Printable View
So long FB....?
This should concern everyone. Your class could be next.Quote:
FB
1. #25823 (Formula/Sports Racing Committee) Discontinue F1000 as an Independent U.S. Majors Class
Effective 1/1/2020, remove GCR section 9.1.1.G in its entirety in connection with incorporation of F1000 cars
into the FA class.
No comments because so few people in the class. I was njmp this year I think there where 5 or 6 cars at their "pro" event..
Long past time to reduce the number of classes
You guys are brutal. Give them a break.
How would you like it if you woke up to find out the class you believed in was the target of being eliminated?
SCCA has done their best to sabatoge the class with rule meddling, and then conflicting class status policy.
I am not making any commentary about the pros and cons of any future direction, but poking these guys with your sticks is just plain wrong. And Paul ..... FC and FB numbers have been very similar in recent years in case you have not noticed.
Probably "no response" because not a whole lot of people read the prelims. Change the title of this thread to something like "FB gone" and I'm sure you'll get responses.
I feel sorry for those guys!
Just an old mans opinion. This is the first of many changes.
Let's not revise history. The SCCA hasn't sabotaged the class or meddled with the rules. Anyone who looks back at past Fastracks will see that class participants wouldn’t let the SCCA implement restrictors and instead wanted weight added to cars with 2011 and newer engines. I'd say the participants got the class they wanted.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
In my opinion, the class was kind of doomed from the start. I very briefly flirted with motorcycle-engined race cars, and between that & observing how the various bike-motored cars perform on-track I'm of the opinion that there's a reason the big manufacturers never put bike motors in road cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heel-and-toe
Maybe the initial build cost is cheaper on a bike-motor car, but they seem to be prone to breakdowns & catching fire. Even if your motors are "cheap" if you constantly have to repair or replace them the cost adds up (as does the frustration). The same went for the various bike-motor mini-cars that were all the rage in circle-track racing in the late 90's & early 00's. Initially they were cheap but they ended up costing as much or more to operate than the big V8 cars. That list included Dwarf Cars, Legends Cars, Baby Grand Stock Cars, and whatever they call those 5/8 scale BMW-bodied things.
It also seems like since nobody has really built any FA type cars in decades and it increasingly becomes a dumping ground for oddball open wheel cars (the Champcar Pro-Atlantics, Pro FM, F4, and now FB), that section of the GCR could easily be re-named "The Island of Misfit Toys."
Never my intention to poke fun, etc. And I never said anything about numbers (which I've always maintained are geographical).Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
I do have a concern for these guys running even faster in FA - was that the right move?
Just seemed oddly silent.
Nice of you to offer your opinion Mr Anonymous. I too was offering my opinion, after working on the peripheral of the class for several years. It is a complex situation. That you were able to summarize and offer a conclusion in only one sentence, would indicate that you don't care or don't understand the issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heel-and-toe
Based on the success of various high production oval race cars, and Radicals, it is clearly possible to have successful race car platforms based on MC engines. Lots of blame to go around here as that has not happened.
I will leave it to the active FB racers to sort through. I feel their pain, anger, frustration, etc .....
Wrong on all accounts. This has been beaten to death with actual empirical data but people seem to have already made up their mind. I've never figured out why. Maybe they focus on the occasional self-induced blow up and forget about the thousands of trouble-free laps turned by well-prepped cars. I guess that's human nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raceworks
While my comment was not intended to poke at the FB class I can see how it could look that way
Numbers don't lie.. there is minimal participation in this class .. and while I have roots in FF and FC and understand FC is not what it once was and would hate to see it go I still believe if there where less classes existing classes would have a better chance of growing.
As we are all aware there is a decline in interest in racing. Formula classes seem to be effected more so than others. consolidation can only help
I dont have my finger on the pulse of SCCA anymore and haven't payed attention to lap times between FA and FB.
That being said, did SCCA just make FB cars the fastest FA's ?
I think people read posts like this from someone who DID run a car:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...l=1#post568506
Is he wrong? Isn't it the total cost to complete - at the front - that is the consideration?
