Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 112

Thread: Why us?

  1. #1
    Senior Member Dave SanF 50's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.24.03
    Location
    Alameda in SF Bay area (CA)
    Posts
    537
    Liked: 34

    Default Why us?

    OK, Am I alone in wondering why FF will be combined with the go-karts (F5) for the Runoffs?
    A quick look at the number of entries for each class shows:
    FA 17
    F1K 15
    FC 22
    FE 11
    FF 26
    FM 18
    FV 32
    F5 11

    So the second largest Formula car class (FF) will be combined with F5 to make the largest grouping of Formula cars. Does that make sense? It does not to me. With all the money HPD is using to buy the class, how can they stand for that?
    Sorry for the rant. It just seems that the classes with less than 15 entries could be combined. Oh wait Enterprises would not like that.
    This post is the result of three glasses of wine with dinner and I have not even poured my Cognac yet.

  2. #2
    Senior Member ccoffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    06.14.11
    Location
    Spokane Valley, WA
    Posts
    587
    Liked: 120

    Default

    I agree this is dumb. Scca should just eat it with enterprises this year and combine them with f5. Good speed diff between the two and they should be able to stay out of each other's way more so than ff and f5, although ff and f5 generally play nice together from what I have seen.

    I'm just glad FC and fm are no longer combined.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    09.07.12
    Location
    covington ga
    Posts
    306
    Liked: 72

    Default

    I will be one of the cars in F5s out on the track with the FFs. I agree with you too, however it is what it is. If you want this changed I suggest you post to SCCA instead of this forum. I can personally tell you that it will fall on deaf ears, but it might make you feel better knowing your email is going to who made the decision instead of the guys who are the victims. Oh by the way, If I had a FF and got beat by something you can pull start I wouldn't advertise that they're like go karts. It only devalues your car by letting other people know that even with things like shocks, springs, differential, 13in wheels, sway bars, a "real" car motor, factory backed support,45 years of development, and a car that cost twice as much as a F5 that you still cant beat a "go kart". I happen to like and respect FFs as I race with the top guys in the country from time to time and enjoy doing so. All I'm trying to get across is that if you want the respect of others show respect to begin with.

    On another note, having these two classes combined for the runoffs while paying 950.00 entry fees and traveling a long way is BS in my opinion. I can tell you now that based on previous races this year there's four of the F5s registered that WILL be as fast or faster than the top FFs. With that said, its going to suck for the FFs to possibly start behind the F5s and then if there's a caution the two they will join each other. For FF to have this many entries, it doesn't warrant a combined class. This WILL result in two classes racing each other for their own championships. With the two classes being so equally matched its going to cause major disruption between the FF and F5 national championship title. As always I'm up for whatever, but I don't think most drivers feel the same as I do.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    07.07.06
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    93
    Liked: 26

    Default why ?

    WTF over ?

  5. #5
    Senior Member Dave SanF 50's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.24.03
    Location
    Alameda in SF Bay area (CA)
    Posts
    537
    Liked: 34

    Default

    Clint
    I have never questioned the speed of F5. The run groups I participate in at a local and Major Tour level all have F5 included in them. It is just that your definition of a race "car" and mine differ. IMHO a race "car" has:

    " things like shocks, springs, differential, 13in wheels, sway bars, a "real" car motor"

    To my way of thinking (which of course you can disagree with), a F5 is more like a kart than a car because it does lack a car's suspension, a "real" car motor, clutch & tranny.

    Here I am, the OP, and and I am taking this thread further off topic. Sorry

    The topic was and still is: why combine a large class (FF) with another class even if their respective speeds are similar?
    IF I were King, I would have combined two smaller groups like FA and F1K or FE and FM with a goal of having around 30 cars per group. FF+F5 gives a group of 37 and registration is still open. Why should FE have their our run group with only 11 entries in it or F1K with only 15 entries or FM with 18? Or how about P1 with 13 entries and P2 with 16. Hell, if it wasn't for the P1 or P2 on the sides of the cars, I could not tell them apart.

    But I am not the King, only a pauper.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    11.01.03
    Location
    Burlington, WI
    Posts
    622
    Liked: 381

    Default

    This is not as bad as the past few years at Road America when F5's and FV's were BOTH among the biggest open wheel classes and were combined. We learned to deal with it.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    01.11.05
    Location
    Zionsville, Indiana
    Posts
    3,169
    Liked: 1395

    Default

    Not only is this not fun for participants but because of the difference in tire diameters and cornering speeds between FF and F500, this is potentially a very hazardous grouping.

