Formula D

[Art Smith]

Rennie-

points for measured response, noted!

what kinds of odds are you offering for all, part, or some of forecast events? and how much can I bet on each of the offered odds?? with the exception of the November 20 date which was selected for obvious reasons, the milestones and observations are the "recipe" for ramming F1000 through last year. configuration control here at ApexSpeed is outstanding and if anything doesn't look familar I'd encourage you or others to page through the sorted mess that was 2006.

quality engineering (far more than the club is willing to pay for) was contributed directly and indirectly last year to the F1000 railroad as was drafting/technical publications work and the work was ignored. the directly contributed engineering was submitted in the form professional engineers submit change proposals to drafts or released documents: is, should be, and why. process questions were asked that should have set off red lights and sirens and they were ignored. less than ninety days after ignoring repeated attempts to correct/improve the bodywork opening diagram included with the rules, the rules were capriciously changed because of some noise from the FC conversion boys. given the public record here and the CRB's e-mail account my hearing is going to be real poor at any suggestion that I haven't been attempting to help the process along. I've always been in the business of quality objective engineering, not expedient/popular soundbites.

"solutions" are misguided and sometimes reckless adventures without a specific problem they solve better than everything else that was objectively considered. said another way, without a problem you're most likely looking at misguided change and not a solution (ie: the creation of a new problem). WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? with all the solutions and recommendations and debate surely someone can write down the problem. without a written problem statement how do we know that any of us are on the same page?? without a written problem statement how do we objectively test the statement against available objective data to improve it?? it's my sense that very little objective data has surfaced in the conversation to date and far too many partision soundbites have been flung from both sides of the discussion. FF National participation number are down a bunch, FF National participation numbers aren't down nearly as far compared to other formula and sports racing classes for the same period, today's FF's are too expensive, FF National participation is improving, FF participation is incleasing much quicker at other organizations in the US, the Kent is old, the Kent is a tractor engine, the Kent is expensive, FF1600 participation in Great Britian is booming again, recently approved alternate parts have addressed coming shortages, FF is alive and well north of the border, FV engines are older than the Kent, FF don't sound cool, ......... Steve has shared some of the cost data needed. a great deal more cost data is needed to understand average income, consumer price index, the cost of the cars, and the cost of competition over time. it's my sense there are some other things that will prove useful: FF laptimes over time for the tracks that have supported FF competition for the complete period; Indycar/Champcar/F1/NASCAR attendance and TV ratings versus time; average FF field size versus time; and a number of other things smart people will think of. until ALL this stuff (which is really not that much in absolute terms compared to a single incident investigation) is collected and related to everything (pro's & con's) else you're dealing with a shot in the dark and not a problems statement. it's been my expereince that draft problem statements will evolve with testing until it accomodates all of the objective data in hand. the problem statement when complete will be able stand up to the most intense partisan debate without change. hypotheticly, following an incident investigation it's not that hard to imagine the impact on passenger revenue miles if someone on the team blurts out to the press "my favorite piece of data was ignored"............

I'd recommend the beginning of the analysis window be July 1977, the date of "Formula Ford Comparison Chart" by Steve Nickless that appeared in Formula (magazine). it yields a thirty year window. it's also my strongest recommendation that all of the work needs to be done publicly!!! public access and a real time opportunity to contribute is a must if anything approaching a concensus is to be achieved at the end of the day; who knows maybe even a little healing. this is no different than what a geographicly distributed proposal team does in arriving at a proposal baseline for a multi-million/billion dollar contract.


WHAT IS THE PROBLEM???



Art
artesmith@earthlink.net



ps: elimination of any and all reference to "age" is highly recommended for legal/litigation reasons.

[Rennie Clayton]

Art,

... with all the solutions and recommendations and debate surely someone can write down the problem...

Great idea! How about the person who keeps asking what the problem is?


Cheers,
Rennie

[Art Smith]

Rennie-

I honestly have no idea what people think the problem is!! given constructive engagement didn't work last year the only apparant option left is persistance in ever increasing volume and focus..................

I'll help but won't take on the leadership role. you're down a zero or two to what the characters keep offering me to return to the office and spending time in the shop working on the cars is what's required to get them back to the track this year. if the community isn't interested in getting this right, it won't happen. six to eight small teams of objective folks, a web site, and a leader/co-ordinator and it shouldn't take that long. finding the right people to get things on a list will be the long pole in the tent.