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Isn't that the case with all classes?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
As I said, this has been beaten to death in multiple threads and I have no interest in trying to change any minds, especially now that it's a moot argument.
A class with one or two cars, if any, at an event and less than a dozen at the Runoffs isn't sustainable. I think we all recognize that. There are no easy choices, and there are no magic fixes. I don't think I have spoken with an SCCA member who doesn't say the proliferation of classes is not an issue. Yet, when it comes time to consolidate and it's your class, the sky is falling. Yet, if I were in FB, I can't say I wouldn't be feeling the same.
The writing was on the wall and numbers never came up. SCCA had two classes with very similar speeds, which both had low numbers. The decision seemed inevitable. I'd say the death nail began early on when engines were not contained to be 100% stock. No backdating, no 'blueprinting'. Stock means bone stock. The final nail was a lack of parity, and should have limited the Kawi sooner in my opinion. An aggressively vocal minority prevented that from happening. Just as we have seen in many other classes, when a new engine comes in and has an advantage (or is perceived to), the older cars simply go away. The VD conversions are to FB as the Pinto cars are to FC and the Kent cars are to FF. They get parked.
FB has been on the decline for years. This is nothing new. I love the cars. They are the most fun thing I've ever driven. Engines are not as fragile as some make them out to be. Like the Kent, I suspect many were self induced. I was told the Kent is fragile when I got into FF. I was obsessive in it's care because of that, and didn't have a single engine issue with it.
FB now gets to go faster - FA speeds for FF costs. I'd think the FA folks will be the ones who are upset seeing as now you can go that speed for 25% of the cost. With open ECUs, I suspect FBs will out pace FAs at just about every track.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
Thanks Reid.
So, I guess the "real" Atlantic guys are the one's that should be pissed?
i have to agree with most of Reids ccomments. Imo it will cost a .ton more $$ for the FB guys to compete in FA as opposed to FB and it will not happen under the current FB rules. Imo it will require bigger engines at a minimum .the change will dramatically increase the cost to compete, at the front with an FB type car.Quote:
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
That said I totally understand this rules change and I expect that there will be more big changes in the near future.
For those who want to lay blame, please do not blame this on the FSRAC!! These kinds of decisions are NOT made by the FSRAC they are made way up at the top of the SCCA management chain!
IfNo, I didn’t offer an opinion, I provided a conclusion based on facts that are documented in years of letter titles published in Fastrack - facts that aren’t discredited by inflammatory rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
So did the SCCA just make a tube car faster that they were trying to slow down before due to safety? I’m not 100% clear as I know they can run in FA class now as Pro Mazda, F4 & others can without engine restrictions. I’m just wondering if potentially they have made these cars faster now then they were before & many, including SCCA officials had worried about safety have they not put safety more at risk?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak
I see this mess as an outsider looking in feeling horrible for the FB community & the SCCA needs to take a good amount of responsibility with their rule change actions in the past that caused people to leave the class thus part of the reasons the participation numbers are where they are.
The open ECU will only allow an FB car to go significantly faster if cars are converted to use the newer, more powerful engines that could not be made to work with the stock ECU (BMW, Ducati, Gen5 Kawi, etc.). After being combined with FA, I doubt anyone will invest the time and money to re-engine a car that will still not be competitive with a properly driven Swift 016.Quote:
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
With this ruling, an FB car is now an orphan similar to a Pro Formula Mazda...nice car but not really competitive within the FA class.
So long FB, a great concept killed by rules INSTABILITY and misconceptions propagated by the uninformed.
Now that FA seems to be the previously described "open wheel class of misfit toys", a path forward seems obvious to me. Everytime "tragedy" strikes, opportunity arises. FA could actually be pretty cool. A slight engine power restriction to the fastest bunch (Swift 016 and maybe some others???) would make it interesting. FB, F3, and PFM are already very close, and probably pretty close to the original 1600 Toyota. Because all the cars make their speed differently through different aero and torque characteristics, some cars may be faster at some tracks and slower at others. I think this would be fun to watch (and maybe participate in).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobLav
I don't see the current FA owners, though very limited in number, allowing their chosen package to be devalued and/or slowed down much. Maybe just a bit, if done in a way that makes the engine package and related stressed components last just a bit longer. However, they aren't going to allow themselves to be made into grid fodder.