  8. #8
    Fallen Friend Bud Pug's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.08.12
    Location
    Summit Point, WV
    Posts
    128
    Liked: 18

    Default

    WHY US? Simple, its name says it all - Sports Car Club of America not Formula Car but Sports car. Think about this - why didn't they allow C/F to be part of the Run-offs?But like Purple Frog brought up, it is the only place to crown a National Champion. So many of the formula classes have put up with this type of hassle in the past. My final complaint, at this time, is when IndyCar and F-1 insist on their racecars having reverse, and I feel that is because of safety issues why do we have classes without reverse? Give that some thought and I know you will understand how dangerous it is to allow racecars without reverse abilities.

  9. #9
    Contributing Member rickb99's Avatar
    Join Date
    06.24.02
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    4,913
    Liked: 210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bud Pug View Post
    ..... why do we have classes without reverse?....
    Reverse is highly over rated as a gear.
    CREW for Jeff 89 Reynard or Flag & Comm.

  10. #10
    Senior Member GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.01.05
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    356
    Liked: 91

    Default

    I am going to speculate it is because they are qualifying with us, and FE is combined in qualifying with FC and FM. SCCA probably wants to keep the group together rather than have F5 run with FE for the first time in the race. I would prefer F5 to run with FE.

  11. #11
    Contributing Member TimH's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.13.10
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,625
    Liked: 1100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rickb99 View Post
    Reverse is highly over rated as a gear.
    It's one thing to have the gear in your trans and another to be able to engage it with the motor running. I've done it but never eleganly.
    Caldwell D9B - Sold
    Crossle' 30/32/45 Mongrel - Sold
    RF94 Monoshock - here goes nothin'

  12. #12
    Senior Member gcoffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.06.09
    Location
    Verdale, Washington
    Posts
    405
    Liked: 145

    Default

    Congratulations F5 for getting enough entries to crown a National Champion! And as a former rope racer I am glad to see that after say maybe 30 years you are still the whipping boys of the formula "car" world. Well done.

  13. #13
    Member Germg's Avatar
    Join Date
    07.24.09
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    99
    Liked: 14

    Default Letter to SCCA

    If you are interested in getting the groups changed the only way it might be possible is if you wright Terry Ozment tozment@scca.com I was told she was in charge of the schedule for the Runoff's. All FF competitors need to wright her to get this changed. 1 East coast guy thinking about going to the Glen instead of going to Laguna.

    Jeremy

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    07.24.07
    Location
    Geneva IL.
    Posts
    82
    Liked: 4

    Default

    I don't think I want to belong to a club that makes this kind of decisions. I think I'm going to walk away from the condo I rented and cancel my entry.
    Ed Midgley

  15. #15
    Banned Modo's Avatar
    Join Date
    07.09.04
    Location
    DC Area
    Posts
    1,215
    Liked: 19

    Default

    certainly offensive to a classic formula ford enthusiast, Fittipaldi, maybe Hunt , et. al.............
    ........'write' sp ........

    yes we know, Honda is not a Ford but FF is a class that's sort of affordable that copies the independent suspension, lightweightedness (Ha), aero (guy riding an engine-plus tires-minus wings), and automobile/competition engine that the GP guys have
    Last edited by Modo; 08.31.14 at 11:56 AM.

  16. #16
    Contributing Member EYERACE's Avatar
    Join Date
    09.05.02
    Location
    Orlando Florida 32812
    Posts
    3,824
    Liked: 586

    Default

    I'll drink to that

  17. #17
    Senior Member Dave SanF 50's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.24.03
    Location
    Alameda in SF Bay area (CA)
    Posts
    537
    Liked: 34

    Default e-mail to Terry Ozment

    Terry Ozment
    I am a West Coast FF racer entered in the Laguna Runoffs. I have been a SCCA member since 1976 and have been racing in the FF class since the late '80s.

    I was horrified to see the updated schedule released August 25 that shows FF combined with F5 for the Championship race on Friday, October 10. FF is tied with EP as the fourth most popular class at this years Runoffs based on the current entry list (8-31-2014).

    FF currently has 27 entries. The F5 class 12 entries so combined, the total run group size will be 39, making this the third largest run group and the largest mixed run group. There are currently sixteen (16) run grouping that have fewer than TWENTY (20) entrants total. And there are currently SEVEN (7) race groups with 15 or LESS entries. FE has it's own race group and only has eleven (11) total entrants. The two other race groups that have two different classes (T3/STU and T4/BS)) have 29 and 24 entries.