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[M.L.Sauce]

It is obvious that there is not a clear cut path to health of any of our classes.We must realize that technology is a double edged sword.We have developed the Kent motor to the nth degree for reliability but at what costs.I think reasonable cost.New engines should be introduced to Formula Ford but with a proper plan to allow a gradual implementation.The class as it is right now makes pretty good financial sense given the costs of used cars and engine maintenance costs.Any new engine implementation will be difficult for existing cars and expensive for new chassis.Look at the Formula 1000 cost projection versus the reality.A 600cc bike engine is considerably cheaper than a Kent motor but bike technology is ever changing.Bike manufacturers have to compete for sales so new engine technology moves much faster from concept to the showroom.It moves much quicker than car technology.How many bike engines that were sold in 97 are still here in production 10 years later?This equates to even faster engine production life span.If all cars changed engines this year in 5 years that engine might not be in production.Technology in the motorcycle world moves much faster than we as amateur racers can handle in my opinion.I say leave the Kent motor alone and gradually allow chassis manufacturers to build cars with motorcycle engines that meet the power to weight ratio we have now.Make the the two formulas competitive with one another.When you do there will be others who think the class is too expensive and will complain about that Formula as well.If you really want FF to be more cost effective mandate a different tire or implement a tire rule.It is the perception not the reality that spec anything levels the playing field and makes a more cost effective class.But if that brings out more cars I am all for it.Spec classes if we allow too many will destroy American amateur and Professional motorsports ultimately in my opinion.One thing for sure as soon as something changes someone else will scream for another change.Thats progress I guess.I plan to go race about 10 weekends this and also do the Runoffs.I won't buy tires every weekend and I will be competitive and have alot of fun even in my "home built car".See you at the track.

[racer27]

I came accross this older thread... Now that FB/F1000 is officially born and going thru the expected process of having the rules tweaked, was wondering if there still is any intrest in a "FF Like" performance M/C powered class?

I know allot of guys are going to say we don't need more classes, but new FF's are not being built and bought ($45K for a Kent Powered car). Unless we bring in new cars and racers the class will suffer. We need an entry level class, with a Sub $25K car, that has modern technoligy. FV and FFirst can be considered entry level, but I don't beleive those cars offer the same appeal of an FF Style car (In particuliar to guys graduating from Karts or Bikes). Maybe existing Mfg's (FF and/or FB) can use existing frames, components and tooling, allowing them to leverage thier existing FF mfg investment.

FB shows it can be done. of the desire exists amoung the membership.

[KOTR17]

I came accross this older thread... Now that FB/F1000 is officially born and going thru the expected process of having the rules tweaked, was wondering if there still is any intrest in a "FF Like" performance M/C powered class?

We need an entry level class, with a Sub $25K car, that has modern technoligy.
FB shows it can be done. of the desire exists amoung the membership.

FB/F1000 has only shown that American racers can find an infinite number of ways to spend crazy money. How many people are going to be willing to buy a new engine or two every year to keep up with M/C manufacturer's? Those engines when fully tuned are hand grinades, right now the advantage you can create by sinking thousands into the electronics alone is crazy. Don't get me wrong, I think the car would be cool, but it will be ultra expensive and way out of the league of most FF racers.

The SCCA membership pie is only so big every piece you add only makes all of them smaller.

One other quick thought, with the 40th anniversary coming up and the special event at Road America. I think we are going to see the class growing again the next couple of years.

Tony

[Moore3FF]

I'm interested. My car is already built. I would just need to swap out my 1 liter motor for a 600 cc.

[racer27]

Some thoughts... F600/FD

- Try to keep Chassis and body rules the same as FF. Recycle most FF rules. Why re-invent the wheel?

- Use existing commonly avail racing wheel sizes. You may want to get away from the 5.5 and go with FC sized 6 and 8.

- Need to find some way to have to avoid having to replace engine every couple years to get the extra HP evolution brings. Current FB Debate. I'd be open to a spec engine or designated models/model years.

- Brakes - Keep existing rules or allow lower cost designated similar performance models. If cost is not better, keep as is.

- Set min weight so it can be achieved by a 210 lbs driver (Fully dressed), without sacrificing safety, durability or increasing cost by having to use expensive alternate materials.
------- Allows for use of stainless floor pan. more tubes in frame. lower cost wheels, etc
------- Maybe allow for some stressed panels (Again only if it can be retrofitted into older cars at a min cost and it has a safety benefit).

- Construct rule set to allow for reasonable cost conversion from FF. Don't design it around new, yet to be designed chassis.

- Set performance and safety benchmark and price target up front.
------ Performance around FF (That gives it a gap from FV to FC).
------ Price (New), mfg's would know better, but I believe low $20's complete would be marketable.
---------- I don't know if the profit margin for mfg's exist at this price point. $20K is about the going price for a late 90's FF.
---------- As a frame of referance, a Piper FF Roller is $37,500. Need to add Engine, Dash & Exhaust putting you at close to $45K. IMHO, no longer an entry level price point. A $22K F600 (if it can be built) is a relative bargin.