The opportunity I see is to find another club/series to race your sexy FB cars. Lots and lots of folks out there enjoying the crap out of their various cars and SCCA doesn't see a nickel of their money.
I agree with your points, Rob. The CRB put data recorders on the FA & FB cars at the Runoffs, and from what I heard the FBs were just as fast as the FAs through the corners and accelerated as quickly, but lacked the top end of the FA cars by a few MPH...except for the Swift 016, which was superior to all comers (and probably needs a competition adjustment IMO). Hence the open ECU and unrestricted inlets when one runs an FB in FA.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobLav
Moreover, the FB cars can be progressively sped up if the open ECU/restrictor loss prove inadequate, since the Club isn't competing with a proprietary pro racing formula as exist for PFM, F3 & F4. IOW, no need to keep them in a strict spec configuration. Likewise, safety can be enhanced by permitting additional stress bearing/anti-intrusion panels.
I know some are unhappy with the rule changes that have occurred, but some updating and fine-tuning are inevitable in non-spec classes. Furthermore, class consolidation has been a fact of life since the 1950's, and is generally preferable to the loss of a national class to race in. For those who cannot update their cars, or who wish not to, there is always the option of remaining an FB at the Regional level.
Like you, I too am intrigued by this turn of events (Disclaimer: I requested it), and look forward to bringing new cars to the mix.
Since most FB's are not running nationals and seem to be ok going faster instead of being slowed down this could possibly be a positive step.
Wow, you guys are really off base. In a way this might actually be good for us that own F1000 cars. Means we will probably be at the runoffs for years to come. That's good. For those that care (honestly, never understood those that did make it a big deal-huge waste of a perfectly good week).
This and the other thing that is developing in the North American Formula 1000 Championship that hopefully becomes reality. Hopefully we can announce that soon.
Anyway, regardless of what they do there will still be a Formula 1000 Race Series.
Does it really matter what these fools call us when we report to the SCCA. FA, FB, F-zero. Who cares? I don't. Call us circus freaks I don't care. We'll keep calling it The North American F1000 Championship regardless of whatever they do or want to call us.
F1000 will continue to live on. Despite the haters. We'll just ignore you and go our own way and do our own thing like we always have.
Cheers all
PS. never mind
sounds pretty good but getting the decision makers on the same page might be very tough. Just an opiniionQuote:
Originally Posted by RobLav
This is not a snarky, loaded question. Asking more out of curiosity. For those who see 'the death of FB cars' in this merger, what is your suggestion? It's not possible to keep a class that has declining numbers year after year. This merger was floated for a few years, and numbers still fell and the class didn't rally to bring the numbers up. If nothing changed, National/Runoffs status would have went away and it would be a regional class. I understand many issues lead us to this point, but whatever they may be, this is where we are.
So what now, if not to consolidate?
I'd think slowing them down and put them with FC as they started would be a good option. Safety has been raised here, and that is my main concern given they are essentially an FF chassis doing FA speeds. In my eyes, the reason the class didn't rally when needed was due to cost. Slowing them down with pure stock engines and restrictors or rpm limits would help increase engine life and help dispel the concerns of fragility, while al reducing cost. However, I suspect FB owners would be even more upset with that option.
I can't answer for everyone. But FB never meant anything to me.
F1000 is what matters.
Why do you think I've been involved in organizing three different separate shadow F1000 championships? Because I trust the SCCA? Because I care about FB? That just a meaningless letter to me.
I said years ago on this forum F1000 is too good for the SCCA and needs to find its way outside the SCCA. Why? Because SCCA is a dying organization. It's dying. Not F1000. Look at the membership decline. You really think pulling crap like this helps? F1000 will die only if we F1000 competitors allow it too. SCCA's death is inevitable. SCCA is going to die because its a clown show. It's only tolerable to me because the people that put on the races at the major and regional level and most of my fellow competitors are really good people. Don't ask me what I think of the CRB and the BOD. Don't ask me what their end game is for the SCCA is either (suicide maybe) but it pretty obvious they are only blowing smoke up their own a$$.
