Immediate input needed - FC

To: Formula Continental Community

Fr: SCCA Club Racing Board

Dt: 2/13/08

Re: Immediate input needed from FC community

In order to promote open commerce within the FC class the Board of Directors and Club Racing Board request immediate input to help accelerate the evaluation process for the following specification change. If approved the changes would become effective 3/1/08.

The item proposed reads as follows:

Change 9.1.1.B.4.j to read as follows:

ECU: The Pectel T2 unit is required. The current specification “QSRE” map is required with the QSRE intake package or the current specification “EPP” map is required with the EPP intake package. Failure to use the current map appropriate to the intake package will result in an automatic penalty of 1 year suspension from SCCA club racing. The maps are available at the SCCA web site.

Change 9.1.1.B.4.k to read as follows:

Intake manifold and fuel injection components: One of the following intake packages must be used.

1. The Quicksilver RacEngines (QSRE) #0138 intake manifold and throttle body combination, air horns, fuel rail and injector system are required and must be used with no modifications of any kind. Only stock Ford fuel injectors may be used and they may not be modified in any way. Fuel injectors may be replaced only with stock Ford injector part number #0280155887 XS4U-AA.

2. The Elan Power Products (EPP) DP08-60-002 intake manifold and throttle body combination, air horns, fuel rail and injector system are required and must be used with no modifications of any kind. Fuel injectors may be replaced only with stock Ford injector part number #0280155887 XS4U-AA.

No interchange of components between the approved intake packages is allowed. The appropriate map must be used with each package (see j above). The appropriate intake restrictor must be used with each package (see l below).

Change 9.1.1.B.4.l to read as follows:

Intake restrictor. One of the following intake restrictors must be used.

1. The QSRE #1975 intake restrictor must be used with the QSRE intake package (see j above). It must not be modified in any way. The restrictor internal diameter is 1.295 inches and this value cannot be exceeded in any measure*ment of the diameter. The restrictor port centerlines or shape may not be altered.

2. The EPP DP08-60-012 intake restrictor must be used with the EPP intake package (see j above). It must not be modified in any way. The restrictor internal diameter is 1.295 inches and this value cannot be exceeded in any measure*ment of the diameter. The restrictor port centerlines or shape may not be altered.

All input must be received by 5:00 p.m. Central on Friday, February 22 so that the Board of Directors may vote on the motion.

Please send any input and support either for or against the proposed change to crb@scca.com.

For a more readable version of this letter, see http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=6255&PN=1

Those of you who have written on this subject previously need not write again, but you may if you wish.

Dave

And so the can of worms has opened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy Thoennes

To: Formula Continental Community

Fr: SCCA Club Racing Board

Dt: 2/13/08

Re: Immediate input needed from FC community

In order to promote open commerce within the FC class the Board of Directors and Club Racing Board request immediate input to help accelerate the evaluation process for the following specification change. If approved the changes would become effective 3/1/08.

---

This represents the most significant departure from intent of the engine rules since the FF2000 cars were incorperated in FC. "Open commerce" was never the intent of the engine rules in this class.

At a minimum a rules change of this significance should be given 12 months incubation.

Currently we have not resolved the performance differentials between the engine options we currently have.

Will Knap, Loynings, Williams, Ivey or Butler be given the same consideration? Why Elan Power Products?

I find it hard to beleive that an overwhelming majority wouldnt be against this 'proposal' I would be shocked if SCCA doesnt pass this rule, regardless of input received.

This really isnt any difference then when fuel injection was allowed in FA for the toyota motors. The original rule required a specific tire be used. One driver had his lawyer write a letter claiming that the spec tire was uncompetitive and caused his clients car to lose value (as if a RT-41 on any tire wasn't faster then my RT-4). SCCA was afriad of a lawsuit and changed the rule.

If the issue is really about ' open commerce ' then why is there still only 2 options? The rule should state that any builder could submit parts and maps for homologation.

my letter is sent!