- Conversions should put parts (Engines, tranny's wheels) into the market for the CF/FF guys, reducing their running costs and alleviate parts shortages.

- Some of the F1000 Conversions may also decide to go the F600 route as they mostly comply with FF rule set.

- Consider this car to be an FB/FC Trainer car. Car should allow for a simple spin or off track excursion to occur without damage. That rules out wings and diffusers. Maybe dictate a min ride height (Altough it would be a challenge relating a static measurement to a measurement at speed).

- Question: Do we need wings to add sex appeal and more marketability?

- Parts infrastructure is already in place for FF, with good coverage and competition (Competition keeps prices down). This helps the racer. FD also helps suppliers as it becomes another opportunity to sell parts. Hopefully with FF and F600 sharing allot of the same parts, economies of scale may kick in further reducing costs.

[Charles Warner]

Given today's rate of technological change the only viable way to introduce a new low cost class (total folly IMO) is to make it a totally spec class. Anything left open to interpretation or improvement will be a source of contention between the haves and have-nots. People say they want a sub-25$K "entry level" car? Bollocks. An entry level car, by definition, is one that is discarded as soon as the racer decides he/she likes the sport and wants to jump in with both feet. They are supposed to have a limited useful life as far as effective race cars are concerned. You guys are talking about a 600cc powered national event race car that will not become a hole through which you can pour more money yet will stay at the pointy end of the grid that can be bought/made for a song. Ain't gonna happen!

FB is already showing major contention regarding engines - after ONE RACE! How about traction control? Gearbox issues? Some want rev limiters, or weight penalties, or different but controlled specs for each engine, or ban certain engines that now qualify under the rules. Constant rule changes to keep cars equal? A spec class is what they really need but they all want to tinker. Can't have both.

You want to race your 600cc formula car? There is FS. The concept that many dream about is in reality a pipe dream.

[rickjohnson356]

F500 has speed as fast/faster than FF at regional level. uses more common/newer engine than the kent.

There is a conflict regarding wheels in you post:

'allow 6/8" FC wheels' and 'allow less expensive wheels' that statement is mutually exclusive.

Also, the FF that would be likely to convert would then need new spindles/hubs since they are typically four-bolt pattern rather than a single center-lock type.

wouldn't it be better to go to the new European FF powerplants for FF? that way there would be some comonality on an international racing basis.

[racer27]

A spec class is what they really need but they all want to tinker. Can't have both.

Spec is not totally a bad thing. It does promote equality. Maybe some of the components can be spec... Engines, Brakes, Tires, Tranny (maybe Shocks) Etc... But you leave the rest of the components open for owner/mfg interpertations (Still restricted by the definiation of the Formula). This gives owners, mechanics, enginners, FSAE students enough room to still tinker. but the high cost components are locked down. It's alwasy nice to have cars with differant shapes and interpertations on the grid rather then clones only deferentiaded by paint scheme.

Just because components are spec should not dictate sole supplier (Ie Enterprise Approach). We'd probably want to publish the specs (Drawings if needed) as part of the rules and let people find cheaper/better ways to build the components.

[Charles Warner]

I have to ask - why do you want to reinvent the wheel? We do not need half of the classes we have; they dilute the club and spread out the racing dollars too thinly. As for an entry level car, they are all over the place: older FCs, SVs, etc. They are perfect to give someone an idea of the genus for very little money and provide a market for those wanting to move up. If you just have a "need" to race a motorcyle powered formula car then go FB.

[martyb]

FB/F1000 has only shown that American racers can find an infinite number of ways to spend crazy money. How many people are going to be willing to buy a new engine or two every year to keep up with M/C manufacturer's? Those engines when fully tuned are hand grinades, right now the advantage you can create by sinking thousands into the electronics alone is crazy. (snip)

Tony

Contrary to what you said above, the F1000 motors are not hand grenades, since the rules require stock internals, and there isn't thousands of dollars you can spend on electronics because you have to run a factory ECU.

Maybe you're thinking of the DSR spec motors?

Marty

[Evl]

F500 has speed as fast/faster than FF at regional level. uses more common/newer engine than the kent.

That deserves repeating.

Not to mention new cars are at or below the price "wished for" above. Nice used cars are less than half of that.

Its not a spec class, so you can tinker on the chassis and aero package, but there are limited engine options, and engines are stock, so they last a while and don't cost a fortune. No wings, so there are no expensive easy to break-off bits on the car if you spin.

So please count me in the "lets not duplicate/split existing classes" camp. Thanks!