Can't help but laugh....it's funny as hell. They're never going to see it coming...or they will and they'll be in denial all the way up to the end. Good luck continuing to **** people over SCCA CRB and BOD. Great recruiting tactic. Brilliant!!!
So what should SCCA have done?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
Leave us alone.
Thank you Thomas. Maybe I am not understanding here. If nothing was done, essentially maintain the status quo, how can SCCA support a class that has 1 or 2 cars at an event, and struggles to get a 10 at the Runoffs? Doing nothing would make it so it loses national/Runoffs status. Or do you think we should keep classes that have 7 cars at the Runoffs? (Again, no snark - just trying to understand your point of view.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
Feel free to PM me as well if you prefer.
lots of very good points in the above post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
Thanks for the PM offer.
You might be a little off on car counts. First there were just as many FB's at Indy Runoffs as there were FC at Sonoma. Maybe that means we should put FC in with FA too? Logic makes no sense. Ask Jerry Hodges how many FB's were at NAF1000 races this year. Also there were some of us sidelined this year that will be running next year (me included) so this issue with car counts is a red herring. This is appears to be something else more than the car count excuse.
I'm not necessarily against FB merging into FA if it allows the F1000 cars to survive and there most likely going to be other classes getting merged in together before this charade is over. We are just the closest easiest bullseye to hit. So they aren't exactly swinging for the fences here.
If the SCCA Topeka and the CRB and BOD have a plan to merge some classes to make way for their F3 and F4 pro darling classes at the club level then why don't they just come clean and tell us? Why all the reach around nonsense?
This is what bothers me. Just be honest about your intentions. Jeez, is that too much to ask? Tell us what this is all about. What are they trying to accomplish here? Stop playing games.
Lots of doom and gloom with no solutions presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak
Yes, SCCA certainly isn't perfect but there are many other reasons for loss of membership than the implied mismanagement.
Overall racing is down, competing organizations (Nasa, Vara), competing "I want my own" series.
What's funny is most of these "special better class series" run at SCCA events, use the SCCA rulebook, driver insurance, volunteer staffing, etc. and couldn't exists without them.
So what if the NAF1k series runs in an FA group. They can still have their own prizes and awards.
The fact is, if SCCA dies, so does amateur racing.
SCCA has to evolve it's product and open wheel is not where the numbers are. FB thinned the other class grids.
So maybe SCCA's biggest mistake was allowing the FB class to be created in the first place - but they were just responding to customer demand.
Thanks again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
As to FC, don't be surprised if they are combined in the future. I won't be. It's the same scenario; low car counts and other classes with similar issues who are the same speed. FB wasn't the first, and it won't be the last to get consolidated.
As to counts, SCCA can only go on what they have. At Mid Ohio there were 10 FBs. Indy, 17ish. Sonoma, 7. That's not sustainable. I wish it was different and I'd love to see 30 of these things rip down the straight at RA in 2020. But, that's not likely and history has not shown it to be.
As to the "F3 and F4 pro darling classes", I don't see SCCA Pro pushing SCCA Corp to do anything. Maybe they are, but I haven't seen it. What I do see is the past SCCA has with trickle down, former pro cars. Today's pro cars are spec cars. If the accusation is SCCA is sabotaging current classes for F3 and F4, I don't see it. Too many cars is not the issue. If there were 1000's of cars, fighting for space, that might make sense but there is room for more cars to play, just not more classes/run groups. If FB had 30 cars, it would have a class. The issue is how, in the future, do you bring in spec cars to a formula structure? Making those play nicely together is what is to be accomplished. I am not sure it is possible. That is the pipeline of new cars to Club is spec. The days of independent builders is fading, unfortunately. So, how do you transform a pipeline and rule system made for formula cars adapt to taking spec cars? I fail to see how that is blamed for FB getting merged with FA, they are mutually exclusive events.
