at near the price of the other makes at that time. If it had been twice the price, sales would have been slower, and also what is happening now would have occurred in 1985.

Hell of a task.....hopefully someone will find an answer and it will work for FF.

[Steve Demeter]

Why did CART in the early 80's have huge fields. Everyone ran the same Cosworth DFX engine. March or Lola or Penske or Wildcat or Eagle chassis, many not the latest model.

Chip Mead told me that carefully managed (this was in 83) that one could run on your prize money.

Why did everyone not spend tens of millions back then?

Same goes for most SCCA classes.

This is a question I continuously wonder about and is the real answer to what is keeping people away from instead of on the racetrack.

Answer this question and you have found the magic elixir.

[TimH]

I'd like to point out that Sean Guthrie ran with the front of the Canadian pack at the recent ICAR event, driving a EuroSwift SC93 in which he'd spent no more than a couple of days' practice. No $12k shocks or really any whizzies. Just a very good driver. I suspect we could have put him in a Crossle 32 and he'd still be up there...

There's a lesson in there for those who think it takes big $ to go fast.

[Raceworks]

Found this in another thread:

I have the original advertisement comparing the Van Diemen, Swift, Reynard and Lola. The original list price for the rolling chassis was $14,950. The Swift was $16,400, Reynard $15,950, and the Lola $14,995.

I know this has been beat to death already. Given inflation, the cost of a similar car today should be $36.6k. I don't think you can get a basic, new roller for under $50k. It's been well documented on this forum that many cars exceed $80k.

Would fields increase if there were data logger bans, $800 price-cap on shocks, spec tires, sealed Hondas, sealed gearboxes (no fancy big $$$ stuff), spec ratios (maybe limit it to 10 legal ratios)?

I don't think a data logger ban is necessary: you can get loggers for less than $1,000 and even the AIM setup in the Spectrums is less than $1,500 a car. I'm sure someone could develop a smartphone app that could do track mapping and sectioning as well.

You could spec out prices for shocks lower than $800. I think the Penskes we run are less than $600 a corner.

Formula 4 price-limits everything, including 33,000 euros for a complete roller: http://www.fia.com/file/21815/download?token=SDJT2Luk

I especially like the roughly $8,900 price cap for the sequential gearbox when compared with the $16,000 price for a new "low cost" LD-200 transaxle.

They seems to be able to convince 3 manufacturers to make the cars on several continents, so I'm wondering if somebody's subsidizing the costs over there or if somebody's just jacking up prices in the USA because they can.

[Spengo]

In my view, shifter karts are the new FF for aspiring pros.

That's where I ended up. Kart entry counts are currently back on the rise, 30 stock hondas showed up to the ridge. Still not cheap, but it is something you can actually afford on a first job out of college budget. They're faster than a Club Ford, plus you get to use modern technology. Then it's on to the formula skippies to chase after their comprehensive scholarship programs. It doesn't really seem like there's a good road to professional motorsports through the SCCA at all right now.

[Raceworks]

Apples to apples.
The modern cars are not only faster, but safer. Time marches on. The majority of Apexspeed folks won't go back to flip phones to save money.

Good point on safety. Kudos to the guys running around in old DB-1's & DB-6's, you couldn't pay me enough to get into one those dinosaurs.

[Raceworks]

Hopefully this thread won't go the way of other FF threads!
In my view FFs should not have expensive data loggers (yes some would test with them and remove for racing) should definitely not have $15k damper packages - single adjustable only (yes some would optimize multi adjustable so to be built into singles) and definitely we should all be on hard long life tires. No question. Ideally all weather too. I've not thought about a limited range of ratios but that's not a bad idea actually. Imagine a car with a motor that's lasts forever, tires that last ages and it's not possible to be outspent with dampers and data. I think FF has plenty of life left in it if it's brought back into line.

The problem is that a lot of those $50,000+ rollers include no data and damper packages way less than $15,000. Spectrum's current price has gone up to around $60,000 for a roller (about $55,000 without the Motec data system, which is overpriced) and they're running single-body Penske 7500 series shocks, and while the gearbox is blueprinted it's not the whiz-bang "black box" sold by some rebuilders with the re-engineered internal bearings.

The problem with banning data systems is that it will in fact have the opposite of the intended effect. The one advantage of data is that it helps you maximize the information you get with limited track time. The rich guys will just rent the track for an extra couple of days to gather data the old fashioned way.

High-dollar data systems are somewhat self-limiting anyway. Basic track mapping & segment analysis can be had for less than $1,000 and is all the average grassroots racer (and even most pros) will ever need. For under $1,500 you can get an AIM Evo 4 with a G-dash display, hook two wires into the engine ECU, and get full gauges, shift lights, and warning lights (as well as log all the engine data). This is the setup I have and it's saved me & my customers from several engine failures thanks to the easy visibility of idiot lights on a steering-wheel-mounted display as opposed to old-style analog gauges.