-Chris

[John Nesbitt]

Let's see. We have already: FA, FB, FC/Pinto, FC/Zetec, FE, FF, FM, FS, FV, F5, CF, CFC, CFB (coming soon! ), FST.

Can someone provide a sensible rationale for yet another open wheel class?

[John Merriman]

Because it's off-season, John, that's why!

[Roland V. Johnson]

It's not off season..I'm off to Phoenix this weekend.............But every year about the time the white stuff falls back east this discussion starts.

[Mark H]

NO......

[John Robinson II]

If you want a low priced new car then, IMO, you have to go back to what FF was when it started. Use existing production car parts, uprights, cvs, transaxle, steel wheels etc. I am building a new car and the parts that have to be outsourced is extensive and costly because it is all non-stock. If you could go to a local junk yard price would be greatly reduced, similar to FV. If you want a modern type car then this is not the answer. I am in favor of F600 and as I stated last year, if there was a class as such I would have one.
I believe the 20-25K price is very unrealistic based on major parts cost alone. Labor to weld a modern type chassis is significant, not to mention a-arms and such.

John

[racer27]

If you want a low priced new car then, IMO, you have to go back to what FF was when it started. Use existing production car parts, uprights, cvs, transaxle, steel wheels etc.

John is spot on in his first observation above... using production parts keeps costs down. That is the approach used by the $12,995 Banshee - http://www.frcca.com/modules.php?name=Banshee . Performance is CF Comprable, at a price not too much more then a good Used CF. Car is built is WVA, not China, with a half dozen actively being run. It is bult using all new components. No junkyard scavanging. It fits a 250+ lbs driver. This is a ground up, low cost approach. I bring it up just to show that with an open mind, and creative thinking a low cost CF performance level formula car can be built.

F600 on the otherhand, may cost more, but would be a more modern package, race car specific parts, based on the later generations of FF cars built.

Now if F600 can't be built, with enough profit margin for the mfg's for $25k or less, then IMHO you start losing the capibility to market it. At $25K+, buyer starts considering other (used) options. I am not a builder, so I don't know mfg and component costs. If it can't be done new, I'll let the F600 concept as an new car die. However, conversions may still be economicially feasable, but I don;t think conversions alone will sustain a class.

Maybe you need then need to start with a clean sheet of paper and see what kind of Banshee-like concepts can be utilized. Challange doing this is threefold ... First, you replace mfg costs with up front enginnering, design and testing costs. Second, it increases time to market while increasing risk variables. Lastely, you take away the option for existing FF cars to be converted.

[Larry]

I've been a fan of the Banshee for quite some time! Unfortunately, I don't think it meets the SCCA homologation requirements, but the idea is excellent. "Build to cost" is an accepted practice in many industries. Unfortunately, as racers, most are willing to spend a few bucks more to get a little more performance advantage. Therefore, cost creep is inevitable unless strict rules are in place. In most instances, this means a spec class or a very limited range of options.

I have attached an estimated BOM for a low cost formula car based upon a motorcycle engine. Feel free to play with it to get an idea of what you think a car would/should cost. Note that there is nothing included for assembly, design, tooling, testing, development, etc. This is a basic bill of materials. I used some optimistic projections, assuming a multiple-car production rate. You may be more of an optimist than I am, but this is pretty good for a wild-assed guess.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

Small formula build estimate.
Major Ass'y Outsource[/SIZE][/FONT]
Chassis 2500
Engine/gearbox 2500
Wheels 800
Bodywork 1000
tires 700.

Front suspension.
Lower wishbone 250
Upper wishbone 250.
Pushrod 50.
Bellcrank 250
Springs. 100
Shocks.500
Upright 500.
Calipers. 400
Anti-roll bar.200.

Rear suspension
Lower wishbone. 250.
Upper wishbone. 250.
Lateral link. 50.
Bell crank. 250.
Springs.100.
Shocks. 500.
Upright (ass'y) 600
Calipers.400
Anti-roll bar.200

Steering.
Rack. 500.
Track rod 50

Other.
Shift linkage 200
Fuel cell 500
Radiator 400
Plumbing 500
Gauges 400
Fire system 400.
Belts 250
Misc 2000

TOTAL $15,550

[EACIII]

Hey, I hear Ducati is coming out with something for the 600 cc class.

[racer27]

Larry - If your estimates are accurate (And I have no reason to beleive they are not), then $25K delivered (Allowing for Mfg profit & labor) may be a challange.

Maybe $2X,000 or less in kit form is a possibily? Don't some of the FV mfg sell cars as kits?

[Greg Mercurio]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...the silly season strted even later than ususal.

[Charles Warner]

Can someone provide a sensible rationale for yet another open wheel class?

Will no one answer the man's question? Why is it we are spending all this time and energy to develop a plan to create another un-needed class? What is missing from the repertoire of classes that already exists that could possibly prompt this concept?

