Smart move. This will increase FF entries. Nothing like decreasing the cost of racing to bring out more drivers.
SCCA could learn a thing or two....
Hurrah for SVRA
Smart move. This will increase FF entries. Nothing like decreasing the cost of racing to bring out more drivers.
SCCA could learn a thing or two....
Rick,
I don't think anyone is trying to discredit SVRA. As I now understand it, you have chosen to change Group 2 by allowing another sub race group in. Presumably to allow newer/faster Formula Fords a place to race within SVRA.
I am not a big fan of change. I was not happy when SVRA allowed newer/faster cars into the flat bottom Formula Atlantic race group and as a Club Ford owner, I am not any happier with your recent changes.
It's not the aluminum heads, canister shocks or even the new tires that I have a big issue with but the inclusion of Formula Fords up through 2008. Now instead of only the Formula B cars to watch for in your mirrors, there will be many more cars capable or turning laps 8-10 seconds a lap quicker than a Club Ford at most tracks.
I wish you the best with the new rules in Group 2. Maybe someday when I am ready to try some bucket list events, I will buy a modern Formula Ford and try it. Until then, I will race my Club Ford with other clubs who are not allowing new/faster cars.
Cheers, Joe
I have raced a vintage FF in SVRA for a few years now. In my experience FB cars qualify at the front and we don't typically see them lapping until the very end of the race. So, being lapped by faster cars is not much of an issue. Now, add Club Ford cars to the mix and they will likely qualify ahead of vintage cars as well. And, they are not likely fast enough to lap the vintage cars anyway. So, I don't see the addition of Club Fords or newer Fords as really making any difference to the field. Each class will have its own race in all likelyhood.Originally Posted by pooch776
Ralph Z
1968 Alexis Mk14 Formula Ford
Ralph,
Thanks for your comments but I think you under estimate the speed of a modern Formula Ford even on spec treaded tires. I raced for quite a few years in SVRA against the Formula B cars with my Vintage FF. I never had an issue with the 6-10 Formula B cars that showed up. I am concerned that you could see 20 plus modern FF's at some events. The Group 2 changes are great news if you own a modern FF. Now they have another place to race other than the SCCA. Maybe my concerns will prove wrong. I can't help but wonder how the Formula B cars are going to feel once the Modern Formula Fords start to beat the front runners!
Joe
Lets be realistic. I've driven a ton of B cars, and a ton of FF's. Vintage, CF, modern, slicks, treads, etc etc... so I can speak with authority on this:
At "Track X" A well driven B car is AT LEAST 2 seconds faster than a Runoffs winning paced slick-shod FF. Ergo, stick a set of Toyos on there and add another 2-3 seconds to that gap. Now, that may still be a couple seconds faster than a vintage FF on ACB9's/Dunlops, but that's nowhere near wrecking the FB race. All the whizbang shocks and fuel injection is no match for 210 ponies of Lotus T/C power and rear tires that are over a foot wide.
This seems like the best of both worlds. You've got a place to run a modern FF, a CF and a vintage FF, all at the same event. Sounds alright to me.
Ethan Shippert
http://shippertracingservices.com
https://www.norwestff.com
"l'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace!"
SVRA Formula Ford Rule Change
Rick
As this thread has demonstrated, there are as many views on the SVRA rule change as there are racers.
Maybe it would be useful to take a step back and look at the overall objective - which has got lost in the trees of this tactical decision and where it appears some of the difference lies.
In the old days SVRA was considered a vintage racing organization. SCCA was responsible for modern cars. Vintage open wheel racers, running under Monoposto rules, who were concerned that the cars were preserved in period guise, ran SVRA. Some time later, after much careful consideration, Monoposto added Club Fords to the original Historic Fords with clear detailed rules. The rules were pretty tight to ensure the cars ran as in period. Now we have taken a leap to 1988 with cars that are competitive in modern club and national racing. Instead of working through Monoposto to take a considered view of changes needed for the future - and there are certainly changes that need to be made which can be discussed elsewhere, a wholly different approach has been taken.
