Printable View
Hi all. Just a reminder for those that run CFC in the SE (or plan to) that the SEDIV annual meeting is in January and if you have any input / opinions about the much discussed CFC rule changes this is the time to make them known to the powers that be.
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to you and yours. :santa:
(...and for the politically correct--Happy Holidays... :D )
DaveK
as an owner of a 94/95 VD FC [read: push rod], i don't think it's proper of me to comment. I vote to let class rule changes be the purvue of those currently in that class. So all I can say is:
I run my CF eligible car in FF - so I might run the FC in FC yet and at times in CFC too.....but I would not like a rule that makes a CFC not allowable yet in FC. I doubt that would happen but that's my three cents worth and i'm sticking to it.
In order to begin to align the rules in SEDIV to be closer to those of CENDIV and NEDIV for the long-range future of the CFC class. (refer to the thread 'In defense of CFC')
initial premises:
A. SEDIV rule has been around for a long time, it is time to review it for currency.
B. Re-evaluate validity of homologation date vs manufactured date vs manufacturer model number differences.
How about:
For 2006 competition year (Jan-thru ARRC)
1. Change the SEDIV rule to use manufactured date instead of homologation date.
.......homologation date has no bearing on the competitiveness of a specific chassis.
.......manufactured year or model number is a better way to delineate the various models of cars from manufacturers.
2. Change the SEDIV eligibility year to be manufactured PRIOR to 1992.
.......1991 is the last year of rocker arm cars from Crossle. pretty sure no other manufacturers were producing rocker arm cars after 1991. (need help here)
.......current non-rocker (DB6, Citation, VD) models mfg prior to 1992 are still included.
.......don't have to try to determine weight adjustments for newer cars in a short time span.
.......prevents construction of new cars with rocker format but better chassis layout/materials etc.
3. Use discussion and track testing during this year to determine competiton adjustments for 1992 & up cars for the 2007 competition year (Nov 2006-thru ARRC 2007)
.......No rush to just get something passed that will disenfranchise members/owners.
.......Allows a fair decision to be made by the community regarding 1992-95 and 1995-1998 cars through discussion and consensus.
....... Maybe change from manufactured year to manufacturer/model number as criteria if needed.
OK Dave, this is my 2 cents. Thanks for re-starting this discussion.
Going in knowing that whatever is decided the majority is going to dislike the decision... :(
When SEDIV CFC was invented it was to protect 5 year old cars...
What if CFC was defined as a car meeting FC rules that is homologated 10 years before the current competition year. SARRC is now competing for 2006 points. So, under this plan all 1996 and earlier cars would be CFC. In 2007 it would be 1997 and before. In 2008 it would be 1998 and before. Easy to police.
This year Chuck would love it. Next year Rob would love it. :) In 2008 Defer and Jordan could cross over to the dark side.
I'm against weight penalties. Some of us that raced in CFC in the past were still trying to win a group overall, or at least beat all the FC cars in the group. Weight penalties kills that fun, especially in small fields.
I vote for 1995 and back by date of manufacture not homoligation. This would help up car counts in region and should bring some nediv and cendiv cars down for the ARRC.
We only had 4 cfc cars at the ARRC this year, that is pretty pathetic! If the rule changes to allow some newer cars I will stay in the class and hope that car counts go up, if not I will go run nationals in hope of having a decent size field.
I think that Frogs Idea is pretty good and would vote to have that put in play over any other suggestions I have seen in this thread or the previous sediv cfc thread. A simple easy to police rule would benifit the class greatly
Tyler Raatz
Guys your already to late for a rule change for 06 ,3 SARRC races have been run.
Rick to many rules needs to be simple. Mikes is easy to understand. I dont like the idea of weight penalties.
A propsed rule needs to be persented to the sarrc commite before anual meeting at jekyell.
so the sarrc commite can vote on it . then send it to RE`s to vote on approval. A rule change is not as easy as you might think.
Like you guys, I am not enamored with weight 'penalties' either. Just trying to accomodate John Green's approach in the 'In Defense of CFC' thread for getting common CFC rules in all divisions.
If you notice, the rules I was presenting did not include weight penalties for 2006.
As everyone can see from the replies so far, the concept of weight penalties is a major can-of-worms and would be hard to get a consensus for any time in the future, much less than in one year.
That is why the change I put forth was SIMPLE:
1. use manufacture date not homologation date.
2. Cars manufactured prior to 1992. ( this eliminates all the 'competiton adjustment' objections associated with cars from 1992-up)
Chuck: it sounds like you are re-considering your opposition to the change from homologation date to manufactured date. Is that true?