    The combining of these two classes (FF & F5) does not seem reasonable or fair minded. I am asking you to re-consider the race schedule and arrive at a more equable solution.
    Last edited by Dave SanF 50; 08.31.14 at 8:54 PM. Reason: removed FONT & SIZE

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    12.22.04
    Location
    Knoxville,Tn
    Posts
    519
    Liked: 65

    Default

    The sounds of tractor engines and weed eaters go together. Its like the lawn maintenance crew will be out having fun.


    :: sorry, I have nothing constructive to add to the discussion, but couldn't resist.

  19. #19
    Senior Member David Locke's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.19.02
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    445
    Liked: 175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bud Pug View Post
    . . . why do we have classes without reverse? Give that some thought and I know you will understand how dangerous it is to allow racecars without reverse abilities.
    I raced cars equipped with a reverse gear for nine seasons (1979-87) and don't recall ever using reverse. I raced a car (Stohr WF-1) without a reverse gear for the past five seasons and never needed reverse. YMMV.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10.24.12
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    591
    Liked: 224

    Default

    As one of the guys that will be racing a go cart/weed eater at the Runoffs, we do not like this anymore than the FFs do. I personally have never had any problems racing with FFs, but it doesn't make sense for FF to not have their own race.

    When they changed the schedule, F500 only had 7 entries, so it made sense that F500 would get combined with some other class. Now that we have 12 entries (more than FE), it makes even more sense to go back to the original schedule, with FE and FC combined. Everyone in FF and F500 needs to contact Terry Ozment ASAP and request this change.

  21. #21
    Contributing Member GT1Vette's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.07.01
    Location
    St Marys, GA
    Posts
    1,136
    Liked: 202

    Default Horrified? REALLY?!?

    Wow. I return from my last Majors event as Director of Club Racing and wonder if I logged onto the Prod site! But no, this really is ApexSpeed.

    Although I will no longer have any influence over the direction of SCCA Club Racing after the end of September, I fully support running these two classes together for the following reasons:

    1. You've run together all year. Other than Pro series or special events, FF and F5 have ALWAYS shared sessions at SCCA events.

    2. In fact, FF and F5 are running together for the test day and all qualifying sessions at the 2014 Runoffs. By race day you will have first-hand experience running with each other so you'll know who you can race with and who you need to watch out for.

    3. Granted they are achieved in different ways, but the front-runners in both classes will turn virtually identical lap times at MRLS. With split grid qualifying and a split start in the race (assuming no FCY - which the drivers control), the respective championship contenders in each class will never see each other on the track. It's the back-markers that may have problems, but at least two of the last four FF Runoffs races have been impacted (once literally) by lapped traffic on a FOUR MILE track. Maybe SCCA should institute a Runoffs-only rule that once you're ten seconds from being lapped you'll be black-flagged?

    4. Putting F5 with FE as some of you suggest will almost certainly result in a shortened championship race for F5. But then they aren't "real" race cars so obviously they don't deserve a chance to run a full race anyway, right?

    And yes, I know the F5 record at MRLS is a 3.5 seconds slower than the FF record, but looking at other events where top-flight drivers from both classes participated the fastest laps are within a second of each other.

    Finally, "horrified" Dave? I can understand "disturbed", "disappointed", "concerned", and maybe even "disgusted", but HORRIFIED?!? What word do you reserve for mud slides along the coast, the attack on the Twin Towers, or Ebola outbreaks?

    There are many aspects of my job that I will miss, but having to bite my tongue and refrain from responding to threads like this one is not among them.

    As always, YMMV...
    Butch Kummer
    2006, 2007, 2010 SARRC GTA Champion

  22. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    07.24.07
    Location
    Geneva IL.
    Posts
    82
    Liked: 4

    Default

    Butch you're missing the point, it's thirty nine cars on a 2.3 mile track while FE will race with eleven cars.
    I'm walking away from a $2,400.00 condo I payed for. It just makes no sense.
    Ed Midgley

  23. #23
    Fallen Friend Ralph Z.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    03.31.03
    Location
    Hudson, Ohio
    Posts
    1,225
    Liked: 207

    Default SCCA

    This is why I no longer run SCCA.
    Ralph Z
    1968 Alexis Mk14 Formula Ford

  24. #24
    Senior Member chrisw52's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.31.12
    Location
    Santa Cruz, ca
    Posts
    951
    Liked: 182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by efoxfield View Post
    Butch you're missing the point, it's thirty nine cars on a 2.3 mile track while FE will race with eleven cars.
    I'm walking away from a $2,400.00 condo I payed for. It just makes no sense.
    Ed Midgley
    hmmm.. I'm just a novice here, but after waiting the nationals for decades, this really sounds like a safety issue..

