See my CRB letter in the BOD Q&A section. They are proposing to combine FE & FM for 2013 and on. If any of you have an opinion (and I'm betting all of us do), you need to make your voice heard ASAP.
__________________ 2003 VanDiemen FSCCA #29 KeithCarter.net
"Faster and faster, until
the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I just sent a letter to the CRB and my Board member OPPOSING combining FM & FE.
It is too bad the SCCA put us in this position by creating a second spec formula class, and fairly recently. I'm sure FE cars are great, but they are simply DIFFERENT than a FM and no competitor in either class would be happy with this combination OR efforts to 'equalize them'. It would certainly not be a SPEC class anymore (I know, I know = DUH!).
It seems to me that there is not too much of a problem for local Regional and National races anyway, except for maybe giving out a few more trophies. We already race in an "alphabet soup" of classes and the same cars could run, whether in one class or two.
At the Runoffs we are qualifying and racing in a combined group already, which is generally OK as long as the separation is done correctly so that each class can have its own piece of track (a re-start could be messy tho...).
So - one class or two, both local races and the Runoffs have the same number of race groups...
So - if we already run combined/split at the Runoffs, where SCCA is trying to reduce the number of race groups to 24, what is the problem they are trying to 'solve' here anyway???
I just sent a letter to the CRB and my Board member OPPOSING combining FM & FE.
It is too bad the SCCA put us in this position by creating a second spec formula class, and fairly recently. I'm sure FE cars are great, but they are simply DIFFERENT than a FM and no competitor in either class would be happy with this combination OR efforts to 'equalize them'. It would certainly not be a SPEC class anymore (I know, I know = DUH!).
It seems to me that there is not too much of a problem for local Regional and National races anyway, except for maybe giving out a few more trophies. We already race in an "alphabet soup" of classes and the same cars could run, whether in one class or two.
At the Runoffs we are qualifying and racing in a combined group already, which is generally OK as long as the separation is done correctly so that each class can have its own piece of track (a re-start could be messy tho...).
So - one class or two, both local races and the Runoffs have the same number of race groups...
So - if we already run combined/split at the Runoffs, where SCCA is trying to reduce the number of race groups to 24, what is the problem they are trying to 'solve' here anyway???
SCCA - Leave my FM class alone!!!
Mel
Hi Mel, Yeah the whole restart of a split start race could get messy, no doubt.
In our combined FA/FB Sprints or Runoffs race at Rd America last year this exact thing happened, and the green flag came out for an about to be lapped FB car who was in front of the lead FA pack. It could have been really ugly...
Has anyone heard a proposal to just what they have in mind for equalization?
Restrictor for the FE? Weight loss on the FM? Wha?
Pull the rev chip, throw out the spec spring rates, lower the overall weight requirements and keep the open tire rule for the FM and combine away.....Anything other than that then no deal SCCA.
This will be my second letter in the last 6 years sent to SCCA on this matter....Jeez, just leaves us alone and go pick on the other 13 less well attended classes than FE and FM.
I am not in favor of combining FM and FE into one class under SCCA rules.
There is another option to resolving the problem for FM owners and drivers.
A seperate run group of only FM cars racing under NASA rules at NASA races.
I'm sure that SCCA would be happy to get rid of their problem and NASA would welcome the new members and cars with open arms. Membership is less expensive, entry fees cost less, more track time, friendy "employees" that work the events, and all the same tracks. I am not just trying to recruit new members for NASA. This is my 39th consecutive year as a SCCA member. I believe that gives me the right to speak my mind on thoughts to consider. I have been working on FM cars since the 1990's and I really enjoy the cars. I have a FE in my shop right now preparing it for the SCCA double "rational" at TMS in May. SCCA does not have the right to screw up FM. SCCA does not own the class. The owners, drivers and crew members own the class. The manufacturer of FM, Moses Smith Racing, will do whatever he can to save and keep FM the same great class that it has been for many year. Support him and support FM. It that means moving FM to save it, so be it. See you at the races.