Shock travel sensors, strain gauges, etc. are ridiculously sophisticated and practically useless unless you have a dedicated "data guy" to constantly mess with that crap. I'd have no problem with some rules banning the use of them, however.

[Spengo]

I should add to that... a very popular "new driver" class for the go kart road racing is the Sprint Stock class. It's mostly the same as Super Stock and you run together with the Super Stocks but you're limited to a spec gear ratio (which is already pretty close to ideal for most of the tracks in the area), a spec tire (which is still competitive against any tire), and a CIK fairing. Very similar to what is being discussed in this thread. The idea being you just take the kart you've been using on the sprint tracks and only have to buy one chain and sprocket set and you're good to go for road racing.

[Rick Kirchner]

Manufacturing cost is directly related to parts count. It is secondarily related to the technology in those parts. Every part has to be purchased, manufactured, transported, inspected, warehoused, pulled, and installed at a minimum.

Look at the added cost of floating rotors: There are $64 worth of special bolts holding the hat to the rotor. Thank god the jet nuts are tiny and essentially cost-free. then there's the rotor itself, (which might be cheaper than a single piece rotor - until you factor in the hub and the drive pins (vs four bolts) and the center nut (plus cone washer and snap ring.

All to achieve more consistent pedal feel for .004 sec/lap....

The old FFs used a lot of production car parts like spindles and uprights that significant;ly reduced the costs over custom fabricated parts (at greater unsprung weight and less adjustability).

[Tiago Santos]

you might be successful in 'closing the gap' but you can never eliminate it.

I see this used all the time as an argument against reducing costs, and I can't understand it. If we're successful in reducing costs, while at the same time closing the gap - isn't that the entire point? If everyone is spending less money, the same folks are still winning but everyone else is a bit closer, who exactly is getting the short end of the stick?

There would be a tiny chance a different guy is winning, or that a different set of guys are mixing it up for the top 5. Is that the issue?

[dsmithwc04]

Personally, I think cost control is only possible in a spec class. FF is not spec. If you want cost control in a fast open wheel car there is already a class for that.... its FE.

I'm NOT saying a spec class is the answer to everything. But if somebody can't afford to run in an open development class then which makes more sense, changing the class to fit your financial needs OR going to a class that one can afford?

Expecting things so be the way they were 30 years ago is both illogical and an waste of time. The difference between any class from the 70s/80s and today is the amount of options (data, carbon fiber work, $$$) available to go into a race car and the cost of making a race car to be safer. You can't change global economics and racing is an expensive hobby available only to a small segment of the population.

Instead of hoping and praying for more people to enter the sport, why don't we make the current format better. We have created so many niche classes in open wheel and somehow think that there is enough people with enough expendable income to fill the void. In a perfect world we would have 4 or 5 open wheel classes each with a distinguishable and linear progression UP to the next class. More performance and more cost each linear step. This would provide a much more exciting platform for current and future racers.

However, this just won't happen. Looks like we will continue to ask the same questions over and over expecting different results. What's the definition of crazy again?

[Tiago Santos]

Why and when did FF become an open car development class? I could be wrong, but just like FV, weren't they meant to be driver development classes, so drivers could get ready for faster, more "high tech" cars?

Is the problem that folks with enough money to run FC or FA don't have the skills to handle them and instead choose to outspend folks in FF and justify it by calling it an open development class?

There are huge differences between spec classes and even cost controlled "open" classes. Still, I don't think FE's are a good example of anything, for multiple reasons. Why didn't you use SRF as a comparison of spec class popularity?

[petawawarace]

I've oval raced for years, and switched over to road racing because a new track opened up and we decided to try it. We've oval raced street stocks, late models, super late models, and legend cars. We currently libre race a heavily modified legend car because it is soo cheap to run. I've love road racing and I'm currently building another formula car. When looking at the different kinds of formula cars, I looked into FF. I understand how competitive FF is and appreciate that. I really do. But here is the bottom line. FF use old (Ford) or lame (Honda) motors that don't sound like race engines, skinny tires, no wings, and are stupid expensive. When I first saw the price of a competitive FF I couldn't believe it. I know you may not like to hear this, but FF has little to no sex appeal. ( figuratively speaking of course)

The only real draws I can see for FF are that the racing is close, and the pro series is still a stepping stone (although not a necessity).

If you want a race car that sounds better, looks better, goes faster, costs less and is somewhat recent (technology wise) your going to go somewhere else.

Please don't take this as an insult to any of you. I'm a young man and I don't believe I'm the only one that sees this when looking at FF.