CRB request for input

[Dave Gomberg]

In the August Fastrack (out today), the CRB has published the following in the Member Advisories section (page 17, top)

Formula
FF - The CRB welcomes comments from the FF community about moving the class to a more inclusive environment of small displacement alternate engines (including 600 cc motorcycle and 1600 cc automotive engines) for inexpensive, entry level, wingless, open wheel competition, with mixed chassis and power plants.


Now is the time to make your views known on this subject.

Dave

[Professor]

"Whatever Your Thoughts - PLEASE tell the CRB NOW!"

(Don't worry so much about me and my "long letters", just write your own of any length.)



TO: Terry Ozment-Director of Club Racing (tozment@scca.com)
Jeremy Thoennes-Club Racing Technical Manager (jthoennes@scca.com)
Board of Directors (bod@scca.com)
Formula Advisory Committee (crb@scca.com)

Fellow SCCA Members:

Dave Gomberg has presented the following:

"In the August Fastrack (out today), the CRB has published the following in the Member Advisories section (page 17, top)
Formula
FF - The CRB welcomes comments from the FF community about moving the class to a more inclusive environment of small displacement alternate engines (including 600 cc motorcycle and 1600 cc automotive engines) for inexpensive, entry level, wingless, open wheel competition, with mixed chassis and power plants.
Now is the time to make your views known on this subject.
Dave"

Therefore, as requested, I would like to offer my input to the CRB as follows:

The CRB and the SCCA at-large should NOT be in the business of destroying the FF class. Instead, they should be restoring it to its former healthy status.

How would "you" be destroying it? By having such a huge cultural change, that it effectively causes the class to cease to exist. FF has been a top class, and IF nurtured, can be in the upper rankings again. But including motorcycle engines, engines that are not similar to current type, multiple non-FF chassis, and a class structure that undercuts the traditional open-wheel racer is NOT the way. Expediency, just for the sake of artificially increasing a participation number, is NOT a viable solution for the health of ANY class. Improvements must come from within the guidelines of what the drivers in the class will support, and from among those variables that the “market” will bear. And “this” is NOT it.

Other countries have healthy FF classes, and so can we. It’s not a matter of Ford involvement. It’s a matter of INVOLVEMENT. Keeping things relevant, and that does include an engine – an engine (or engines) that fits into the spirit of the class. Other relevant items deemed appropriate by the drivers are holding costs down, and “season long” tires, and other cost-issue items. The common thread here being cost! Why has the ad-hoc committee not addressed the true important items already identified by the FF community? (I was on the ad-hoc committee, and this is not a “sour-grapes” attitude. I speak from a true concern for the future of the class.) I want an organization that will address these issues with a REAL solution.

So what should be done? I have been proposing a plan I call “Formula Ford in the 21st Century”. It addresses the valid concerns that have degraded the FF class over the years – concerns that the drivers have already been discussing for years. Among these are a new engine (actually an “engine formula”), “hard” slicks, weight adjustments for older cars, restricted shocks, and more restricted “prep” items. My theory is that the SCCA needs a “third leg” to the stool. There’s already the Miatas (“sedan” type), and SRF (“sportscar” type). What’s missing is a “formula” type to complete a well-rounded list of options. Formula Ford can and should be that third leg for the SCCA stool to stand on. (Sorry guys, FSCCA will never be it.) We are the best positioned to make a difference. And I do not believe the theory of “dilution by too many formula classes”. Make the class viable again by RESTORING those things that made it work in the first place. Here’s the template with SCCA items that “work”, and another group of which I am familiar that “works”:

TABLE: (Column separated by "/")
Issue/ “Miatas”/ SRF/ FF/ Other-SCCA/ Other-(Legends)

Cost/ OK still, concern of rising?/ Always good, controlled/ Not worth it, relatively/ Spotty/ Controlled, basic racing

Competitiveness/ Great!/ Great!/ “Splintered”/ Cars are quite equalized/ Great!

Ease of entry/ Very easy/ Consistently easy/ Poor (cars are sold as rollers, no new cars being built)/ Variable, but usually good market/ Easy

Parts/ Very easy/ Very easy/ “Where? Oh, the $8k to $10K ‘new’ Pinto motor…”/ Good, depends on class/ Very easy, online diagrams too

Fun Factor/ Definitely/ Yes/ Definitely/ Usually a good time/ Definitely

So this is my opinion - your opinions may vary. But, look at what’s working. Look at what’s NOT working. Legends are firing on all cylinders. Miatas and SRFs look awesome for a racing experience, and their “numbers” prove this out. The other SCCA classes fall somewhere in the middle. So now we get to FF…sad! No wonder it’s been the fasting falling participation class in the last six years. It’s a “no-brainer” – turn the red into green and you have a winner. And like I said, Formula Ford is best positioned to be RESTORED to a great class (Definitely a “Fun Factor” class!). And this will be done by addressing THESE concerns – TRUE concerns of the class. This WON’T be done by destroying the class with short-sighted, outlandish ideas to include motorcycle engines, other engines, other cars, and a class structure that will ultimately increase runaway costs, further splinter the group, make it even harder to get started though the confusing changes, create even more parts issues complications, and thus making it impossible to ever again achieve any enjoyment out if the pure racing fun that it still is and can continue to be.

Sincerely,
Ron Heffner
SCCA #123785
(510) 347-4629

[John Robinson II]

Ron,
After reading the first part of your letter to the CRB, I was looking forward to your "plan" to restore FF. Unfortunately, all i saw was a comparison of several classes. Please post your plan as I would welcome any and all solutions to this problem.