    Why have this huge run group when other classes could use the numbers?

  25. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    07.07.06
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    93
    Liked: 26

    Default

    It is true that FF & F5 have run together during the season, & that they are near each other in size, weight & lap times. But they are not the same in cornering speeds & braking distances. Sure there is a safety concern, & the risk is raised when we have different classes running together. We do our best given certain time restraints & class sizes. I can perhaps understand grouping the two together for practice & qualifying, but I am not understanding why FF & F5 are grouped together for their respective national championship race. Has it happened before at previous runoffs, for any class ?
    Yes, I saw how a national championship winner was decided because of a backmarker, but that backmarker was of the same class. To offer the potential for the outcome of either group, FF or F5, to be decided because of a situation involving an opposite class car or cars, has me asking, why ?
    nick fuhs

  26. #26
    Senior Member David Locke's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.19.02
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    445
    Liked: 175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by last View Post
    . . . I can perhaps understand grouping the two together for practice & qualifying, but I am not understanding why FF & F5 are grouped together for their respective national championship race. Has it happened before at previous runoffs, for any class ?
    Yes, I saw how a national championship winner was decided because of a backmarker, but that backmarker was of the same class. To offer the potential for the outcome of either group, FF or F5, to be decided because of a situation involving an opposite class car or cars, has me asking, why ?
    nick fuhs
    Nick, this is nothing new; it happens every year. Due to the time constraints of fitting 27 classes into three days, six classes must be combined into three national championship races. The SCCA tries to rotate these combinations so that it doesn't happen to the same classes in consecutive years.

  27. #27
    Senior Member chrisw52's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.31.12
    Location
    Santa Cruz, ca
    Posts
    951
    Liked: 182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Locke View Post
    Nick, this is nothing new; it happens every year. Due to the time constraints of fitting 27 classes into three days, six classes must be combined into three national championship races. The SCCA tries to rotate these combinations so that it doesn't happen to the same classes in consecutive years.
    rotating the combinations of classes just so you don't have the same classes running together does not makes sense to me. If a particular run group class combination works, stick with it so you have consistent levels of competition in any given run group.

    I don't have a high opinion (that can be published) on this arbitrary class rotation.

  28. #28
    Senior Member David Locke's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.19.02
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    445
    Liked: 175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisw52 View Post
    rotating the combinations of classes just so you don't have the same classes running together does not makes sense to me. If a particular run group class combination works, stick with it so you have consistent levels of competition in any given run group.

    I don't have a high opinion (that can be published) on this arbitrary class rotation.
    I wasn't advocating rotating the combinations of classes, Chris. I was just responding to Nick's question. If you don't like the way classes are rotated and want to see this changed, write to the SCCA. Disagreeing with it here won't get you anywhere.

  29. #29
    Senior Member ccoffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    06.14.11
    Location
    Spokane Valley, WA
    Posts
    587
    Liked: 120

    Default

    Thanks butch for the response. I don't agree with your position but it's nice to have an opposing view and your points are certainly valid. I don't have a dog in this hunt personally, but I have always wondered why scca needs to have an hour block of time for a race that can not be longer than 40ish minutes 50 would seem to suffice and would allow for at least one and possibly two more races per day over 3 days of races you get 3-6 more single class races.

  30. #30
    Senior Member Dave SanF 50's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.24.03
    Location
    Alameda in SF Bay area (CA)
    Posts
    537
    Liked: 34

    Default

    Butch
    Thank you for your work as Director of Club Racing. And thank you for responding to my post. You are dead on wrt my use of the word "horrified". Way over the top. In defense of the use of "horrified", I was being dramatic (over the top dramatic) but I was striving to gain attention to what I perceived as an unjust and unwarranted race grouping of two classes for the 2014 Runoffs.

    As Ed pointed out, the point has been missed. The "powers that be" have combined a large class (FF) with a smaller class to create a large race group with very dissimilar racing characteristics. Even if you are predicting similar lap times.