As many of you have already done so, please voice your opinion to the CRB. Also, please post your opinion or copy your letter to the CRB on this forum. If you dont want to express your opinions on this open forum, please at the very least post your tracking number, and a simple "for or AGAINST".
I would also like to ask you to send me a copy of the letter you send to the CRB, this way I have as many opinions/votes as I Defend our position to the Formula Car Advisory Comittee, and the CRB.
Letters and votes can be sent to me at moses@mosessmith.com. All correspondences will be kept confidential.
A seperate run group of only FM cars racing under NASA rules at NASA races.
I'm sure that SCCA would be happy to get rid of their problem and NASA would welcome the new members and cars with open arms.
While I understand your intent, I think we should keep to the subject of what we want to do within SCCA to respond to this proposal. Not everyone has the option of racing with NASA, and there are two classes involved here, not just FM. A wholesale walk-out, while it might be effective in some ways, wouldn't solve the problem for those who are left in SCCA, and it probably wouldn't deliver the message you really want to send. I also don't buy into the idea that SCCA would be happy to see those entries disappear; I don't think this is done with negative intent - it's just not a well-thought-out proposal.
I strongly object to the proposed combining of FM/FE Classes that SCCA has proposed in the most recent Fastrack News May 2012 page section titled "Formula Consolidation".
The FM class contains affordable and reliable cars with a unique design and a solid race history. Leave a good thing alone. Trying to equalize the FM and FE classes will either slow down the FE class or add costs to FM. I'm able to race FM because they are affordable. I don't favor rule changes that will likely make it more costly and thus harm one of the most attractive features of the FM class.
Mike
Last edited by mikeism; May 8th, 2012 at 10:54 PM.
Reason: Misspelling
I sent CRB letter #8134 requesting that FE and FM not be combined. Hope they listen to us. Text of my letter:
"I just bought a Formula Mazda and after practicing in it for a few months, my first SCCA race weekend is at Buttonwillow with CalClub on May 19-20, 2012. I think it unfair and a big mistake to combine FE and FM into one class in 2013. The cars are different and FE is faster and more modern. I'm going to have enough trouble keeping up with the other FM racers. Putting me in a class with FE just makes no sense. Please reconsider."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshall Mauney
See my CRB letter in the BOD Q&A section. They are proposing to combine FE & FM for 2013 and on. If any of you have an opinion (and I'm betting all of us do), you need to make your voice heard ASAP.
Nobody who owns an FE or FM that I have seen is for this.
__________________ 2003 VanDiemen FSCCA #29 KeithCarter.net
"Faster and faster, until
the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I have to yet hear of a FE driver or FM driver for that matter supporting this proposal. The objective of the BOD as read in the SCCA news is simple, active class management and decreasing classes in national racing. The feeling in this case was there is no need for two spec open wheel classes. Although both classes are healthy and have better participation overall and at the runoffs than almost half the other classes. Just because they are spec classes does not create equal cars, hopefully the members of the BOD will see this fact and reject the rules as proposed. Since these are the proposed rules from the CRB and FSRAC to be approved by the BOD not just an idea for input.
I have to yet hear of a FE driver or FM driver for that matter supporting this proposal. The objective of the BOD as read in the SCCA news is simple, active class management and decreasing classes in national racing.
Maybe the BOD agendists should stop creating boutique touring classes that they hope maunfacturers get on board for, and just end up diluting the number of potential racers in that category. Funny how # of classes suddenly became heart-stopping important.
__________________
Dale V. Lake Effect Motorsports FM
If the BOD want to reduce the number of classes, then why has the proposal for DSR is to create a second class of bike-powered cars?
And there goes tom, a non-scca member even, making up a bunch of crap to stir the hornets nest. The proposal for SR, which was not originated by the BOD, is to make three sportsracer classes, and do away with all the other ones, CSR, DSR, S2, ESR, and SRF. SRF was proposed to slot into SR3 by itself, so contrary to the comments above, FOUR classes are being reduced to TWO.