To: crb@scca.org, bod@scca.org
Subject: FC GCR changes
Date: Feb 13, 2008 2:49 PM

sirs-

this letter is written to urge NO further changes be made to the FC rules until the current mess is resolved in a manner where the perception of fair and equitable is the standard. considering or making decisions on matters where there is no objective data or requirements is NOT in the membership's best interest and akin in my opinion to a fool's errand.

if the membership, Board of Directors, CRB, or any of the Club's national staff believe "open commerce" is a good thing then I highly recommend the Club hire someone that knows what they're doing and have a specification created that documents the requirements and method of compliance verification for the item(s) to be open sourced/franchised!!!

Arthur E. Smith, XXXXXX
artesmith@earthlink.net

We can't get ANY action on a better piston/rod combination nor on the lighter flywheel for the Pinto. The full impact of weight adjustments, aluminum head, zetec map haven't been resolved yet.

And this is some kind of crises vote for "open commerce" in 2 weeks? Sounds like somebody is theatening a law suit.

It's ALL about the Zetec. How about some fixes for the PINTO!!? I'm beginning to feel like the Kent guys did 6 or 7 years ago. Neglected, aged power plant, obvious fixes and no action. :thumbsdown: Well that's not true really, There is the $4,000 head I guess. Right.

Hey - You in the back there..... Sit down or we'll ban cast iron heads...

I think the right answer is - there are 2 ways this can happen

No way, and ahhhhh errrrr whats that other way..... Burke help me out here

No way and ________________

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kea

And so the can of worms has opened.

---

I didnt want to say it...

so is there a single reason we need the Elan parts?

I was told that neither the ELAN engine or it's intake would be allowed in the F2000 series.

Mmm...let me clarify things a bit as to how all this pertains to the F2000 Championship Series.

We are closely aligned to SCCA FC club rules and presently require a Zetec (or Pinto) motor to first be SCCA club legal. We then go one step further and require an engine to be sealed by either QSRE or Elite Engines.

I read this and I almost fell out of my chair.When has there ever been no less than 50 letters of oposition to one proposed rule change and how can they now say we have to expedite this matter.I encourage every Formula Continental driver Crew member to respond quickley on this matter.I have been envolved in Scca for over 20 years and I have never seen anything quite like this before.Why is Epp being put ahead of the members of this club,or is this not a club any more.
Tim Minor Fc 88
PLEASE SEND IN MORE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

so is there a single reason we need the Elan parts?

---

No there is absolutely no reason why this is needed.

Interestingly if Kevin is correct and I believe he might be, then Elan will be suing it's customers. Remember we are the Club and we are the ones who pay the bills. I can't imagine any of us buying parts, cars or anything else from Elan if they sue us.

I can't urge all of you enough to please write an email to the crb and bod with your thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt M.

Hey - You in the back there..... Sit down or we'll ban cast iron heads...

I think the right answer is - there are 2 ways this can happen

No way, and ahhhhh errrrr whats that other way..... Burke help me out here

No way and ________________

---

I hope elan has a good stock of spare parts. They are going to need them.

Elan has other pressure points on SCCA officialdom.

Somebody in Topeka said something that they had no authority to say and it appears that all FC competitors will pay the price in one form or another.

Through out the history of FF and FC there has been only a single source or design for each part. If something went out of production or was superceeded them the rules allowed the newer part. But every one raced with the same basic parts. We have introduced a new engine (Zetec) but until now the same concept applied. We changed engines in FF decades ago but even then there were only two options, the Kent engine or the uprated engine.

As a builder of FCs, I hate the idea that Van Diemen may have the best engine and as a competitor I or my customers might not have an equal opportunity in the engine department.

Elan has never been an engine supplier to FC that I know of. So why are they being given this special deal? Who is on the take? I never thought I would see the production car type rules hassels inflicted on formula cars.

At a minimum many competitor will have to at least try the "Elan Intake" to see if it is better than the Quicksilver Intake. Elan is assuring customers that their setup out performs the GCR required setup. What is wrong with staying with a single intake setup that has served very well since the introduction of the Zetec engine? I don't think we want every engine builder to supply thier own intake system.