John

[-pru-]

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15271

[Art Smith]

I urge you to WRITE to the CRB and communicate where you stand on what's going on!!!! the data suggests to me there's an active well postioned effort under way to kill FF as we've known it for more than thiry years! I've written, the letters are appended at the bottom. it's my sense there is absolutely nothing wrong with FF that benign neglect and some timely constructive administration wouldn't fix. add the SCCA regional CF and SF numbers to the "unofficial" SCCA national participation numbers Stan posted and FFord is still the most popular SCCA amateur formula class. adding VARA and NASA FF non-SCCA participation to the numbers returns the metrics as a minimum to the their former dominate levels.

IF there's a problem, it's with SCCA National FF participation, NOT FF. it's extremely important to get the problem statement correct or you most likely will solve the WRONG problem. if SCCA National participation levels is the problem and we're not looking for an excuse to kill FF, that seems like a much easier problem to address. large numbers of SCCA members are currently competing in regional CF or SF classes; significant numbers of former SCCA members are electing to compete with VARA and NASA. the base (competitors and cars) is already in place to increase SCCA National participation. I therefore offer for consideration the following:

is: D.11 Weight
Minimum weight as qualified or raced, with driver:
1050 lbs. - Original Engine
1100 lbs. - Uprated Engine

perhaps: D.11 Weight
Minimum weight as qualified or raced, with driver:
1000 lbs. - Original Engine
1100 lbs. - Uprated Engine
1050 lbs. - Uprated Engine and non-DB-1/DB-6 car manufactured
prior to 1986 updated to current safety regulations
1000 lbs. - Uprated Engine and car manufactured prior to 1983
updated to current safety regulations

competitors in my part of the country tell me they're at VARA because the alternative is unacceptable. I don't have any suggestions if that's more than a local problem!


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Scott Hutchison]

As an ex FF driver and a current FC driver I would advise you not to let the CRB make another one of their crazy, hair brained, impulsive decisions that will ruin FF like they did with FC! I mean really, look at FC after they legalized the Zetec, it's a mere shadow of what it use to be. If only they had left it alone.......

Who else, besides me, wishes they could still race a Formula Junior in a current class?? Raise your hands!! Why did they have to ruin it!?? Why??


Yes dudes, it time for some changes. That or the VSCR beckons.....

[John Robinson II]

Art,
If I understand you correctly, any non swift db-1 or 6 manufactured before 86 a 50 weight break and any pre 83 a 100 break. DO you think it is poosible to safely remove that much weight? In order to do that i would have to hire Danica to dance, I mean drive my car.

John

[Art Smith]

John-

ABSOLUTELY!!! pre-'83 (Swift) cars were built like tanks! the rod-ends on your DB-6 are one and two sizes SMALLER than their pre-'83 counterparts........... when was the last time you saw lightweight or lightweighted parts on a non-Swift pre-'86 car?? there's been no incentive to work on the pre-'86 cars because EVERYONE has told the owners their "pride & joy" isn't competitive any more. the result in my view has been the fracturing of the FF fields and the loss of membership participation to other organizations. the four included pictures should provide a shed of credability for my conclusions. the first shows a light weighted drive flange and hub configured for centerlock wheels for a Crossle 32F, the second shows the other side with a tripod joint trial fitted, and third shows some of TDI's finer work that will eventually get mounted on the side of a Mk-9, and the last shows a lightweight (0.049 shown; 0.035 & 0.028 available if required) set of primaries that are also nice to have for other reasons. gundrilled axles, modern wheels, ......; the list goes on and on. Absolutely I believe the weight can be removed safely. it's my intent to field a 32F for National competition that gets most of aero advantages available in the GCR as currently written and one of my engines to drag the ugly duckling through the air. my project is going forward with or without changes to improve National participation numbers!

what I believe or don't believe is really of little consequence; the people that matter are currently competing in CF and SF and with other racing organizations!! getting some, most, a few of those cars updated to current safety standards is a worthy objective all by itself. if enough of those folk do the math using the old rule of thumb "5 lbs to the hp" National participation should increase and competiton should get stiffer, particularly on short tight tracks where straightline speed isn't a compelling advantage................. 100lbs and a good set mirros has the potential to make most of the older cars a force to be reckoned with driven by someone that knows what they're doing! besides, competing against real FF's has to be better than motorcycles!!

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Scotty]

the people that matter are currently competing in CF and SF and with other racing organizations!!

getting some, most, a few of those cars updated to current safety standards is a worthy objective all by itself.

Art

And, our FF numbers are growing.

Art:
You speak as if the SCCA is the only game in town. Especially for older FF's

Could you name a few of these "current safety standards" we're supposed to be getting the pre-83 FF's up to Art?

Also, perhaps a ball park guess-ti-mation as to how much it would run to get the pre-83 FF's to these "standards"?

Lastly, why would we even want to re-design, weld, etc., anything to our cars, just to run with a local SCCA group that now has an averge of "2" FF's (if they're really lucky) ever show up anyway, when NASA & VARA welcome you with open arms, without requiring you to re-design your car, & 15-20 car fields?

[Art Smith]

Scotty-

not the only game in town, just one that could be made far more attractive/competitive to older cars. after doing the safety upgrades and the work to make minimum weight, I'm betting a 100lbs advantage over the newer cars (ie: effectively 20hp) makes even your Lola pretty racy with a good engine and the same tires assuming the driver is up to the challenge.......................

the safety standards I'm referring to are roll hoop material and size, roll hoop forward supports, and lateral intrusion protection. the cost to update cars is going to be highly dependent on the original configuration of the car, the cost of mandrel bending in your area, and your skills when it comes to simple fabrication and welding 4130.

I'd argue there's a far better reason to upgrade your car than being able to run competitively with the National cars in SCCA; you look at it every morning in the mirror! you being able to compete with the newer FF's at the National level is a plus for everyone.


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Scotty]

Thanks Art.....

But no thanks.