[Daryl DeArman]

Let the market determine if there is a need for another class.

Some classes exist and thrive because of their rules stability, others die a slow death because of them.

If an existing class is threatened by a new class, perhaps people should listen to why people left the class for the new one in the first place. If a new class brings new people to the game then who loses?

[Stan Clayton]

Charlie and John, although this thread has wandered all over the landscape, I originally proposed Formula D to the BoD not as a new class, but rather as part of a restructuring plan to reduce the number of classes in the formula ranks. Specifically, FD would have merged FF, F5 and FST, and laid out a path to bringing in new engine options to ensure the class stays fresh, attractive and current well into the future. I still think that's a worthy goal. Stan

[Charles Warner]

Let the market determine if there is a need for another class.
If an existing class is threatened by a new class, perhaps people should listen to why people left the class for the new one in the first place. If a new class brings new people to the game then who loses?

Daryl,

The assumption here is that the class that threatens an existing one is a viable class. How about if the introduction of a new class (one that we find can not stand alone on its merits) does nothing but weaken the existing class? Its not uncommon that enthusiasm and misplaced faith in the market leads to inappropriate choices. This can be especially germane to the inception of a new class because people are braving an unknown situation. Then you may have two classes that can not last. You also assume that no one will leave the game and that there can only be an increase in numbers. There have been several that have dropped out of the Club because of instability and have opted for other organizations. In that case we all lose.

Stan,

I understand the impetus. Unfortunately I feel this is still an example of the Club wanting to be all things to all people - and that can't be. I believe we wind up diluting the waters with all classes losing. Plus the issue that the class as designed morphs rapidly into a semblance of its original genesis, thereby alienating many of its original proponents. This may already be happening in FB. After 1 race.

[John Nesbitt]

Charlie and John, although this thread has wandered all over the landscape, I originally proposed Formula D to the BoD not as a new class, but rather as part of a restructuring plan to reduce the number of classes in the formula ranks. Specifically, FD would have merged FF, F5 and FST, and laid out a path to bringing in new engine options to ensure the class stays fresh, attractive and current well into the future. I still think that's a worthy goal. Stan

Stan,

I seem to recall this thread from the previous off-season, and I recall responding to the effect that I would support an FD as you describe, even if it caused me some pain, in the context of an overall rationalization and consolidation of open wheel classes.

This iteration of the thread was triggered by a proposal for yet another open wheel class, called FD.

I am still waiting for the CRB to propose a total plan to move from the present eleventeen classes to 5 (FA through FD, plus FV). We need a complete soup-to-nuts plan, showing the migration path for every existing class. The proposed FE/FM merger that died a noisy death earlier this year shows what happens if we try to approach this problem piecemeal.

John

[Stan Clayton]

John, last year the CRB proposed to the BoD the very plan you identify above. They turned it down in favor of the market approach enforced by the "24 classes at the Runoffs" plan.

Charlie, I believe that in fact it IS the mission of SCCA to try to offer a comprehensive menu of amateur road racing options..."all things to all people" in your terms. That doesn't mean a class for every car, just as it doesn't mean "one class fits all". There is a dynamic at work here that never rests, and the club misses a great opportunity when it fails to anticipate and plan for declines in class participation. I don't believe that the formula for FF is broken. But I do think the class needs some forward thinking or in fact it will become broken. Except for a few hundred race engines, the Kent has been out of production for more than 35 years, and important pieces are getting difficult and expensive to find.

FF participation is is down 80% from the peak of 30 years ago. How far does it have to drop before there is a general consensus that action needs to be taken? Ninety percent? More? Does it have to drop so far that the CRB relegates it to Regional-only status before we take action? I am not wise enough to have a sure answer to the question, but I am confident that ignoring the issue is not the best course of action.

"Plus the issue that the class as designed morphs rapidly into a semblance of its original genesis, thereby alienating many of its original proponents."

That's exactly what happened in FF, Charlie. In the late 60's and early 70's FF had the Cortina engine, crude, flexi-flyer frames and crappy suspensions. Progress was so rapid that if you didn't buy the right car at the beginning of the season you were hopelessly outclassed by the end of it. Far from destroying the class, this maturation brought it to new heights.

Why should FB be held to a different standard? We need to tweak a few rules to ensure the class stays true to its original premise, but that will only strengthen and stabilize it too, IMO.

Gotta run! Stan

[Charles Warner]

There is a dynamic at work here that never rests, and the club misses a great opportunity when it fails to anticipate and plan for declines in class participation. I don't believe that the formula for FF is broken. But I do think the class needs some forward thinking or in fact it will become broken.