To your last point; what is this all about? It's about low car counts for FB. They are trying to accomplish classes with more cars, and less classes in total. If there was a self serving conspiracy, believe me, I'd be the first to blow the whistle on that. I've never seen even a hint of it.
Just my 2 cents as I see it. Thank you for your points as well.
:thumbsup: :checkered:Quote:
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
Phew, that's dark. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Thinking about Thomas's post, one thing stood out. Separate series, again. We have two things happening, older cars (Ford powered FFs, Pinto FCs, VD conversion FBs) are staying home, and newer cars are going to separate series.
FF; FRP F1600
FC; FRP F2000, USF
FB; NAF1000
FA; FRP FA group
GT1; Trans Am
GT2; Trans Am
All these classes have suffered in SCCA.
As I see it, the overall issue here is a marketing issue. SCCA has priced it's product to a very small, shrinking middle market. As cost increases, that market gets smaller and smaller. The older cars that used to be prevalent, are now staying home as the SCCA cost has increased. Those are the do-it-yourselfers, the open-trailer-and-pull-it-with-your-van are staying home or going to ChumpCar/LeMons. Those who can afford to still race are coming to the track with 48'' rigs. They can afford the 'pro' orgs with single run groups, so they go do that since they have the resources. But, who's left to buy SCCA entry fees? The SCCA target market, especially for open wheel entries, is a small demographic that is shrinking.
When those who can afford to go elsewhere, go elsewhere, and SCCA becomes unaffordable for a middle class income, who is left?
Example; Why didn't people buy Cadillac Allantes? It was called the best $30,000 car in 1987. Problem was, it cost $60k. Those who could afford it weren't going to buy it and bought a Mercedes SL instead that was $80k. Those who couldn't afford it bought a Civic for $10k. So who bought Allantes? No one.
NAF1000 doesn't take away from.SCCA car counts like your other examples do. It adds to it. I'm not the only one who thinks is this has nothing to do with car counts. This all seems to have to do with F3 and F4 and finding a home for old pro cars in 2-3 years time. Who the SCCA expects to drive them at the club level I dunno. Who among us is even going to buy them? Would be nice to get full explanations when they make these proclamations.
Isn't this a prelim anyway? Not yet official?
I agree, NAF1k has nothing to do with it. It's a by product of SCCA lack of 'clubness' for the FB crowd. It's really the result of too many poorly mapped divisions/regions that make divisional racing meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland
I disagree - it's always car counts. Time is money therefore track-time is money. Track day operators know this. SCCA knows this.
I don't know about the F3/F4 cars, but that process is nothing new.
A few wild, crazy off-the-wall, conspiracy theories are floating around.
Why would someone in a perfectly good car with a perfectly good engine with at least 30hp on the entire field self retire before the end of the runoffs? What exactly was in that engine anyway? Was it even legal? What involvement did a certain local CRB member have in it all? How much exactly did he know about it beforehand and exactly who's bidding was he doing it for anyway? Funny how both he and his suspected master were part of this decision to turn FB into FA.
What was he (driver) even really doing at the runoffs competing anyway? Didn't appear he was there to win any race. And even if he didn't self retire (doubtful) what was the real purpose behind this bunch of shenanigans?
Don't know, maybe I should write a book.
Maybe its all just coincidence. Funny if so. Hard to believe too (if coincidental). Stretches the imagination, boggles the mind...
Then there's this car count criteria scam back in May. That backfired spectacularly. Hmmmm. But how's that fit in to all this? Ok, first you don't succeed try, try, again. So now we have this beautiful and official stamped looking prelim notice with of course the usual suspects involved that appeared majestically outta no where. Like a gift from the gods!!! Mentioning by the way, practically everything that was probably in that engine that was in that perfectly good car that somehow retired. Wonder how they are going to pass FB off as an FA? Look no further. Timing of course just eerie as I don't know what. And of course no explanation as to why they are doing it. Probably wouldn't help if they did explain it, wouldn't believe them anyway. Their own fault. They probably shouldn't have been so damn devious.
I give it to 2021 to get official notice from the same dishonest bunch about F3, F4, or both becoming a runoffs class.
Anyway, enjoy.