Furthermore we still have the equality issue with what we have and what the situation will be with the aluminum head. I haven't seen any signs that SCCA can balance the various designs so that competitors are satisified that there is a level playing field. Also, if Elan has the influence to stampeed the club into passing rules for them alone, who is dumb enough to believe that that same club will keep Elan engines even with all the other options?

We still don't have a response to balancing the 3 current variables and they want to approve a 3rd? I vote that we push for Art's idea of an independent 3rd party testing the combinations on a dyno and on the track to determine parity and then approve. Suddenly they are interested in commerce when they continue to approve single source parts - true commerce and monopolies are mutually exclusive!

Look on the bright side.:D At least they told everyone before it became a rule.:mad:

Whenever I here "Open commerce" and SCCA in the same sentence why does Enterprise always seem to be the benefactor?

Do we remember , "Ah you FF guys need a new crank, and by the way we are selling them", after years of needing a replacement.

Yeah God forbid they open a Dave Bean, Pegasus, Burton Power catalog and pick an off-the-shelf product with open competition and a reasonable price....

Has anyone heard from anyone in the SCCA on why this is all of the sudden a pressing topic?

-We had the rumors in an F2000 thread that quicksilver wouldn't sell Elan some neccesary parts, but Sandy came in and said that was completely untrue.


-Has Elan threatened to sue?


Does anyone think this is a good idea?

My letter has been sent.

Boy this is so cool, my new Quicksilver arrives next week & I am totally thrilled with the opportunity to have to buy a new Elan manifold assembly. Gee I wonder how much an Elan manifold assembly costs? And wow it is so exciting to see a business like EPP willing to jump in & help us all get more power at lower costs.:mad:

Thanks ... Jay Novak

Letter sent. Worm can opened.

This is a mess....

-Nick

Speaking from painful experience, SCCA should not, under any circumstances, get into bed
with David Bose and Elan.

*sigh* I specifically committed to this series/class so I wouldn't have to deal with engine crap like this.

Letter sent.

Just a thought,why is this any different than buying a new front wing for 2500 or a new set of dampers for 4000 or a set of ratios for 2000 or 12 new wheels for 7500 or a diffuser for 1200 or some gearbox mods for 3000??????? Why do all blame the comp board?Why blame Elan?Let the two Popes of engine sealing have wack at it start the race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buudrow1

Just a thought,why is this any different than buying a new front wing for 2500 or a new set of dampers for 4000 or a set of ratios for 2000 or 12 new wheels for 7500 or a diffuser for 1200 or some gearbox mods for 3000??????? Why do all blame the comp board?Why blame Elan?Let the two Popes of engine sealing have wack at it start the race.

---

The difference is the rules say you must use the qsre parts for the engine build. The rules don't say you can't buy different front wings, different diffusers etc.

deleted

Scott ,sorry you are correct.There is a lot more to this story that has been created by a few people and it seems they don't have nads to tell the truth.The players have all done there share to create this mess,and it seems that somehow it is the responsibility of the comp board to use there nads to mop it up for those few.The pity is the comp board took advice from a group and it turns out they were very much wrong. I really don't see where the club is that important,it seems the Pro Series should make the call to me.As I have said before too bad the Zetec made it in at all.

As I have said before too bad the Zetec made it in at all.[/quote]
Jon, You are so right.
We have Ricky and Chas to thank for that. Ricky is now boating and Chas won some race in topeka, kansas. Big Deal

I sent this to the CRB.

I am not for these proposed rules changes. As a new member of SCCA and trying to assemble a budget for a Continental car, this only drives up the cost of competition. What with the new head being dealt with, this adds considerably to competition costs. This is a club where costs are critical since most members are paying out their own pocket for participation. It also seems that the present group of engine builders are fair in their charges, good to talk with and greatly respected in the community. There is absolutly no need for another player in the mix. Again these proposed changes are not needed!!!!