Stan, I agree but with the caveat that the dynamic changes are not caused by enthusiastic ground swells that are not well thought out and these changes are implemented slowly enough not to disenfranchise existing racers. I also agree that the morphing of FF occured. This was at the same time both technology and disposable incomes rose, along with the changing of the SCCA culture from a garden shop industry to full-fledged professional involvement. This has to mean more investment and costs. This industry change might parallel the change from the Herc to the C-117.

Except for a few hundred race engines, the Kent has been out of production for more than 35 years, and important pieces are getting difficult and expensive to find.

If this is the primary impetus for any such change then I'd vote to follow the Brits and adopt the Duratech. Stays in concept with the original idea of the class, parts are available, technology established, mules tested, etc. Would seem to be a no-brainer. However, if a major aim is to expand the class to motocycle based engines just because some want to tinker and think that they can have a nationally classed car for a pittance then the process is awry.

That's exactly what happened in FF, Charlie. In the late 60's and early 70's FF had the Cortina engine, crude, flexi-flyer frames and crappy suspensions. Progress was so rapid that if you didn't buy the right car at the beginning of the season you were hopelessly outclassed by the end of it. Far from destroying the class, this maturation brought it to new heights.

You are right, but, that metamorphosis took years, even decades which IMO is as it should be. I am not after stasis but a controlled progression. What is happening to FB is occuring over the period of days and weeks. A product of the advance of technology? Probably. Something we have to deal with? Absolutely. As for having to upgrade the equipment that is part of the game and it always will be. There are always those with deeper pockets. Too many people think they can design/build that winning car and never have to upgrade. That is what is happening in FB. The rules were written and the same people that wrote them now realize they will have to get on the money train to follow the course they charted.

Why should FB be held to a different standard? We need to tweak a few rules to ensure the class stays true to its original premise, but that will only strengthen and stabilize it too, IMO.

Fair enough, but the discussions now have taken on a aura of "we will determine where the class goes" followed by statements that anyone who chooses a certain engine will probably be "outsourced" after these rules are thrust through. And the suggestions that some will have to "feel the pain" for the "good of the class." That "good", however, seems to be defined by those outside the power structure. We still have to make sure the process for change is followed. At this time I detect a bit of anarchy-creep.

[Jim Garry]

FF participation is is down 80% from the peak of 30 years ago. How far does it have to drop before there is a general consensus that action needs to be taken? Ninety percent? More? Does it have to drop so far that the CRB relegates it to Regional-only status before we take action?

I just took a few minutes and looked over some of your earlier threads and posts on class participation Stan. From your data, it is clear that FF (while "down 80% from the peak of 30 years ago"), is still not at the bottom of the formula classes. And when viewed against formula and production and showroom stock and all the other seemingly thousands of SCCA classes, it is doing quite well.

So please stop threatening to take action against a class that is doing well when it is compared against the rest of SCCA classes in the present.

If you really feel the need to do something, start working to combine classes, especially in the classes that have roofs.


Jim

[Stan Clayton]

Jim, I wasn't threatening anybody with anything. I was answering Charlie and John's question about the genesis of the Formula D concept.

To recapitulate briefly, nearly two years ago the BoD directed the CRB to come up with a plan to cap the Runoffs at 24 classes with each having its own race. From that the CRB presented two plans...one a comprehensive "formulaic" plan to cap National classes at 24, with all new cars forced into one of those classes, and a second, market-driven plan where the number of classes could float, with classes surviving as National classes on their participation. As one of the formula/sports racer guys on the CRB, it fell to me to prepare the plan for consolidating the formula classes, but believe me, the other categories went through the same drill.

For what it's worth, the tin-top classes have been doing their share of consolidating. GT4 and GT5 were merged into GT-Lites the year before the BoD's directive. This year G-Prod collapsed and its cars are being divvied up into FP and HP. Also this year, GT3 fell out of the top 24 classes and has been denied an entry to the 2008 Runoffs (displaced by a formula class, BTW...). Its members have not decided whether to try to regroup or to fold the class now, but we will know the class' fate in the coming months.

While I support the market-driven plan currently in effect, I also understand the allure of the formulaic approach. The market approach's principal weakness is that can be very cold hearted. Survival of the fittest means pitting class against class, and this runs counter to the philosophy of many club members. We are a club, after all, and accommodating others' interests by banding together as a club has a long tradition in the Club.

The formulaic approach, where each class would be defined by "a formula" and has a guaranteed date at the big dance, means that every class would have a secure future. OTOH, it suffers from possible stagnation if folks lose interest in a certain category of cars. In any event, the BoD turned down this option in favor of the market approach.

The bottom line is that there are no easy answers, and certainly no static answers that will meet the test of the long term. In the meantime we will keep talking about it.

Stan

PS - edited for clarity.

[Jim Garry]

Stan,
I respect you and all the hard work you do for the club. But you wrote "Does it [FF] have to drop so far that the CRB relegates it to Regional-only status before we take action?"

Maybe I could have used a better word than "threatening" (as in "please stop threatening to take action" against FF). But your words clearly say to me that if FF continues to drop further below it's 30 year high it is possible the CRB will relegate it to Regional-only status.

My point is that FF's 30 year high was much higher than any other class. And it's drop to where it is now merely puts it into a healthy position as far as comparison with other SCCA class participation numbers.


Jim

[Stan Clayton]

Stan,
I respect you and all the hard work you do for the club. But you wrote "Does it [FF] have to drop so far that the CRB relegates it to Regional-only status before we take action?"

Maybe I could have used a better word than "threatening" (as in "please stop threatening to take action" against FF). But your words clearly say to me that if FF continues to drop further below it's 30 year high it is possible the CRB will relegate it to Regional-only status.

Thank you, Jim, but please understand my question in the rhetorical context that I offered it. My point was that while FF looks pretty solid now, it has also been in a steady decline for 30 years and lost another 10% in National participation this year. If that trend line continues FF could find itself bumped out of the top 24 within as little as 3 years. Again rhetorically, if FF's decline continues at what point do we take steps to revitalize the class? (As in considering new engine/tire/etc options to the current spec?)

Charlie suggests the Brit model (150hp Duratec, ally calipers and a 5-sp sequential box) as a possible update candidate, but last year the FF community rejected any change. That's fine for now, and the FD concept remains purely that (at the Club management level), but FF's challenges remain, both technical and market based. New cars are expensive for their perceived value and getting more so...to the point where few new ones are being built. Plus folks have more choices every year about whom them race with (NASA, F-BMW, Skippy, etc.), and what class they enter (in many ways SM is the new FF...cheap and easy to enter with plenty of competition). Not to mention the migration of FFs to Regional racing. Many older CF cars are being parted out, and as a result Regional guys are chipping away at the extant corps of what we would consider competitive FFs, further depleting their numbers in National racing.

It's fine for folks to wistfully reminisce about the good ole days when FF was king (not that I'm accusing you of that, but one reads it a lot). Those days will likely never return, though, so IMO the sooner we look to FF's future the brighter that future will be.

My point is that FF's 30 year high was much higher than any other class. And it's drop to where it is now merely puts it into a healthy position as far as comparison with other SCCA class participation numbers. Jim

Yes it was. FF has made a mighty contribution to the Club, and for that reason alone deserves our thanks and respect. That said, I would consider the class' future less problematical were it not for the steady drop in entries and active drivers. FF has stronger numbers than DSR, for instance, but DSR has homologated more new cars in the last year or two than FF has in the past nearly 10 years. That's not a good sign for FF.

FD is off the table for now, so there is no 'emergency' call for action, but as I have stated in other threads, we are better off to have healthy conversation about the class' future now than to wait for the finger pointing and recriminations that have accompanied recent class collapses.

Best regards, Stan

[Joefisherff]

The Formula Ford Ad Hoc committee worked tirelessly for over a year to come up with proposals to make the class more attractive and nothing was done. Do you think this was an accident? This is another attempt at someone who doesn't even race in the classes try to save them by knowing what's best for all of us. Don't let someone slide this in under the radar and allow successful classes to be combined so they can introduce their "formula" which will eventually take the place of the combined class.

You can see how well their formula works by looking at the thread under FB where the possibility of a mega horsepower high buck engine could be put in any of the cars and blow everyone away. Simply because in their rush to move it into national status they failed to close the loopholes. I like the idea of the FB class but don't rush something in because you think it's a good idea and make everyone's investment go in the toilet because the great wise one thought it up.

[S Lathrop]

Stan:

Years ago I thought we should do something to revitalize FF. Over the last several years I have come to the opinion that the FF guys have it right: "leave us alone". Death is preferable to any cure that has been sugggested.

Having said that, the next question is do we need a newer entry level formula car class similar to FF or FV. I think the question is an emphatic yes.

We have a bunch of classes that want to fill that void once nobly occupied by FF and before that FV. None of the newer classes have really caught on and are not likely to. F400/F500/F??? has not done it. Over growen carts have not caught on. The FV is something that only an old man could love and that is why I still keep working on them. It is like racing with V8 60s. And FF warmed over will not do because it is too expensive for what it is.

Another spec class won't get the job done. Look at how many we already have and look at what they cost to buy and race. No one is likely to give SCCA 2.5 million bucks to repeat the success of SR/SRF and the club doesn't have that kind of money to spend any more.

I think that we should be discussing what a new class might look like if we had a clean sheet of paper. I think that the FV model should be the guide. With FV we had a box of standardized parts that we used to build a race car. Formula Renault in England started that way but went the spec car route in the end and it is gone. In the early years FF was very similar when most manufacturers used the same basic components.

May be we should move forward with the FD discussion along these lines.

[Stan Clayton]

Over the last several years I have come to the opinion that the FF guys have it right: "leave us alone". Death is preferable to any cure that has been sugggested.

You may be right, Steve. That is certainly the outlook of other threatened classes. In any case, as a consolidation of classes FD is no longer being considered.

Having said that, the next question is do we need a newer entry level formula car class similar to FF or FV. I think the question is an emphatic yes.

We have a bunch of classes that want to fill that void once nobly occupied by FF and before that FV. None of the newer classes have really caught on and are not likely to. F400/F500/F??? has not done it. Over growen carts have not caught on. The FV is something that only an old man could love and that is why I still keep working on them. It is like racing with V8 60s. And FF warmed over will not do because it is too expensive for what it is.

Another spec class won't get the job done. Look at how many we already have and look at what they cost to buy and race. No one is likely to give SCCA 2.5 million bucks to repeat the success of SR/SRF and the club doesn't have that kind of money to spend any more.

I think that we should be discussing what a new class might look like if we had a clean sheet of paper. I think that the FV model should be the guide. With FV we had a box of standardized parts that we used to build a race car. Formula Renault in England started that way but went the spec car route in the end and it is gone. In the early years FF was very similar when most manufacturers used the same basic components.

May be we should move forward with the FD discussion along these lines.

Formula First has been growing rapidly and incorporates many of the approaches you outline, Steve, and new cars are right in the price range I've seen mentioned. Do you think that approach has legs?

[Bill Bonow]

Steve,

I'm pretty sure you're aware of FST (I've sent you and Richard emails about building one).I think it fits the bill that you describe pretty darn good. A new race car on the track ranging from $18k to $23k (depending on the manufacture and how its outfitted). It uses standard
"dirt cheap" parts from a car with over 40 million units produced worldwide from '71 to '03.
Those parts will be manufactured for the next 15 to 20 years. SCCA nation-wide
regional classification should be just around the corner and they don't even look all that bad







There is about 35 of these cars currently running in 4 different divisions of SCCA. Some are purpose built new cars and others are converted FV's.

I'm sure a car from Citation would be a welcome addition.

[S Lathrop]

You may be right, Steve. That is certainly the outlook of other threatened classes. In any case, as a consolidation of classes FD is no longer being considered.


Formula First has been growing rapidly and incorporates many of the approaches you outline, Steve, and new cars are right in the price range I've seen mentioned. Do you think that approach has legs?

I have some experience with FVs. One of my cars even won the British FV championship. This is closer to Formula First than our current FVs.

For manufacturer to get involved where you want to turn out 50 to 100 cars a year over several years Formula First will have significant parts problems. I also think that the suspension is being asked to perform will beyond any reasonable design parameters. Problem is that no one has setout to work up a similar box of parts for another formula car class.


Given the manufacturing capabilities that are available to day, I think we are better off specifying a design for certain components and have every one build to a single set of drawings. This would put us where a chassis builder is when he starts a new FV. Things that are durable in a design could be standardized such as uprights, spindles, drive shafts, steering racks, etc. The individual chassis would consist of frame, suspension links, bodies, etc. Stock car racing at the lower levels is not too much different. For years there has been a defacto standard of VW Rabbit drive line components for American made FF and FC chassis. In the Grand-Am, certain components are common to all cars and built by a single supplier. There might be some production car components that will do but I think that those days are behind us.

As to power plants, I think that 600 cc bikes are the natural. As I work my through the F1000/FB design, I find that the savings in using the bike engine were more than I first thought. We are going to learn a lot with the FB class. There are some really successful bike powered race cars in the US. Mini Sprints and Legands cars come to mind.

I for one think that the main reason we have so many classes is that we have not hit on the classes that will have significant followings. In stead of limiting the number of classes, just reduce the number of classes that go the the run offs to say 15 or 18. Then let the best classes survive.

I see a class structure where we have spec classes and open classes of open wheel cars form entry level to FB/FA level, with 3 to 4 major performance groupings. The classes would have more consistant performance levels. From my perspective it is more the class groupings that are the biggest problem. FB will be popular because it will be the fastest car in its grouping unless there are good FA. In that case the FA will be quickest, then FB, then every thing else.

The FC and FM grouping comes to mind as a very unhappy situation. Either the FM should get through the corners with the FC or the FC should get down the streights with the FM.