The inclusion of non-vintage Fords up to '88 has changed the class from a historic racing class to a replacement for SCCA, a quasi monopoly national club for club racers which has failed in its duty to its open wheel members. The SVRA approach is welcomed by the West Coast, by SCCA racers and by people with modern Fords with nowhere to run, not so much by some East Coast vintage guys. That may be a good business model for SVRA. However, despite your protestations, you have created a "run what you brung" class. Any Ford in any state of tune is accommodated in some way. This is not vintage racing as some see it, which is why the push back from people interested in preservation of old cars.
In other classes SVRA has been taking in recent but obsolete cars that have no where else to race. Its a business strategy - and you have every right to determine what's best for your business, but some feel that vintage racing is something different. And in the end we may all just have to agree to differ and go our own way and see what the market requires. You may well be right, or the vintage racers may be right. Maybe there is room for both!
I think until we can agree what vintage racing means there will be widely differing opinions on bringing '88 cars into the class and committing to tires that bear no relation to those used on the cars in period.
I take note of Peter Krause's comments and he is correct that S2000 has successfully accommodated pretty well everybody and he can still get close to if not to the front. This is not about which car is faster - most of the cars are not driven past 80% to 85% of their capacity, a driver of Peter's caliber will shine in anything you put him in. Many drivers can be put in the fastest car and still be 5 seconds off the pace.
This is about the definition of vintage racing and the standards we want to race by. If we have a clear definition, so the resolution will become clear.
Best
BB
Who says "vintage" has to stop in 1972? Answer: those guys who have pre-72 cars and don't want their little apple cart turned over.
The world moves on, and so should vintage. It's relative.
Besides, how many post 2005 FFs are there in this country, a dozen?
Now if we can talk about SVRA FC rules and group 9.....
Is this this just a typo? '88 should be '08?
Ben - thank you for the date correction '08 is correct.
Rick - good question and illustrates the point I am making about those interested in vintage and those interested in club racing. Neither is wrong, just there are two different groups with differing requirements and expectations for what we are doing. SCCA was supposed to take care of the club racing group. Had they done so this would not have been a debate.
As I understand things the various dates, which are recognized by the USA and Europe were rough guides to changes in technology.
Pre-73 (pre '72 in Europe) was a designation reflecting that the early cars were really re-hashes of older formula 3 cars.
Pre 81 were purpose built Fords with more sophisticated suspension and frame design and that obsoleted the early cars
Pre '85 were the first generation of inboard suspension that supposedly made the pre '81 cars obsolete
Pre '08 were the push rod suspended aero cars that made the previous generation obsolete.
These designations are not perfect - the vintage Lotus 69 is a match for most club cars - it was the genesis of what became Club Fords as it was so far ahead of the then current Fords which it obsoleted, that Van Diemen et al started copying it (as they did with the Swift DB1, the other great leap forward). However, this breakdown has worked in Europe pretty well for 30 years - starting with Historic Ford (our vintage), adding Classic Ford (our Club) at the appropriate time and subsequently the pre '85's.
Hope that helps.
BB
Ethan,
I don't think the lap times will be as far off as you think. This years VARRAC Canadian Historic Grand Prix had a group of Toyo Tire F1600 cars. Race times are as follows:
3rd place Toyo Tire F1600 - 1994 Van Diemen RF94\Honda Best lap 1:31.835
1st Place Group 6 Monoposto - 1970 Chevron B17B Best Lap 1:29.364
That is only 2.5 seconds at Mosport. Maybe you have faster Formula B drivers in the West Coast.
Joe
Not really...because of aero, all but the slowest vintage FFs way out qualified the fastest Club Ford at COTA
They are going to feel the truth, that they need to hone their driving skills and when they do and get their times up to where Kasamet's are, it won't be an issue.
Vintage out qualified Club Fords? Really? That surprises me. I would think the Clubs would be faster.