The time, money & effort one would spend, just isn't worth running some nationals. (even if it "might be" competitive)

Besides Art, maybe not everyone is out to run in the runoff's. Or has the time nor the budget for a full blown national effort.
(although, twenty years ago, I'm sure most of us thought Ron Dennis was watching us, at every race).......

Best of luck to you and your idea Art.

[Bob Wright]

Scott Hutchison...I might question your statement that the addition of Zetec has 'ruined' FC. How many zetecs are racing in FC? I can say with some knowledge that there are no more than 3 racing in club in the entire country. Maybe there are more coming, but that's the number right now and how has that ruined anything?

The decimation of the FC ranks in national club racing can probably be blamed on a number of factors: Three Pro series (east, west, and Cooper), FSCCA, FBMW, TR, the economy, war in the mideast, and ofcourse global warming.

As a past FF driver- its a great class, but needs the same kind of upgrades FC needs- We can learn a lot from what's being done in Europe.

[TimW]

Scott Hutchison...I might question your statement that the addition of Zetec has 'ruined' FC.

I thnk that was, um, sarcasm.

[Stan Clayton]

Hmm, interesting Tim, I too took Scott's post as satire...

Stan

PS - You guys do know that 1100cc is the minimum engine displacement permitted in Atlantics precisely to keep those little buggers, Formula Juniors, from ruining the racing, don't you? Scott, please write me off-line if you'd like to run your FJ in FA...

[Bob Wright]

ok, ok...I'm being a bit numb...it needed a smiley face or something

[Scott Hutchison]

Yeh, I was just having some fun.

For the record, I supported Zetecs coming into FC and I have advised the CRB that I support them looking into making changes to FF that might breathe some new life into the class.

As I've said before, I actually wish the SCCA would go back to a FA, FB, FC, FD, etc. type classifications. But I won't be holding my breath.

Remember the Y2K deal when the world was going to come to an end when the date changed? I wonder what my neighbor did with all those jugs of water and gasoline?

[Stan Clayton]

It's my sense there is absolutely nothing wrong with FF that benign neglect and some timely constructive administration wouldn't fix.

This is a comforting thought, Art, but it flies in the face of history. For decades the Club has had an unofficial-official policy of 'benign neglect' when it came to FF. Nearly every request for change was met with a "what part of NO don't you understand, the N or the O?" answer. The only clear 'constructive administration' I recall being done has been to approve the alloy head and a few other no longer available parts. And here's where it has gotten us:



If I may employ a pun, it doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to discern a clear pattern to what has been happening to Formula Ford. The 2006 data are extrapolated from this year's average-per-race-to-date, but if no active measures are taken to reverse the trend, Formula Ford appears ready to crash in about 2009.

However, the Hangman (24 classes at the Runoffs) knocks in 2008. Will 'benign neglect' save FF from that knock on the door? Or will the continued exodous of FFs to regional racing, vintage and non-SCCA groups spell the end of an era? A group of your FF peers (not the CRB!) have recommended the class consider opening its ranks to a wider assortment of engine and chassis options. That means the class changes into something akin to FA, where an assortment of similar, though not identical, options compete in an open format based on a common formula.

At this stage the choice is still up to you guys.

Regards, Stan

[RoadHazard]

I'm no smarter than anyone else here (and dumber than most) but that won't prevent me from thinking out loud anyway.

I'd love to see FF participation numbers increase but I can't think of a good way to do it, nor have any of the great ideas I've read on this forum convinced me. I'm beginning to think it's just not doable.

If we allow alternate engines, we just provide new ways to spend money. And the new engine(s) will never provide identical power to a Kent, so that makes all the Kent-engined cars obsolete. Maybe after a few years of experimentation we might come up with an equivalency formula, but that'll be a painful couple of years, I bet.

One of the fundamental questions I'm still wrestling with is, do we follow the letter of the Formula Ford rules or the spirit? In other words, do we want to preserve our Kent-powered cars as they were designed or do we want a low-cost open-wheel formula for the Everyman? Those are clearly two different things. If we preserve them, we all stay competitive with one another but our numbers will slowly dwindle as cars get wrecked and parts get more expensive and difficult to find. That's what the owner of a vintage Bugatti or Lotus would do. On the other hand, if we change/update our cars then we probably spend even more money and all the traditonal FF's become obsolete even faster. That's what the owner of a modern race team would do.

I honestly don't know which route I prefer. I like it that so many old Lolas, Crossles, Royales, and other cars are preserved more or less as they were and not cut up or bastardized year after year to remain competitive. In the 1960's a Kent-powered car was a cheap way to go racing. Nowadays we'd probably substitute some Japanese 4-cylinder powerplant and use brakes and uprights from late-model production cars.

Plenty of people have suggested -- and even built -- new cars based on new low-cost drivetrains and modern technology. A re-imagining of the FF concept, in other words. As far as I can tell, they're not very popular, at least not yet. And even if they were popular, that doesn't help "Formula Ford" in the strict sense. It just creates another new formula class.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I don't think it's possible to change "Formula Ford" and still call it Formula Ford. To me, FF is a very specific type of car. We might invent some way to make other cars competitive with today's FF's but they won't actually be FF's. That's probably okay. It's just a semantic distinction.

For now, I'm happy to leave well enough alone. I grew up watching and wanting to race Formula Fords, and now I am. As long as the class survives as long as I do I'm happy with the status quo.

[Rick Kirchner]

So Stan has half the data - the Effect. But the root cause of the numbers decline is still a matter of speculation. Anything done without market research into the root cause is like taking random doses of over-the-counter medication for an unknown disease in an attempt to make the symptoms go away.

Don't overlook the fact that to get a true picture of FF you MUST include data from the vintage and independent clubs. While Stan's data shows the SCCA National program is clearly in trouble, looking at another graph of outside participation may help explain what's going on.