Amen Lil Fat Boy

whether you agree with the Zetec inclusion or not it was the result of a long (and imperfect )PROCESS.
This current situation looks like a railroad job to give certain competitors an advantage above what was intended with the RESTRICTED Zetec rules.
Of course they will be quick to point out that once approved anyone can level the field by spending $.
One of the original motivators to the RESTRICTED Zetec was to try and contain engine costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim morgan

One of the original motivators to the RESTRICTED Zetec was to try and contain engine costs.

---

Mission failed.

-Nick

The request for information is being asked for by the "CLUB" not a pro racing group or anyone else. While Mike, Bob and Al are doing a wonderful job, if they decided to pack it in tomorrow and no picked up the series, I'd wager you see quite a few FC's (which is the actual class designation) back racing with the "CLUB" pretty quickly. That being said, the Pro group is directly affected by the decisions made by SCCA as the series principals have indicated they will follow the club rules.

To date with the exception of Jon on this wonderful forum which probaby serves the majority of "CLUB" FC participants nationwide, I yet to see a post in favor of this proposal so why is it being pushed the way it is?

The group that needs to hear from the "CLUB" members now are the board of Directors who will actually "VOTE" on our behalf. If you have an investment in the class you should email your opinion.

Good or bad, this whole deal is certainly driven by a buck, anyone who thinks differently is a fool.

I would get some more info before I sent any letters anywhere.You have created a monopoly so what will the final price of the Zetec be in 2010? Where will the savings be.Yes there is a railroad job going on Jim but I don't think it is what you can see. There is trader amongst you.

It's all Steve Thomson's fault! :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buudrow1

There is trader amongst you.

---

I don't think there's anyone on this forum who doesn't appreciate the Baytos brothers' contribution to FC and FF for several decades. However, you mentioned 'nads in a previous post. If you know something, fill us in.

As Jim said, Zetec in FC is a non-starter - it already happened that is not the issue. If there is some satisfaction to some sort of "I told you so" I guess that's to each his own. The issue (as I see it) is the process. I don't care if Elan has a gun to the Comp Board's head, the fact remains there is a process, and it should be followed. The pro series can (and should) do whatever it wants.

I'm against this deal for 2008, fine for 2009 if all is done by a process. IMHO, we need to know more.

Foschi - sorry man - I could bite my tongue no longer.

See you at the track!

Pandora's box, Genie's bottle.

You are experiencing the Law of Unintended Consequences.

I think the proposal would be a lot more palatable if there were a caveat that other component sets will be allowed at a future date pending equivalency testing. Unfortunately just the 2 options is not exactly an open market.

My letter will be sent requesting the above caveat be added to the language.

First off, let me warn those who earlier wrote for or against this proposal that they really need to write again - previously submitted letters that were not in response to a specific question are not necessarily forwarded when that question is finally asked. Keep your comments brief and to the point - commentary on the aluminium head, etc., can wait for another day.

Here's some background as I know it, somewhat simplified. If anything I post is incorrect, we will all welcome hearing the correct info.

This all started a couple of years ago when Elan asked QSRE to sell intake manifolds kits directly to them. QSRE's policy has always been to sell only to the end user, and after due consideration, they decided to stick with this policy.

Elan then approached Topeka and asked about making their own intake system. Someone there gave the go-ahead, with the assurance that permission would be granted.

As an FYI to that person: NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IN THE CLUB HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT SUCH A REQUEST OR TO MAKE SUCH ASSURANCES! There is a set procedure that EVERYONE has to follow to get any rules change request granted, and it is call the RULES MAKING PROCEDURE, and can be found on the Club web site. This is a clear case of someone overstepping their authority, and that person should be immediately fired as far as I am concerned - this sort of crap has gone on too long in this club and should not be tolerated.

Contrary to the belief of some on the CRB, this IS NOT a clarification, nor is it a spec line change, it is in fact a wholesale rules change, and cannot be implemented without the proper research, club member input, verifiable specifications, and an appropriate lead time. One of the requirements is that proposals be published in Fastrack and the members be given at least 30 days for commentary. This requirement is being bypassed for some unstated reason.

I sure as hell would like to know why.

Why the big rush to get this through? Is the Club being pressured somehow? I certainly hope that this is not the case.