Ralph Z
1968 Alexis Mk14 Formula Ford
Fastest FB 2:14
Fastest FF (Vintage) 2:27
PCF (DB1) 2:31
Fastest CF 2:37
3.4 mile, 21 turns (Similar to RA, or MO)
Interesting, huh? Not saying anyone's wrong, just some factual data from a recent race with some top notch drivers. I'd say that Kasemets is a decent FB pilot, and that Wade Cunningham and Ryan Lewis are decent Vintage FF drivers. I know the CF guy is good, and it was the DB1 driver's first weekend with the car, although he may have been on slicks. The rest of us were on Avon Vintage tires. Toyos will be slower, but times should be similar in cross class comparison. Now, the FB's as far as I know will still be on Dunlops, faster tires than Toyos, so I really can't see a top notch modern FF outrunning even a mediocre FB effort.
http://www.svra.com/wp-content/uploa...nship-Race.pdf
Hopefully the DB1 driver will chime in with his opinion, he is the guy that started this thread. I was also in this race, 5th in CF. This isn't bench racing conjecture, but rather real information coming from guys that actually have first hand information.
I know you race FF with SVRA Ralph, the bench racing comment was just for emphasis on the credibility of this data, not that your ideas aren't from experience.
Last edited by marshall9; 11.30.15 at 11:39 AM.
Oh, and BTW way, Rick Parent, you are doing a great job!
Very surprising to me. Although, I have been able to keep pace with several Clubs at the Glen. A strong motor helps.But, I recall a certain Crossle outrunning all other Fords by a mile at the Glen. Interesting for sure.
Ralph Z
1968 Alexis Mk14 Formula Ford
After looking at the timing sheet, there's a big difference in times across the board, even among the same classes!
Svra
Disclaimer: I have no SVRA standing, other than wanting what I think is best for FF and my customers. The really quick Club Fords and Post Club Fords were not at COTA because the SVRA FF rules for this year did not allow them to run. Let's see what the lap times are next year. A CF beats a Vintage Ford, and a PCF beats a CF assuming both are equally prepared and driven. That is why there are 3 classes. We can argue about what is Vintage ( last years F-1 car is now Vintage in many eyes). The SVRA rules reflect how FF has been racing in the USA *****not Europe*****for almost 50 years. ( the Swift is now 32 years old and so are canister shocks). FF's were never show room stock and most of the cars were modified under the rules. FF drivers across the land including most of the SVRA customer base are not 150#'s anymore so car weight with driver levels the playing field more. Even the SCCA and F-1 figured that out. Monoposto is stuck in one time warp and refuses to listen to anyone outside the inner circle. I personally tried to have discussions and was told to bugg off. If anyone really wants to really clean up the class enforce the rules. Weed out the heads with modified valves and welded ports, non-stock cam shafts, larger displacement, knife edged cranks, non-compliant pistons, longer rods, aluminium flywheels, larger inside diameter carbs with larger butterfly's. Just some of things we have seen in engines which were in supposedly Monoposto legal cars that have passed through.
Roland Johnson
San Diego, Ca
Svra
SVRA wanted one tire for all three FF classes. Tire discussions have gone on forever, just look at this site! Since this is mostly an emotional argument rather than logical, I expect the flame to follow. Four tires that were being run Nationally were discussed. (none of us had ever heard of Hoosier building a Vintage tire for FF) The tire was chosen on the best cost/number of competitive heat cycles. Avon/Dunlop tires had long life but were pricey. (The last set of Avons I bought were $1300 delivered, two sets of Toyo's just cost $1430 delivered) American Racers cost less but slow down with heat cycles, and a rain tire is needed. Hoosier 60's cost more than American Racers, slow with heat cycles and a rain tire is needed. Toyo's cost more than American racers, but less than Hoosier's. Toyo's are being run as the spec tire in Canada, the Arizona Series, and were run in the Pro FF series out here last year. All Toyo reports I got from anyone who has driven on them is of a raceable tire that does not significantly loose lap time/heat cycle and can be used as a rain tire. I personally would rather have a slick, but none fit the bill as cost effective. NEVER was there any discussion about any manufacturer buying the tire rights. And I still haven't had anyone give me the name of a FF engine builder with top HP legal iron heads for sale.
Last edited by Roland V. Johnson; 11.30.15 at 6:05 PM.
Roland Johnson
San Diego, Ca
Lots of interesting reading. Let me take the pragmatist approach. I have a 1981 Crossle. My home track is VIR which has a VDCA race in April and SVRA race in Sept. Would love to run it on the same tire. Also, when I read the SVRA posting of FF rules, I read them as the THE rules not an alternate rulebook to Monoposto.