Whle the CRB asking the membership for input is a step in the right direction, the club would better serve it's membership by hiring a firm to determine the root cause, and THEN look at various courses of action. That of course, would require someone in Topeka to actually do something.

However, one can look at the growth in alternative classes and series and make somewhat of a case. The cost of running a national level Karting program and the cost of running a full season of "pay up and show up" series provide the bookends of cost, the other factors of garage time and mechanical skill need to be considered as well.

Bewhere of applying any fix to a condition of unknown origin.

[Sean Maisey]

Having watched this debate for so long, I read "road"s last post and a lightbulb went off in my head. There are really two distinct groups in this arguement.

The first group is made up of guys like "Road", John M., and Art. They own older cars, and probably enjoy the fact that the configuration is so stable and that they do not need to do any meaningful develoment year to year. They just keep up with maintenance and rebuilds and can race other like cars at regional and vintage events. They have no good reason to support and change in the formula, and I see their point.

The second (and rapidly dwindling) group is the guys who own modern competitive FF cars. They are suffering from a number of maladies including expensive engine rebuilds, tire bills and $5,000 shocks. They want a formula that allows them to race at the National level, but reigns in some of the costs.

I think one way to spin this discussion in a more positive diretion would be to assure all of the Classic/Club Ford owners that these discussions really do not apply to them. I think if we remove the possiblity that the Regional FF/Club Ford/Vintage guys might be force to change engines to remain competitive we might have a more constructive discussion.

Perhaps the answer is to allow the new National spec FF (F4/FD?) to become a new more open formula that aims for Pinto like performance and includes current spec FF cars. While at the same time formalizing CF rules across the country to only allow the Pinto...

Sean

[R. Pare]

There are actually 2 factors that I can think of that can be analyzed to explain FF participation (or any other class, for that matter). The first is easy to quantify, the second a bit tougher:

1 - Cost of startup vs median national income. In the early days, a new FF could be purchased and brought to its first race(and be competitive) for about 1/2 MNI - pretty doable for most working stiffs. Today that number is closer to 1 1/2 - 2 times MNI, and makes most guys think twice about that sort of investment - and you can't get them hooked if they can't stand the smell of the bait.

2 - Bang for the buck. Factors that feed into this are Percieved Value (Emotional), Percieved Value (monetary outlay), and Percieved Value ( Physical (preparation), Hassle Factor ( BS at the track,etc)). How to assign values to these factors is beyond my Statistics grasp!


It is pretty evident that for most newbies, the cost of startup is the major concern - they don't yet understand the emotional and physical commitment it takes to run at the front.

I haven't a clue how you can change any of these factors into something that works in our favor, especially the more esoteric values.

And until you can, don't even bother trying to change anything!

[Art Smith]

Stan's "data" shows there's been an almost linear decline in SCCA NATIONAL FF participation since the introduction of the DB-1. it does NOT show what the "cause(s)" have been and it certainly doesn't make a case for anything being wrong with FF as a class. Mark Twain observed something like: "there's lies, damn lies, and statistics"..................

again I suggest that 1983 was the begining of the "training" by the community of all of the non-Swift car owners and drivers that you can't win without a Swift! there are clearly more than a few FF owners and drivers unwilling to put up with the Club's National "program" with no chance to win. if you buy the first hypothesis/observation and are willing to recognize/accept that large quantities of current FF owners and drivers have been voting with their feet because they can't win or they've been convinced they can't win, restoring the competitiveness of the older cars seems like a "no brainer".

Mike Sauce has already posted on one of the forums he thought a 32F could win at Topeka. Imagine the CONSTRUCTIVE buzz that could be created if the suggested changes were implemented effective 11-01-2006. older cars with the updated safety changes and up to 50/100 lbs less weight in the hands of good drivers would be a competitive force at the National level. getting the weight out will take some ingenuitity but in the end it will get everyone working to make their cars more competitive again. and like the tide that raises all boats, the competitors driving the newer cars will also have to pick-up their games because they'll no longer be able to wait for the next straight.


the complete sentence referred to in one of the previous posts is:
it's my sense there is absolutely nothing wrong with FF that benign neglect and some timely constructive administration wouldn't fix.

the suggested weight adjustments and clarifications to preclude gas porting pistons fall under the umbrella of "timely constructive administration". it's a FF solution for a SCCA National FF participation problem. if there are people hell bent on having a 600cc motorcycle engine powered open wheel class, I will volunteer to help write the rules IF AND ONLY IF that group is given their own class to sink or swim as their participation numbers warrant. let them take their 600cc motorcycle engines and their sequential gearboxes (that aren't talked about in public) and any other stray engines looking for a home and have at it, they're NOT FF's. along with the rest of the country I suffered through a period in history where the solution put forward was to "destroy something to save it", FF doesn't need to be destroyed!! life without dignity isn't life and FF's being forced to race with motorcycle engines, sequential gearboxes, and a ragtag assortment of engines looking for a home in a open wheel vehicle would no longer be FF.


how many people have written the CRB today??


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net


Sean:
probably should check the calibration date on the "instrumentation" that concluded I fit into the group that "do not need to do any meaningful develoment year to year". the Crossle is a project for the heart and clearly NOT your father's 32F, the Swift is a development lab for unusual aerodynamics ideas, and the third picture shows one of the two FF projects currently being driven by the calculator. I'm also guessing 15 weeks of private dyno testing over the last four years at the premier FF facility in Portland earns me at least a "development junkie 2nd class" badge......................................

[Stan Clayton]

Nah, Art, you definitely get a Gearhead First Class rating...!