I am against the proposed consolidation of FM & FE in the May Fastrack. Furthermore, I find the rationale as presented in Fastrack highly questionable.
First, the idea that this will lead to growth or a larger class won't pan out. You'll lose at leat 25% of the racers in botth classes, maybe more depending on how the competition adjustments work out. Both FM & FE competiors entered their respective classes because they didn't want to have to deal with the poltiics & technical hassles of "chassis wars."
Second, the assertion that the performance envelope between the two cars is similar is ludicrous. FE's are at least 1 second a lap faster at most tracks. FM & FE cars make speed very differently. Between braking ability & weight distribution, FM's tend to brake earlier & straighter than FE cars & need to start accelerating as early as possible. FE cars can brake deeper, and trail-brake towards the apex, and they also have better top-end speeds. An FE car in the lead can easily balk an FM car, even if it's a second or mroe off-pace of the FM in the clear owing to the performance differences.
Third, FE's are roughly $50,000+ if assembled by a professional shop, and good FM's can be had for $20,000 or less (and they have much cheaper spare parts). Do you honestly expect anyone in FM to believe that you'll equalize the cars so that SCCA Enterprises never sells another FE again?
Fourth, if the goal is to streamline the Runoffs, I'd suggest the following alternate proposal: set entry cut-offs for the Runoffs. If a given class can't muster at least 15 entries by the deadline, it doesn't get a National Championship race. Furthermore, if a class doesn't have at elast 25 entries, it gets combined with a similar, smaller group (subject to safeety concerns). Looking at the 2011 grids, if this rule was in place you'd knock about 10 classes out of the Runoffs (yes, including FM), and with some logical combinaitons you could probably drop at least 2 days off the schedule and make it so I and my customers could afford to actually go to the Runoffs again.
Fifth. I will always oppose any consolidation of FM into a class that will include a product sold by SCCA Enterprises. This is the second time the CRB pretends to be unaware of the term "conflict of interest." I know you guys aren't stupid, please don't treat us like we are
As an aside, I am a new open wheel racer, having bought my FM in Jan. 2012, practicing and getting ready for my first race weekend on May 19-20 with SCCA at Buttonwillow Raceway. I am racing in the SoCal CalClub region of SCCA. There are 18 open wheel cars registered to race in my race group this weekend, but I am the only FM. So I guess I get 2 wins this weekend because I have no competition.
On the other hand, I am racing next month with FCC West at Infineon in NorCal. The fields are very robust and I expect on the order of 20 competitors. All I hope is that I don't finish last.
As an aside, I am a new open wheel racer, having bought my FM in Jan. 2012, practicing and getting ready for my first race weekend on May 19-20 with SCCA at Buttonwillow Raceway. I am racing in the SoCal CalClub region of SCCA. There are 18 open wheel cars registered to race in my race group this weekend, but I am the only FM. So I guess I get 2 wins this weekend because I have no competition.
On the other hand, I am racing next month with FCC West at Infineon in NorCal. The fields are very robust and I expect on the order of 20 competitors. All I hope is that I don't finish last.
Tell SCCA where to go!
Richard EVO,
I ahve the same thing here in Minnesota. Have been the only guy in the class and found that I am chasing FC, FE, etc. I may be learning a lot on how to drive the car and try to run these guys down, but ultimately there is not a contest. Like you I have considered it a "win" if I finish ahead of some of the other classes.
Steve
Steve
Don't back down, the guys in FE disfavor when an FM can hang, I've had FE drivers come look for me to ask me "what the hell i was thinkin" cause I was racing them or maybe I was; because guy you are taking a green flag, thats kinda like a bell in a fighting ring, lets not forget that club racing is still racing, and its real no matter what "club" means.
Racing other classes is ok as long as you are not impeding two or more competitors from sorting things out; hang in there, but don't get too much in the way if you can't get far ahead of them, or you will be chastised in public or worse. Hope to see the FM's this year from the fence, first time since 05. i miss the brap brap brap brap sound
Please look at Fastrack NOW!