Also, thanks about the reminder of needing to go to the SARRC committee. We can still discuss this at Jekyll though.
Both Tyler and Mike are leaning in the direction of using same rules as NEDIV, that's ok with me too and easy to remember for any number of years in the future. It is also closer to having consistent rules for all SCCA CFC, which in my opinion is good.
Rick
I dont really care as long as its simple and easy to understand. I sat thru 26 RE meetings . The easier a rule is to understand the better.
I was there when ECR was started also ITD ,ITTruck, and many more . the more complicated the more discussion and a better chance of being tabled for further discussion.
Dont want be negative , I just know how the system works.
Rick, your plan of "cars manufactured prior to 92" would only include 1 additional year of manufacture plus the oddball "late homoligation" cars. This will let your crossle into the class but will exclude my car as well as many others with no where to race competitive. My '88 se3 was sold and is now in michigan, I now have a RF92 Van Diemen. I would like to be able to run my car in CFC if possible, VD was pretty much the same car from 1990 to 1993 with a few minor changes for 94 and 95. Can you explain the benifit of only allowing 1991 and older cars into the class? I think sediv CFC has been around now for 5 or 6 years, during that time there have been no rules changes. We need to get the class current and increase the cut off date by 5 or 6 years as well.
I guess all my ranting really does no good anyway if Chuck is correct about the class being locked in from changes as the season has already begun.
Chuck and Rob, looks like I will be joining you in FC this year!
Gentlemen,
The first step is to present any proposed changes along with reasons for the request to the Class Review Board headed up by Phil Mellor. He will then send it along to his group of Tech Inspectors, who (if they approve it) will pass it along to the RE's with a recommendation for acceptance. The SARRC Committee does NOT decide what classes to accept or not - if it's a SEDIV-recognized class then it's included in the SARRC series.
I will be presenting changes to the GTA rules that were accepted by the REs at their mid-year meeting for implementation in the 2006 season (which has already started). I expect they will be accepted because there was a caveat in "our" rules to mirror any changes implemented by the Left Coast GTA series.
Butch Kummer
GTA Ad Hoc Committee
Tyler:
I really don't have any substantial objection to using 1995, like the NEDIV.
But we do need to come up with something more current than we have at this time in SEDIV.
Perhaps I am trying to 'inch-up' to the solution, but if we can agree on a different date that is a start.
I am really starting to think that conforming to the NEDIV rules as is would be in our overall best interest. The problem in SEDIV will be getting the additional 35 lbs in the rules.
I am not sure that there is a significant difference between your 1992 car and my 1991 car unless it would be motor (if our driving skills were similar).
Maybe the year should be prior to 1994? if that is where the biggest VD difference is. No complaints from me.
The change made with the VD in 94 was a minor reconfigure of the rear chassis/roll hoop bracing and the addition of the wide side pods in late 94. My car should be fully updated to 95 spec before it goes on the track this year and be able to run with the 95 model no problem. It would be great to include the 95 cars as well just for car counts (Eyerace among others). As far as the weight issue goes, I just dont see a need for a weight penalty, if the ne/cediv guys want to come play down here they can just run heavy or remove the ballast put in to make weight. What we all need to remember is that there is a CFC overdog currently legal in the south east now, the Db-6 of Cole Morgan will SMOKE the best prepared RF95 VD if he ever wanted to run it as such!
I really just want to see the class succeed and would love to run in it another year or more. With the rules tweaked enough we might be able to get some excitment about the class and have a race with a 10+ car field.
Butch, THANK YOU! I finally have the critical path for my (our) input. I e-mailed Phil with that question and, as of yet, haven't heard back. I'll send him my 'little note' tomorrow.
:santa:
DaveK
Sorry, Tyler even though I luvs ya like a brutha, I don't think this has been thought out to the best interest of all involved. First: If and I do say IF Cole did want to come fool with us why would he? And, why did you just sell a Swift DB? You had the kick-butt car in the SE.
Personal opinion: Rick started this discussion to include his Crossle 71 which is a legit CFC barring a fluke of SCCA (God bless 'um)
Pardon the PS
:santa: :santa:
I don't anticipate any db6 to show up in CFC.
They are too valuable as converted to FF (ask John Robinson).
Why would someone with those skills want to step down and risk his investment with our 6-10K cars?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a little confused about a couple of your posts... try to help an old guy out with your younger generation logic....
You won the SEDIV ARRC. Congratulations.
You sold the winning car. Presumably because you felt the need for better competition.