Rick said there are the Monoposto rules and the new SVRA FF rulebook. So, if I choose to run under the Monoposto CF, then ok.
As for the lap time difference running with later FF, I'm not concerned about the races, more concerned that in practice and qualifying where there was a single digit number of FBs could show up quickly in the mirror. Would be different if there were larger numbers of FBs and say <20 year old FFs out there.
I must admit that I do hope that any influx of open wheel drivers get the same lectures for driving in a vintage organization vs. what has typically (right or wrong) viewed as very aggressive SCCA transplants.
Scott Nettleship
1981 Crossle 45F
Rules Posting
Marshall,
I posted the new SVRA FF rulebook simply to provide ease of access for the Forum readers. My intention wasn't to incite a debate. I have no issue with the SVRA rules. As to my personal opinions: I’ve learned that they only matter if they’re used to guide a final decision. If the decision is already made, I move on. I often ask for rule clarifications (Rick Parent can certainly verify that statement), but after the gavel drops, we just get into the garage, prep the car to the letter of the law, and drive.
I am new to racing, vintage racing, and really new to open wheel racing. I acquired my Swift DB-1 two weeks before the SVRA COTA event. We took out the Fox shocks that came with the car, bolted in a 25 year-old used set of non-canister Koni's and mounted up the required Hoosier bias-ply R60a slicks. We guessed on the gearing and set-up (and missed on both). I sat in the Swift for the very first time with the engine running just 15 minutes before gridding for the 1st practice session.
Bottom line: 2 very fast guys (Lewis and Cunningham) in pre-1972 FFs on treaded tires, smoked me by 2-3 seconds per lap…as well as schooling two FBs. I was running third overall in the Ford grouping until a bad case of snap oversteer finally bit me coming out of turn 11. Hibbs (1969FF) and Cowdrey (1970FF) went by. I reeled Cowdrey back in, but ran out of time to catch Hibbs again. At the checker, three pre-72 cars beat me, the entire CF field, and two FBs. Hence my personal (and inexperienced) post-race observation: In SVRA Group 2 Open wheel, the variance in driver skill and risk preference is much wider than the actual variance in the cars. As for me, I need to work more on my set-up and a lot more on my driving if I want to move further up, regardless of what tire, shock or head is mandated.
Best,
Glenn
Bingo!
-Peter Krause
1984 Tiga SC
www.peterkrause.net
"The Driver is the Greatest Performance Variable in the Racing Equation"
My question is if all the other east coast vintage racing groups who post their own rules will fall into line, or will there be SVRA legal cars that can't run anywhere else? And will I be allowed to build new, non-standard suspension components to make the radial tires work? Or better - move the pick-up points on the chassis? You know it's going to happen, and only someone with blueprints will be able to tell. We did it on Mini's for years. This vintage formula ford deal could get fun again!
Brian
Glenn,
"Risk preference." An excellent phrase which I will adopt to explain why I am so slow.
Thanks!
The problem I see is SVRA is trying to be a catch all organization. If people with a period correct 1968 formula ford wanted to race in a group with a swift DB1 you would find them at scca races. I have race with SVRA at indy in a formula junior and they have great events.The problem I see is they let current modern cars run. I saw more sports racers there this year than at any scca race. A stor P1 or P2 is not a vintage car .
The Vintage in SVRA
Just observing a comment above: "In the old days SVRA was considered a vintage racing organization."
The old days?? Um, the second word in the name is Vintage... not so much "considered" as intended. Not so sure about current intentions.
DK
Now the "vintage" mostly describes the attitude and the driver's age. They still don't allow touching on track with the 13/13 rule, which is kind of old school, and tractor trailer rigs with fly-in crews and drivers outnumber open trailers behind old pickups driven by a 30 year old guy paying bills week to week. There are other organizations that are more about vintage cars, in terms of 40, 50 or 70 plus year old cars, SVRA just doesn't happen to be one of them any more. It was when it started, same as a lot of vintage clubs/businesses.
Brian
...all those late model pushrod suspension KENT powered cars that SCCA chased off? those are vintage now i suppose
BT29-24 Swift DB1 Matra M530
What was that about Baby seals?Bingo!