Has someone made promises that they had no authority to make and is now trying to cover their ass? Looks likely.

Now let's look at the proposal itself:

Even if this change was desirable, the proposal is not acceptable as written - while it looks simple enough, it literally opens up the probability of wholesale cost escallation.

Nowhere do I see the requirement for Elan to make sure that their system is the exact equal of the QSRE system, power-output wise or aero footprint wise, nor do I see any specifications to which the system is supposed to be built to (runner lengths and diameters, surface finishes, butterfly diameter, injector placement, airbox size and shape, etc, etc, etc).:blackflag:

In actual fact, Elan (and QSRE actually) is free to continuously upgrade their system to whatever spec they want, and as long as it carries the same part number, it will be deemed to be legal. Nowhere is there any specification as to what performance these systems have to produce! :blackflag:

Hell, there are no specifications from which legality can even be verified! :blackflag:

In fact, the Elan system is quite a bit more compact and produces a smaller aero footprint (less disturbance to the rear wing) as well as a very different torque/horsepower curve - Elan is even advertising it having these advantages. If two systems with such a range of performance are available, it will necessitate that competitors stock both systems and switch from one to the other for different track demands. Cha-ching, cha-ching..........:blackflag:

Wasn't the reason behind a single supplier the desire to keep away from the inevitable performance escalation that an open-source intake system would bring? There are enough other car components that are open-source - do we really need to expand that to an area that has traditionally been closed?:blackflag:

To state that this is an attempt to "promote open commerce" is a total crock of sh!t - if "open commerce" was the goal, it would be opened to EVERYONE, not just a single favored, high profile supplier. Part of the traditional rules structure for this class is that the engine components were single-sourced ( or actually, single or highly limited/known-spec manufacture) as an attempt to keep some semblance of control of costs. This rule change proposal throws all of that to the wind, and it will be you guys, the competitors, who suffer.

Vote this nightmare down asap!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg Mercurio

Pandora's box, Genie's bottle.

You are experiencing the Law of Unintended Consequences.

I think the proposal would be a lot more palatable if there were a caveat that other component sets will be allowed at a future date pending equivalency testing. Unfortunately just the 2 options is not exactly an open market.

---

It is way less than an open market when one of the engine manufacturers is also the leading car manufacturer. I believe that Elan is advertising that their engines are superior to QS or Elite engines. What chance do Piper or Citation customers have of getting good engines if our cars are a threat to VDs? What chance is there that the equivalency testing will not favor Elan, given the power to cram this rule change down everyones throat?

Look at the current state of engine equivalencies. Do we need a better example of equivalency testing?

Hi Ron,to me the mess that is here at the moment rests squarely at the feet of the engine people.Alloy head included as well as the light flywheel for Pinto.Does one really believe that Elan would have ventured off into a build of a manifold if in fact they could buy one? Yea one could say that QS can sell to whomever they choose,but what is the criteria for being excepted? What is the criteria for being rejected? Why is it not in the rule book?
People that know my partners and I,know that we indeed will call a Spade a Spade.And so I will on there behalf say that there is spade here.Although we don't own it, the Zetec is our idea, our money ,our time and our equipment that made it happen in it;s entirity.It frustrates us that after so much careful development that it has been turned into a complete cluster in such a very short time. Ron your wrong it is not about I told you so,but it blows that we have been right about every thing so far. We were consulted very little,the only calls that we had were to try and convince us that this was going to be good.All the calls for info went to QS as they were saying yes to what we were saying no to.Who was right? People that were around in 2002 will remember that there were two engine suppliers back then and it did not work.
You say that you can't go back,why? I see Elan for once as a very innocent bystander that has supported the F2000 series enough that they alone folded the Cooper Series with there power.Don't be mistaken that this is the only reason that it is gone. Some should be grateful for this.I know that my partners and I are.This is not a reason for there inclusion but what is the reason for there exclusion other than a bunch of BS.
This is the work of some well meaning amateurs armed with all the wrong info. The Capes and the Baytos' worked with this package since 2000 we must have tripped over something of value.
If I were Elan I would sue everyone for wasting my time and money.