You bought a newer car that is currently classed in a more competitive group (FC) and will update it to the newest specs possible for that car (around 1995). This is in line with the need for better competition for you.
Now you want to put the car back into CFC. I don't understand-- you could just race the same car as last year and win again without having spent all the money for the newer car.
Since your updated car would be like a 1995 car, would you add the 35 lbs ballast?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now: my reason for trying to include my 1991 car is based on the fact that the 1991 Crossle is no different than the 1988 Crossle and as such should not be excluded because of maufactured (homologation) date. (This assumes that we can get rid of using the homologation date.-which may not happen)
I'm now starting to think seriously about the suggestion made by Phil Picard about just shutting up and driving rather than doing all this bench racing.
Rick, I too feel that a DB-6 will never show up to run in CFC, I am just saying that it could happen under the current rules and deem us all backmarkers! It is just my way of justifying letting newer cars in.
The reasons I sold my swift are vast.
-My Van Diemen was poorly advertised by someone who did not know what they had, I
bought it very cheap with lots of spares and updates.
-Like John Gaither said when he sold his swift "I'ts just too damn small". I was too tall
and too broad shouldered to fit into the car with any level of comfort.
-the swift was very high maint. and very needed constant care to keep the back of the car
from falling off!
-swift parts can be hard to get and are very expensive
-the VD is a better built car, spares can be had anywhere, set up info is easyer to find,
the car is in much better condition than my swift, etc.
The reason I wish to run in CFC are as follows...
-I race with my father who runs in G production, he owns the hauler and wants to run
SARRC again this year, he gets what he wants!. I do all the prep work and at track work
on his car and dont have the time or money available to run Nationals when he is running
SARRC.
-The field sizes for FC in SARRC in 2005 was worse than CFC, there were several races with
only 1 FC, I feel with a rules change CFC could be big again.
Would I be willing to take a 35# penalty?
Absoloutley if that is what it takes!!!
I do understand that your crossle is identical to the '88 model. Putting updates aside my '92 is identical to a currently legal RF90. Within the current rules updates are legal and should remain so, the overall configuration of my car has not changed, It just has better wings, a better diffuser, and is getting '95 spec side pods. Take Mark H's car for instance, a 1984 reynard never came with a big wide modern diffuser, It never came with a late model VD rear wing, It never came with 1 piece upper bodywork. These are all updates Mark has done to make the car better. Being able to tinker with your car and try to better its performance is a great thing.
I want to assure you and all othe CFC competitors that I am not trying to get my car classified so I can come out and dominate CFC, it will not happen! My intentions are to better the class as a whole, I think we would all like more cars in our races!
Tyler
My .02 without having a dog in the hunt...
1. You will start to lose Pinto powered cars as people with early to mid 90's VDs realize they are at a big disadvantage when compared to 97+ VDs & can't race CFC. They will never take a series like SARRC seriously. They will see that for a little more $$ they can race at the front in FS w/ a bike powered ride and convert. I hope this happens.
I believe that CFC needs to change the rules to include 96 and back cars. Chas, Poma, and others have shown us that 97s have the ability to run w/ newer cars and they do share some rear components, so end it at 96. CFC might get those fence-sitters (90-96 owners) interested in a series again. Otherwise, the future looks bleak.
Other random opinions...
2. The way we date the cars is completely retarded.
3. Tyler may or may not be faster in the VD.
4. Mike still needs to buy a car.
5. Cole ain't racing in CFC. Won't see dad there either... that car is an FC.
6. DaveW won't be there as well.
We need more cars in CFC.
There are a lot of mid 90's VD's sitting around in the back of folks shops because they are too slow for FC and can't run CFC. Heck there was 1 FC at both of the RA reg. races last season. I know that there are more cars in the Atl. area than that.
The Pinto engine thing is going to be anouther problem, who is going to change over a 94 VD to Zetech? So they will be worth even less soon.
Let the 96 and back cars in with weight added... say 1240 lb min. for 1990 and newer? Then adjust if needed, BUT get the cars on the track!!
Take elements out of this topic and the long one prior to it and put together a poll so you can see where the majority stands. If there is enough buy in for the racers that are affected it would help the SEDiv decide on where to draw the line.
I would like to help but like Butch said SARRC has nothing to do with rule changes other than those that pertain to the series. Regional class rule changes fall under the authority of SEDiv. If you heard nothing back from Mr. Mellor that try Kay Fairer since she is your Area Director if I am not mistaken. She should be able to direct you to the proper channels.
Something needs to be done and it needs to include later model cars. The current CFC fields have turned into a joke and the mid year FC's are getting refabbed into something else.