Stonebridge Sports & Classics ltd
15 Great Pasture Rd Danbury, CT. 06810 (203) 744-1120
www.cryosciencetechnologies.com
Cryogenic Processing · REM-ISF Processing · Race Prep & Driver Development
Dude, I've seen YOU do that...What was that about Baby seals?
-Peter Krause
1984 Tiga SC
www.peterkrause.net
"The Driver is the Greatest Performance Variable in the Racing Equation"
Yea, back before I forgot how to drive racecars.Dude, I've seen YOU do that...
Stonebridge Sports & Classics ltd
15 Great Pasture Rd Danbury, CT. 06810 (203) 744-1120
www.cryosciencetechnologies.com
Cryogenic Processing · REM-ISF Processing · Race Prep & Driver Development
The whole rulebook discussion reminds me of this clip. Substitute in rulebook and the SVRA classes... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7aIf1YnbbU
Could be just me.
Scott Nettleship
1981 Crossle 45F
Hahahaha! Thanks for the laugh! I was thinking the same thing...
-Peter Krause
1984 Tiga SC
www.peterkrause.net
"The Driver is the Greatest Performance Variable in the Racing Equation"
Wade Cunningham and Ryan Lewis are better than "good". The best East Coast CF drivers were not there. Comparing lap times of known drivers and their gap to Lewis and Cunningham suggest that the good East Coast CF guys would be right up there with Lewis and Cunningham. We are trying to get one or both of them to the next Jefferson 500 at Summit Point - one of the biggest vintage FF gatherings on the East coast.
Rick, Although I think we have cleared up a few things through our email exchange, I had not seen this post until now and feel I need to respond.
I am not "working to discredit SVRA". It's not my purpose, my goal or my wish. My SVRA history goes back to 1987. I understand very well that a healthy SVRA is a good thing for all of vintage racing. SVRA has always set the standard and provided a reference for other vintage racing organizations. A strong and healthy SVRA influences car owners to adhere to a certain standard in car preparation that makes my life as the VDCA Technical Director easier (most of the time).
Meanwhile, I race an FF - 1974 Lola T340 to be exact. That means that I have skin in the game and an opinion about the new FF rules. So I think I have a right to express my opinion. I have publicly stated that I don't agree with the changes but that (I think) I understand what SVRA is doing and why.
As I stated in my email, now that I understand that I can race my Monoposto Club Ford with SVRA on Dunlop/Avon tires, I hope to run at VIR for the Gold Cup races in the fall. If I get there, I hope there is a wide variety of FFs entered and I look forward to the event.
SVRA rule book
If I understood the reading of the new rules, Avon and Dunlops will only be good until the supply is diminshed or July 16th 2016, whatever comes first.
I interprete to mean only Toyos after the 16th.
Am I mistaken?
Yes, Avons and Dunlop Monoposto Racing spec cars will be allowed to continue in a separate class after that cutoff, if I understand Rick's clarification.
-Peter Krause
1984 Tiga SC
www.peterkrause.net
"The Driver is the Greatest Performance Variable in the Racing Equation"
I thought that at first also. I tried to read the Group 2 tire rules to figure it out and they were a bit contradictory IMHO so I asked. Monoposto prepared cars (pre '73 and Club Ford) will be allowed to continue to race on the Dunlop/Avon tires beyond July 31, 2016.
SVRA, via their Technical Director, Rick Parent has answered as follows:
"The answer to your question is yes, the MR cars will run on the same tires they always have and the classification will be FFM or CFM. The M referring to Monoposto. If a Monoposto car wants to run on the Toyo's the Classification will be FF or CF. Monoposto will now have its own designation with the FF's.
I am glad you finally asked, apparently I have not done a good job of communicating the changes clearly enough based on all the concerned comments out there and I take full responsibility for that.