So you've gotten your 32F down to 820 lbs, eh? With a 180 lbs driver, you should roll across the scales at 1000 lbs. That's good to know. But what's the matter, you itching to get rid of that depleted uranium bolted in under your seat on the CG?

Come on, Art, you have advanced engineering degrees, access to the the very best in machining and welding facilities, the resources to support 15 weeks in the dyno room to tweak your 115 hp Kent lump, and no telling how many weeks in Swift's wind tunnel shaving grams of drag off the car that put them on the map. And you want the Club to do what?

I'm sure your fellow pre-83 FF guys will be pleased to hear that they too can legally knock 80-100 lbs off their cars. But how realistic is that? In a recent thread I asked what FF's weigh dry, and the only Crossle 32 came in at 906 lbs. Drop 86 lbs? Even if 5 lbs is worth a hp, how much does it cost per pound to lose that kind of weight? Just the parts alone must approach the value of the car...unmolested. Add to that the real cost of paying someone to do it for you, and most CF guys are going to laugh in my face if I suggest they can compete with the DB1 if they will just lose 85 pounds off the weight of their car. They're in CF because FF is too rich for their blood as it is. Yeah, your 32F isn't my grandfather's Crossle, but heck, in real terms your car makes a Stohr WF-1 DSR look like a positive bargain at $70,000.

But hey, if you can get a bunch of guys to write in to the CRB, we'll give it to the AC for action!

Stan (1975 Zink Z-10 at 960 lbs dry...)

[Sean Maisey]

Art,

Didn't mean to 'dis' you. I wasn't aware of your projects.

[Sean Maisey]

But, back to the topic at hand...

I fail to see how expensive development of old FFs like yours or say Z-10/ADF/Royale/etc... to make them light enough to make up for their aerodynamic shortcomings is going to 'save' the class.

I think most of the younger generation wants a turn key solution that does not cost and arm and a leg and allow them to compete on an even basis with little or no ongoing development. FF used to fit that bill (as did FV). The Swift certainly changed that, but the rising costs of the Pinto are just as responsible for driving down the numbers. Heck a DB1 isn't a serious National car any more.

You can buy a pretty cool 2002 Mygale roller on this site tonight for $10,000 USD. A DB1 basket case went for $6500 last month. Why are these cars going so cheap, while Club Fords hover around $10,000? That is the problem we need to address.

So my proposal is that we split the class at roughly the 1983 timeline. Older cars must use Kent engines. Newer cars can choose... FF/CF become regional classes with consolidated national rules. New FF (or F4/FD) replaces old FF class as a new National class that offers additional engine/trans options. Aim to make the new class on par with current Pinto powered cars...

Sean

[Art Smith]

Stan-

what specificly is "the problem statement"?? is it SCCA National FF participation numbers, is it as Sean suggests the club needs/wants/thinks a class that caters to a "younger generation <that>wants a turn key solution that does not cost and arm and a leg and allow them to compete on an even basis with little or no ongoing development", is it someone wants a 600cc motorcycle stay dogs & cats open wheel class, or is there someone that just feels the need to destroy one of the club's longtime premier classes?? if the problem is only SCCA National participation numbers and NOT FF is in the way of an uncommunicated "grand vision" than incentivizing members to return to National competition seems like an idea worthy of constructive and objective discussion. if the data is wrong, the logic faulty, or the membership unwilling so be it; trying anything seems infinitely better than rolling over and opening FF to 600cc motorcycle engines, sequential transmissions, and other strays looking for a home.

the 32F project data was only shared as a direct response to John's question. Yes, I absolutely believe significant weight can be removed from a pre-'86 cars AND I believe it's elimination will materially improve the competitiveness of pre-'86 cars with equal engines, tires, and drivers. data has always had a way of effectively silencing people with only opinions. proposing anything without data to support the foundamental premise would be irresponsible. why people quit working to make their cars better I will never understand. DB-1 and DB-6 Swifts are outstanding cars but they're NOT unbeatable.

my 32F project as posted earlier is designed to be compliant with the current rules, 1100 lbs. as qualified or raced! changing the rules to improve SCCA National FF participation is only one of the ways to get an effective 100 lbs advantage..............

what I'd like is for the club not to destroy FF in an effort to save it.

being slower than most, it's taken me a while to understand sharing accurate data with those looking to create new classes probably isn't in my best interest. perhaps competitors shared vintage configuration data with you. a quick walk through the pits in the morning while most of the plastic is still off will confirm very few people have bothered to do even the simple things found on modern cars; is it any wonder they still weigh-in like tanks? NO incentives!!

I'm making the parts or having the parts machined because the suppliers making the parts for modern cars aren't interested in the work because they feel there's no potential to reuse the NC tapes I would pay to have made for my work...... reducing weight, relocating weight, reducing unsprung weight, and reducing rotating weight isn't hard, most people already have a complete set of Carroll Smith's books.

if it's engineering help you need for a short talk or stump speal on the benefits of an 85 lbs weight advantage given the same tires and engine, I can help. if the potential SCCA National FF competitors in CF, SF, and other venues after hearing the facts aren't interested in a return to 30 & 40 car FF fields AND a real opportunity to win in Topeka, than FF should be afforded a dignified end in several years. give the pretenders and wantabe's their own class, in my book they don't deserve to be called FF's! in your shoes I'd be looking for any constructive ideas with the potential to help, the alternative is forever being known as one of guys that destroyed FF in the United States..................

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net


ps:

like any number of folks in the community I'm a retired guy and retired guys no longer get access to worldclass aerospace shops and labs!!

when the 32F repair and upgrade project is done I expect to have $25,000-$30,000 cash in the car. $30,000 might buy one of the bare bones model Stohr F1000 cars, certainly not one of their all conquering WF-1's. 6-4 & carbon fiber are currently not permitted in FF.

[Tom Duncan]

How about instead of taking weight out of the older cars ($100 a pound or more), why not add weight to the newer cars? ($1 a pound, at the most).

This being for National cars. The Regional cars could be left alone for now.

This would surely increase participation from drivers of older cars. Not sure how the drivers of the newer cars would feel about it, but if it preserved the existence (and identity) of the class it might be a worthwhile sacrifice. Besides, then the newer cars could strengthen the chassis, move the center of gravity around, use heavier duty rod ends, add video cameras, sort of spend the weight in healthy and fun ways.

As to the original question, if the car doesn't have a Kent/Cortina/Pinto motor in it, it isn't Formula Ford. Period. What if one of the accepted cars has a Chevy engine in it? Any such class as is suggested would simply be (yet) another class, like F500 or FV. It could run in the same group as the CF/FF/SF's but it would be just another class.

Tom Duncan

[PK]

I came to the same basic conclusion Sean did - there's a difference between keeping existing car owners interested in racing them and having an entry level formula car class that can lead on to higher aspirations. (Yes, FV and F500 are solid entry level formula cars, but a lot of what it takes to go fast in them doesn't translate to the higher classes with more conventional drivetrains and suspensions.)

Again, similar to Sean's thinking, it seems that we could direct current FF/CFF primarily towards regional level racing and replace FF with a new National level class. For the existing Kent motored cars, it would be necessary to either do a one-time engine change to a more current engine or allow more currently available parts in the Kent engine (I prefer the former), otherwise, costs continue to climb as engine availability gets worse. I see no reason why these cars would have to be the basis of a National level class, but if it were possible to include them (without huge concern for their competitiveness) in a new class, that's ok too.

For the National level class, the focus should be on similar performance to current FF but with modern engines and a real focus on managing costs. Basic construction (tube frame, no wings, etc.) should be the same as current cars. This class could allow multiple engine options or it could go the one engine route.

I'm actually a fan of regional only classes. When I ran IT in the 90's, I knew that I was racing against the best IT guys even though it was only regional races. I figured that making IT a national class would dilute the regional fields and produce less than large national fields too. It seems to me that focussing the curent FF/FC cars on regionals will ultimately lead to good fields there, and if a new national class really hits the mark on cost/performance the guys who want to run nationals should be able to have good size fields, too.

I know that the last thing we need to do is add classes, but in my mind this is a little different because it would be a replacement class at the National level. Maybe the logistics of creating a new National class would be a problem (have to run at a regional level until interest is proven - what to do at Nationals in that interim period?).

Just a thought.

Phil Kingahm

[Greg Mercurio]

One sure way to kill a class is to give it National status. Cost escalation at the Regional level is the unintended consequence of National competition. $4800 shock sets, data acquisition, lightened diffs and tripods, Al heads, the list goes on and on ...all trickle down from National "requirements". Can't be competitive unless I have this...Can't be at the pointy end of the grid unless I have this...Mostly BS. A well set up and driven Crossle is going to beat the crap out of a poorly set up or driven Swift every single time.

And it never ends, unless you run the Spec Racer Frod. Oooops, they get annual performance upgrades as well. Mandatory upgrades,with pricing set by Enterprises.

Wait a few years for the SM crazies to discover the true cost of racing at the National level and the good ol' Swift/VD/Lola/Crossle is going to be looking mighty cheap. And let's not forget the Huffaker "Spec" Miata engine at around $7000. Wonder what the annual freshening charge will be? Miata EngineDoesn't Need Annual Freshening? BS.

National participation is down, no questioning the data. The cause is still to be determined, but probably never will, mostly because we are more interested in stuff than answers.

Regards,

[Drivers Services]

I've got all 3 era's of FF's in my shop.

Outboard suspended -Crossle 40/45

Inboard rocker-Swift Db-1

Pushrod- One of the fastest Db-6's in the country



I'll put wieght on the DB-6 (which currently already carries ballast) if it means more cars to race against

I'd Start with

outboard suspended at 1080

inboard rocker at 1100

pushrod at 1120

try it, see what happens. What are you scared of.

Resistance to change is killing the class

Jim Little
Drivers Services

[Rick Kirchner]

While proposing weight adjustments for technology differences, keep in mind that the average driver is both older and larger than in the early 1960s. Total weights were set for a 165 lb guy probably should be upped to consider a 195 lb guy before technology adjustments. That would open up the "competive demographics".

We could do a poll on driver size......

[Sean Maisey]

"Resistance to change is killing the class"

EXACTLY! People like Art will spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to develop different parts and configurations. Guys will test shocks and tires, special fuels ad infinitum. Truely some inspirational applications of the scientific method...

BUT, we can't touch the sacred Kent motor.

I have news for you Luddites out there who think the class will return to glory with simple weight adjustments or aftermarket engine parts. The Kent motor is not the original FF motor. The Cortina was the original motor. It became rare, expensive and hard to find. So it was replaced. Imagine that???

Again, I am not addressing this to those of you running pre 1983 cars... I am more interested in getting National racing back on healthy terms. I ran a 1998 Van Diemen in Nationals for several years. I quit and moved to DSR because of the frustrations with the motor reliability, costs and parts availability. When you spend $30,000 on a modern chassis you should not have to search older junk yards for parts for the motor.

No number of adjustments will make the antique Kent motor as nice a unit as the Zetec or Duratec, period. The Kent had a long and glorious run, but it is time to retire it to classic/vintage/CF cars...

Sean

[DanW]

While proposing weight adjustments for technology differences, keep in mind that the average driver is both older and larger than in the early 1960s. Total weights were set for a 165 lb guy probably should be upped to consider a 195 lb guy before technology adjustments. That would open up the "competive demographics".

We could do a poll on driver size......

Rick, Jim,

There is more to what you are advocating under the surface. Most of the people who are able to afford to race are over 35 and often well beyond. Many carry the extra pounds of living life with them. I carry more than my share of "Dunlop Overhang" around and over my belt.

Neil Porter thought increasing minimum weight for FF was a good idea as well.
In order to make minimum weight, car builders and owners spend serious money to make every component as light as possible.

The older cars were built with bracketry and other parts of mild steel. Now, many pieces on the new cars are made of lightweight expensivium and other exotic materials. With a higher weight limit, the need for expensive alloys, castings and CNC machine work is reduced.

Many of the older cars were built for the small framed person weighting 150lbs. Its hard to fit anyone over 175 in the early UK built cars anyway. John Morgan almost needed a hoist and a crowbar to pry me out of Seth's old Lola 342. I think the weight of the average national competitor is closer to 190.

Weight is a substantial and inexpensive equalizer. It means the older cars will be more equal at the slower, twisty tracks. The newer areo designs will have the advantage on the longer tracks. I would be glad to submit a letter to the CRB if it would help.

People say the Swft DB1 killed FF. I disagree. FF was seeing the signs of distress long before then. I have watched FF actively since 1971. In the late 70's long before the Swift came along, there was much whining about "Car of the Month" in FF. Everyone whined about how they could not keep up with the guy with the newest car or the latest widget that was bolted to the chassis, or that the guys up front were buying a new set of tires every weekend.

Things really haven't changed. Racing is cheap. Winning is "expensive". Expensive meaning money, preparation time, practice, and desire.

I have no dog in the hunt to run at the national level. I just want to see the class survive and grow and have someone to race with at the regional level.

I do want stable rules package, like it has been, I have no interest in other powerplants, nor racing "easter eggs"(SM). The bike motor powered cars can run in Formula S.

Regards,
Dan Wise

[LolaT440]

my 2 cents...


It is not a question of just FF it is also open wheel racing.

I am pretty sure the guys running the Bugatti's, old flathead coupes, Model T speedsters, and front engine roadsters were pretty pissed off that they had to get new cars. Why are all those cars so expensive in vintage? Because they were obsolete and junked.

The class has had its day. It is over. Time for something new.

People are too busy to engineer a race, at least enough to fill grids. Most new racers want to bolt it on and go. We need easy access to parts. Spec Miata rings here? Legends Cars?

What would interest me?
Maybe a car that is designed off standard catalog parts. Like AFCO a-arms or something. Yes very low tech. But guess what, high-tech = expensive and right now the participation is falling and the low tech miata is rising. So don't fight the tide. Make a single chassis that can be updated for faster classes. So maybe a miata motor for class A, then add bigger tires and add a Nissan V6 or something for a faster Class B.

Owning a CF is nice but a pain in the _ss. So it is not just the motor. Case in point - my Lola could use the rack replaced.. Well getting a replacement part from the supplier is not possible, So I need a new custom rack. I can't imagine the day when I wreck it. I will likely part it out because the cost to fabricate a corner will be more than the car.

My opinion, the faster the class dies, the sooner we can get a new, cost effective entry level formula car for the next generation.

[Larry]

What is the problem with FF? We have discussed this many times, and I will make a simple assertion--not based upon science or statistics, but on hours of discussion with many racers and would-be racers. The reason for the decline of FF is cost; cost to purchase a new car, cost to buy an engine, cost to maintain, repair and overhaul.

The second problem is the lack of a major cost differential between FF and FC--and to a lesser extent, you can include FSCCA. A buyer has several choices in the same general price range, and FF has been coming up short in the decision-process. Evidence of this is the lack of new FF cars. With only 2 or 3 exceptions, the only new FF cars to enter the class in the past several years are regenerated FC cars...at a cost close to the cost of a new car. It is obvious that when no new cars are being produced, the class will dwindle.

For you existing FF drivers, frankly you aren't the guys we need to target. We need to pull NEW people into the fold. Yes, we certainly want to keep you, and to keep your car as the class leader, but we need to reach out farther adn bring new blood into the class.

If cost is the major issue, then what are the major cost drivers? The engine and gearbox account for nearly half the price of a bill of materials for a would-be, freshly produced FF. If you con't touch those, you can't make a significant change in the cost. The engine is the real concern, because it requires frequent maintenance (when compared to a more modern engine--let's say something build in the past 20 years). Price a "new" Kent 1600 from one of the major builders and you'll get numbers north of $10K. (BTW, ask where he got the "new" block.)

Benigh neglect will yield no change. It will just continue the slow, agonizing death of FF. We need to embrace change! Change is good!

Larry Oliver

[S Lathrop]

I bought my first Formula Ford in 1970 and I have been involved with FF ever since. I started building FFs in 1974 and have had a car at the run offs ever since. Every model of FF I have built has won the run offs, except one.

With that back ground my coments will be as biased and uninformed as every one else.

Stan's chart is interesting but not very informative. I would like to see what the chart would look like if FC and FF were combined. I think you will find that a loss of national entries is not as great if you include both classes. At the national level the difference in cost of FF and FC is not significant and it may be less for FC if you don't use up a lot of front wings. Basically FF is too expensive for the performance it delivers. Add to that competition from FC and FM and you have an explanation for the current situation.

Allowing alternative engines will solve nothing. Equivalent performance from a different engine will not be possible. More improtantly you will not attack the fundamentl cost of the car. Automotive based engines will cost $5000 to $10,000 prepared. Mate that to a $5000 gear box and $2500 bell housing, and you have an expensive package. Too expensive for what it is.

For a bike powered car the rear end assembly, Lee Stohr's spar with chain drive differential, can be produced for the same price or less as the FF bell housings if the volume is there.

I would leave FF alone. No new engine.

Go with F600, stock 600 cc bike engines in an otherwise FF type chassis. Fool with the rules until you get equivalent performance from the bike powered cars to FF. The 600cc bike engines bairly make FF power and because of the low torque changes in minimum weight will change performance easily. Then you race the 2 classes head to head.

Speaking as a designer and manufacturer of FFs, this is the only salvation for FF I see.

If the rules are right, them the manufacturers will have products for both FF and F600. Remember that FF was/is an entry level class. What is really missing in SCCA is any entry level fromula class that has the appeal of FF or FV in their days. How much better will it be to race a FF in a race when all the cars in the field are the same performance wise.

Absent in this discussion are the new drivers and SCCA members. What are we doing to attract them?

If the powers that be make F1000 part of the same concept, then you might see the cost of new cars and parts for all cars stabalize or decline. The fact that there are hardly any new car sales is an indication of how troubled all SCCA formula car racing has become.

I see the Formula Ford as the foundation of a new class for a new generation of drivers, mechanice, and engineers. This is the follow-on class for formula SAE students, where they really learn about racing. This takes the class back to what it was when I started.

[S Lathrop]

I bought my first Formula Ford in 1970 and I have been involved with FF ever since. I started building FFs in 1974 and have had a car at the run offs ever since. Every model of FF I have built has won the run offs, except one.

With that back ground my coments will be as biased and uninformed as every one else.

Stan's chart is interesting but not very informative. I would like to see what the chart would look like if FC and FF were combined. I think you will find that a loss of national entries is not as great if you include both classes. At the national level the difference in cost of FF and FC is not significant and it may be less for FC if you don't use up a lot of front wings. Basically FF is too expensive for the performance it delivers. Add to that competition from FC and FM and you have an explanation for the current situation.

Allowing alternative engines will solve nothing. Equivalent performance from a different engine will not be possible. More improtantly you will not attack the fundamentl cost of the car. Automotive based engines will cost $5000 to $10,000 prepared. Mate that to a $5000 gear box and $2500 bell housing, and you have an expensive package. Too expensive for what it is.

I would leave FF alone. No new engine.

Go with F600, stock 600 cc bike engines in an otherwise FF type chassis. Fool with the rules until you get equivalent performance from the bike powered cars to FF. The 600cc bike engines bairly make FF power and because of the low torque changes in minimum weight will change performance easily. Then you race the 2 classes head to head.

Speaking as a designer and manufacturer of FFs, this is the only salvation for FF I see.

If the rules are right, them the manufacturers will have products for both FF and F600. Remember that FF was/is an entry level class. What is really missing in SCCA is any entry level fromula class that has the appeal of FF or FV in their days. How much better will it be to race a FF in a race when all the cars in the field are the same performance wise.

Absent in this discussion are the new drivers and SCCA members. What are we doing to attract them?

If the powers that be make F1000 part of the same concept, then you might see the cost of new cars and parts for all cars stabalize or decline. The fact that there are hardly any new car sales is an indication of how troubled all SCCA formula car racing has become.

I see the Formula Ford as the foundation of a new class for a new generation of drivers, mechanice, and engineers. This is the follow-on class for formula SAE students, where they really learn about racing. This takes the class back to what it was when I started.

[LolaT440]

If people are spending 25K on a spec miata then price is not the issue. If you have even 12K there are a lot of car purchases you can make.

Can you tell me this. What is my son going to race? He is 7 years old. Am I going to have to stick him in a 1982 Club Ford 10 years?

I have a club ford. So it is not like I am saying this from the outside. But a new low cost formula is needed. and 30K is not low cost. These cars need to take thier course and develop something new. Start a SCCA Formula Vintage group or something. Run with a club like FRCCA, no one says it HAS to be with SCCA.

Racing competes with a lot of other things for attention. The local oval tracks are DYING. This with NASCAR being more popular than ever. From what I can see, this new generation is a bit of a bore. So good luck getting them interested in something that takes sacrifice.

So take your eyes off FF, I don't see a lot of new HP cars either. The odd ball is spec miata, and IT. Why have they grown?

[Professor]

From a post just above...

"Equivalent performance from a different engine will not be possible.",

and from the same post,

"Fool with the rules until you get equivalent performance from the bike powered cars to FF.

Question: How can one type of engine somehow be configured to "work", and yet another engine type mysteriously can't?

Ron

[Tim FF19]

"What is really missing in SCCA is any entry level formula class that has the appeal of FF or FV in their days."

It does not seem like there is ever going to be much chance to recapture the feeling you got when you knew you were in the class where everybody wanted to be. Formula car classes currently:

FV
F500
FF
FM
FSCCA
FC
FA

Since I have started racing, SCCA has added:
F500
FM
FSCCA
FC Ztech (sp)

Coming soon to a racetrack near you;
F First
FS
F1000

The problem is TOO MANY classes for the number of competitors. If we add 3 or 4 more National groups, Formula cars in general are doomed to have small class counts because it will simply splinter the number of competitors available (a finite group no matter what the entry level cost is).

SCCA has a defined manner in which to bring new cars into the club and advance to National status. Perhaps what we need is a much more rigorous thinning of the herd, something like four formula car classes max at the National level. (i.e. - some class has to lose National staus before a new one takes its place) If we are not careful we could have TEN National formula car classes.

My current car, a DB-6, is the best FF I have ever owned, but I would sell it and move to a similar class if I could be confident that there would be high class counts. These days I cannot even be sure of that in FC.

Before we decide what new engine is going to revive FF, perhaps we should decide if the engine is really the problem. I just saw a low time Ivey engine sell on Apex for under $5000 so I do not believe an engine change is going to make any significant improvement in class count. I think that too many classes are the biggest challenge we face at this time.

Tim Dunn
FF 19