    My point was and still is, why combine a large class (FF w 27 entrants) and allow race groups with about a dozen or less to have their own group?
    CLASS & ENTRIES
    GT1 12
    AS 11
    STU 13 (combined w T3)
    P1 13
    BS 11 (combined w T4)
    FE 11
    F5 12 (combined w FF)

    The SFR is having a Divisional race at Laguna in September. There are 17 FFs entered (and only 2 F5s btw).

    The total entry count for the Runoffs is currently at 531. With 27 classes, the average class size is 19.7. I think combining classes with less than 15 entries make more sense than combining classes with more than twenty.
    Of course, your opinion bears more validity and weight than mine.
    thanks once again for your service

  31. #31
    Contributing Member
    Join Date
    07.25.03
    Location
    Linden, Ca
    Posts
    289
    Liked: 25

    Default I continue to miss something here.....

    Seems to me that there are too many classes for the Majors/Runoffs. I thought one of the original goals of the Majors was to showcase and promote the most competitive classes in "amateur" racing.
    Oh, by the way, can we make a class for the Prius, or what about the new driverless Google car???
    Chuck

  32. #32
    Senior Member Josh Pitt's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.25.07
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    498
    Liked: 14

    Default

    this just looks bad all around.
    it appears as though the scca (club) is protecting their scca business (the FE class) as trying to reward the(few) participants for driving their scca car (FE) by shielding them from a combined group in the big premier event.

    I can see why guys just run the pro series in FF. sucks to spend an entire year qualifying to race in a championship premier event like this , only to find out your run group sucks, and changes that make sense are likely not going to happen.

    class numbers should dictate (dedicated)run groups, not the class names and their respective (supply) sources.

    I stopped racing in events that had crappy run groups. sadly if all FF driver boycotted the event based on the run groupings; I would be sure that scca would interpet it as because of the venue, or the weather or something/anything other than the product they are offering.

    there needs to be a rule written in stone that says if a class has a minimum of "X" # of entries that the run group will NOT be shared regardless of the class name.

    I lost my interest in racing, and am reminded why by this thread.
    carry oin

  33. #33
    Contributing Member
    Join Date
    07.25.03
    Location
    Linden, Ca
    Posts
    289
    Liked: 25

    Default And by the way,

    This is the first year in some time that SCCA has broken the mold by going to different venues on a yearly basis, so that in and of itself is a good sign. It needs to continue moving forward by recognizing the "amateur" and club status of its members. A competing organization has done so by eliminating its one national championship and going to an East and West championship with 3 day championship weekends each.
    Personally, I miss the former Pacific Coast Road Racing Championships that were held at Sears Point. In a newer format that venue could move up and down the west coast and venture to Miller. The east has the ARRC. I'm just sayin'.
    I've suggested this to those few I know who are involved with running the Runoffs, but is anything being done to promote the Runoffs as a significant event to the local or regional media outside of Laguna's own "Corkscrew" bulletin?
    Chuck

  34. #34
    Senior Member David Locke's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.19.02
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    445
    Liked: 175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by La Scuderia Raggi View Post
    Seems to me that there are too many classes for the Majors/Runoffs. I thought one of the original goals of the Majors was to showcase and promote the most competitive classes in "amateur" racing.
    Oh, by the way, can we make a class for the Prius, or what about the new driverless Google car???
    Chuck
    I don't believe the goals of the Majors relate to the issue in this thread. You are correct that the original idea was to invite certain (but not all) national classes to Majors events, but to my recollection the lack of an invitation to Majors events was never intended to deprive a class of either its national status or a place in the schedule at the Runoffs. So, the issue that this thread deals with would exist even if the original plan for the Majors had been implemented and followed.

    I agree that there are too many classes, particularly in light of the declining number of entries overall since the recession. For years the SCCA added class after class without any apparent regard for the resulting impact on weekend schedules. Proposals have been made at various times to trim the number of classes, and the sports racing classes have recently been reduced from four to three, but, in addition to consolidation, in my opinion the club needs to take a harder line on underperforming classes and move them into regional-only status.

  35. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    03.07.03
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    69
    Liked: 7

    Default

    FE raced with FM in the Runoffs two years ago. Not sure they are "protecting" anything. Seems to be a rotation.

    Steve

  36. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    02.04.02
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,399
    Liked: 1116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave SanF 50 View Post
    As Ed pointed out, the point has been missed. The "powers that be" have combined a large class (FF) with a smaller class to create a large race group with very dissimilar racing characteristics. Even if you are predicting similar lap times.

    My point was and still is, why combine a large class (FF w 27 entrants) and allow race groups with about a dozen or less to have their own group?
    CLASS & ENTRIES
    GT1 12
    AS 11
    STU 13 (combined w T3)
    P1 13
    BS 11 (combined w T4)
    FE 11
    F5 12 (combined w FF)
    Dave, as someone who cut my road racing teeth in a group that mixed all kinds of classes including open/closed wheel together....I am probably more comfortable racing in mixed groups than many....however, mixed groups of cars with very similar lap times achieved differently should be avoided as much as GT1 w/FV or FA w/FV.

    That being said, given your data quoted above, F5 gets combined with somebody. if you were king who are you combining them with, FE? That makes the most sense to me from a numbers perspective and disparity in lap times being moderate but not severe. In other words, a large enough difference in speed that you aren't sharing real estate for long. Small enough in numbers that you aren't going to be dealing with each other lap after lap for much of the race.

    The counter point in my eyes is though the racing may be better, the safety of a car to car contact is much worse.

    So, group A (FF/F5) much more likely to have car-to-car contact but likely a better outcome. While group B (F5/FE) less likely to have car-to-car contact but if it occurs likely a much worse outcome. Risk v. Reward....what do you think?

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    01.11.05
    Location
    Zionsville, Indiana
    Posts
    3,169
    Liked: 1395

    Default Butch Kummer:

    I can appreciate the problems of scheduling and race groupings. It is impossible to make everybody happy or even the majority.

    I still stand by my original observation that F500 and FF make a potentially hazardous grouping for qualifying and races.

    The issue is the relative small tires of a F500 making a perfect launch ramp for a FF front tire.

    FC, FM and FE all have front wings that make a reasonable bumper to separate wheels of significantly different sizes. FFs do not have that protection.

    Because FF rear tires are larger that FF front tires they don't present the same hazard as F500 tires when cars do touch tires.

    Now for practice and possibly qualifying, I would expect that the drivers would be cautious enough that things could be expected to go well. But in the heat of a race for the national championship, all bets are off.

  38. #38
    Senior Member Dave SanF 50's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.24.03
    Location
    Alameda in SF Bay area (CA)
    Posts
    537
    Liked: 34

    Default risk vs reward

    Daryl
    Very good points. Would you not also agree that the density (cars/mile track) plays a significant role in risk? A car density of 22 cars for 2.3 miles of track is less risky than 39 cars on the same 2.3 miles.

  39. #39
    Contributing Member rickb99's Avatar
    Join Date
    06.24.02
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    4,913
    Liked: 210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GT1Vette View Post
    ... but looking at other events where top-flight drivers from both classes participated the fastest laps are within a second of each other....
    About 6 years ago, a FIRST RATE driver from Virginia was enjoying the 'Western Tour" and ran the Double National at Pacific Raceway in FC and F5 (left his D/SR in the trailer). F5 was indeed run with FF. He came in third overall and won F5 with 3 STRONG competitors from the Northwest running in F5 also.
    CREW for Jeff 89 Reynard or Flag & Comm.

  40. #40
    Contributing Member Jnovak's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.08.07
    Location
    Dearborn, Michigan
    Posts
    3,787
    Liked: 896

    Default

    I do have a dog in this hunt in that my son is racing in F5 and we expect to be somewhere at the front. I also expect that the top F5 guys will be turning very close lap times to the top FF guys. I suspect that the front running FFs will catch the back F5 field and and I am also sure that the the fastest 3 or 4 F5s will catch the back of the FF field. So I suspect that the 2 classes will be mixing it up in less than 1/2 of race distance.

    There had better be a lot of careful driving by all involved so that either one or both of the National Championships will not be impacted by the other class.

    I hope I made myself clear as I am not a great writer.

    I also know that some combining of classes is required and I am not sure that any other grouping would be better.
    Thanks ... Jay Novak
    313-445-4047
    On my 54th year as an SCCA member
    with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




About Us
Since 2000, ApexSpeed.com has been the go-to place for amateur road racing enthusiasts, bringing together a friendly community of racers, fans, and industry professionals. We're all about creating a space where people can connect, share knowledge, and exchange parts and vehicles, with a focus on specific race cars, classes, series, and events. Our community includes all major purpose-built road racing classes, like the Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) and various pro series across North America and beyond. At ApexSpeed, we're passionate about amateur motorsports and are dedicated to helping our community have fun and grow while creating lasting memories on and off the track.
Social