There are 2 headings Monoposto prepared and SVRA prepared. Maybe it would be more helpful if I made the headings bolder or larger or perhaps put a line between the Monoposto and SVRA The SVRA FF tire rules are listed under the SVRA Prepared FF heading and have no bearing whatsoever on the Monoposto based cars. The bold type you are referencing is under the SVRA prepared heading and simply means they are able to use up the current stock of tires sitting in their garage. There has been no changes to the Monoposto prepared cars, they will run as usual in Group 2. We have created another group for the FF's in group 2 who are just outside the Monoposto rules because of heads and or shocks, we have given them a weight with driver and a spec tire. Sorry for all the confusion
Regards, Rick"
Last edited by s800racer; 12.02.15 at 4:16 PM.
Rick
76 posts and counting - must be the highest number of posts in one thread for Vintage in Apex history. Fantastic publicity job - even "The Donald" cannot achieve this sort of furor.
At least no one can say they did not hear about it! Now we understand the two tier system we can look for other controversies to while away the winter months.
BB
Had my first chance to run the Toyos last weekend and thought I would add my impressions for those who are intrested. I will start with a disclaimer that I am one of those west coast evil empire guys who fully suports the new SVRA rules and the concept of building larger fields of FF's all running a spec tire that somewhat offsets the technology difference across the years and reduces costs. That said I have been racing FF's continuously for almost 30 years both SCCA and primarily vintage in cars ranging from a Titan Mk6 to a Swift DB1. I currently drive a CF Titan Mk9 in vintage events and care very much about the history of FF and specifically Titan cars as I own 4 of them and love researching the history and taslking with many of the original founders and drivers of Titan cars. Anyone who has spent time in my trailer can attest to the historic photos and chronology of the Titan marque. So following are my thoughts on running the Toyos. Please note this is after a total of 4 sessions and there is definitely more work to do to fully understand the tire and optomize its performance.
Some thoughts after my first weekend of running the Toyo R888. All comparisons are to American Racer 133 slicks. Car- Titan Mk9 CF
Front- Toyo is 1/2 inch larger in diameter = 1/4 inch ride ht increase. My opinion within the normal variance of RH changes = minimal effect on roll centers. Weight is 7 lbs heavier than AR. Initial camber 2.25 degrees. 14 psi cold.
Rear- Toyo in 1/8 in smaller in diameter = 1/16 ride ht decrease. No effect on roll centers. Weight is 6 lbs heavier than AR. Initial camber 2 degrees. 16 psi cold.
Total tire weight increase = 26 lbs so 1125 lbs weight with driver is a good target.
Varied pressures but based on tire chalking and pyrometers temp reading think pressures are close, but could use less camber. I'm thinking next time out 1.75 front, 1.25 rear. Now obviously each car will need different values based on camber gain, and many other factors but don't think you need as much camber as many have been proposing (at least on the older vintage and club fords). Should not require mods to vintage or club ford cars, but may need mods to newer cars to get enough camber.
Driving impression- I had heard all kinds of different thoughts on the tires and was not sure what to expect. I found the tires easy to drive and very consistent for the duration of the session. Ambient temps were cool (around 70F) but no drop off/ overheating towards end of session like you see with the Avons and to a lesser extent the AR's. They definitely have less grip than the ARs but are consistent and controllable. The Mk9 is pretty unforgiving but I would say these tires are more forgiving than the ARs and similar to the Dunlop/ Avon treaded tires. They drift with a slightly greater slip angle than the ARs, but again are very controllable. I found them very fun and satisfying to drive. Unfortunately testing was done at Firebird raceway so I can't determine how many seconds per lap slower or faster they are than the ARs as I have no AR baseline and I was learning the track as it was my first time there. I am sure they are a little slower than the AR's and probably slower than the Avons, but with everyone on the same tire it was certainly not perceptible. You did not feel like you were driving some slower less racey car when compared to the feel when you are on ARs. Obviously having only one day on the tires I have no idea how they will last/ degrade with time/ heat cycles. Cost is $600-700 a set depending on where you buy them so if you get 4-6 weekends which is what most of the top guys are saying, they will be significantly cheaper than either the ARs or Avons.
So if the tires last anywhere near what is claimed I am all for them. Oh and by the way everyone has their own opinion, but I think they look way cooler than the ARs on my car anyway.
Oh, and one last thought as Peter and others mentioned above. The fast guys are going to be the fast guys and the slow guys slow regardless of what tire, head, shock, etc they are running. My motto- Get in, Shut up, and Drive. Todd
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote