FC 8x10 wheels..Why not?

Charlie, as about how much advantage/disadvantage these wheels have I suggest you talk to some some of the tire suppliers. I did. I will be including that info in my proposal or request for rule change whatever it's called. And rules get changed in the SCCA all the time. Just read Fastrak.

Secondly, the GTP wheels are not available right now. They are on back order. There was a similar wheel deal I tried out for last year through Primus. But after waiting for 3 months I was told they decide not to go through with it. At first I was told the GTP wheel deal was only available for those competing in the East coast series, So I joined the series. Not sure if that's true anymore. But whatever it is I now I have to wait for the GTP wheels to arrive. Which means I have to borrow wheels for the upcoming race. It appears you have no idea what I have had to go through since last summer to try to get 6x8 wheels. All this B.S. I and others have had to endure when we all have perfectly good 8x10 wheels we can run on.

The GTP deal is a godsent. Thanks Bill Stephens. Imagine where we would be if we didn't have it. But the fact is I don't need the 6x8's to race in the East coast series. I can use my 8x10's. (hey wonder how they can run both types of wheels but the SCCA can't??????????? ...it must be some kind of MIRACLE!!!!!!! The Gods be praised!!!!!). If they can run two types of wheels and still qualify their cars under the same "formula" then why can't the SCCA? Riddle me that one (on the other hand don't, please, gotta enough to worry about all ready).

There must be something to all this because it looks like I have at least 20 letters of support already and I haven't even written the proposal yet. So it ain't just me guys. Here I am like others with 2 sets of perfectly good wheels and I can't race in FC because of some paranoid belief by some that I and others might have such an unfair advantage that we're going to cream the pants offa our FC competitors. It sounds so ubsurd. .

I'd like to buy another set of 8 & 10's... anyone got a set they'd like to sell?

BTW- Jongbloed and Kodiac will make you a great set of wheels to your specs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland

Once again Charlie I'm glad you speak for the entire FC class especially since you are not even a member of it (we've been down this road before haven't we?). As about how much advantage/disadvantage these wheels have I suggest you talk to some some of the tire manufacturers. I did. I will be including that info in my proposal.

---

Once again, Thomas, I have to inform you that I am currently on the FSRAC and, as such, I feel I should have some sort of an opinion. Wheter I am a competitor in the class or not has no bearing on whether a BS flag should be raised.

Quote:

---

Secondly, the GTP wheels are not available right now. They are on order. There was a wheel deal I signed on for last year through Primus. But after waiting for 3 months I was told they decide not to go through with it.

---

Sounds like you should be taking this up with Baytos instead of the Club.

Quote:

---

At first I was told the GTP wheel deal was only available for those competing in the East coast series, So I join the series. Not sure if that's true anymore. But whatever it is I now I have to wait for the GTP wheels to arrive. Which means I have to borrow wheels for the upcoming race. Need me to spell it out for you in alphabet blocks.? Don't ever try to insinuate I lie. You don't have the first frigging clue as to what I have had to go through since last summer to try to get 6x8 wheels.

---

All I can say is that in the last 12 hours we have several sets that are currently available. Just how hard did you look, anyway?

Quote:

---

All this B.S. I and others have had to endure when we all have perfectly good 8x10 wheels we can run on.

The GTP deal is a godsent. Thanks Bill Stephens. Imagine where we would be if we didn't have it. But the fact is I don't need the 6x8's to race in the East coast series. I can use my 8x10's. (hey wonder how they can run both types of wheels but the SCCA can't??????????? ...it must be some kind of MIRACLE!!!!!!! The Gods be praised!!!!!). If they can run two types of wheels and still qualify their cars under the same "formula" then why can't the SCCA? Riddle me that one (on the other hand don't, please, gotta enough to worry about all ready).

---

No riddle, Thomas. The rules don't allow it! Not hard to understand, laddie. There is a series where you can currently run the larger wheels and tires you were left holding when the Primus deal went south. Most people would consider themselves fortunate to be able to do this. You, OTOH, feel bitter. I guess it's matter of perspective.

Quote:

---

There must be something to all this because it looks like I have at least 20 letters of support already and I haven't even written the proposal yet. So it ain't just me guys. Here I am with 2 sets of perfectly good wheels and I can't race because of some paranoid belief by some that I'm going to have such an unfair advantage that I'm going to cream the pants offa my FC competitors. Waaaaaa...

---

Make your proposal to the CRB.

Here is a picture of one of my narrow wheels. If anyone is interested in a swap I can pull them all out of storage and take a close look and pictures of them all.

Backspacing appears to be 3.5" front, 3.75" rear.

Charlie, sorry you got my post before I edited it. My slow fingers replying to your hostile post.

But anyway I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you. I'm getting 6x8 wheels. But I still plan on writing a request for a rule change to allow 8x10 wheels in FC and that's it. End of story. I'll be submitting it with letters of support I've received. Let the SCCA decide. My agony of obtaining 6x8 wheels and whether I knew how to go about getting them has no bearing in this. It's only a backstory.

I started this thread to solicit ideas why the SCCA shouldn't allow 8x10 wheels in FC. I have heard no compelling reason as yet as to why they should not.

Keep those support letters coming.

Another bit of perspective on this:

If the wider wheels are used, then the tire contact patch can be wider. If the contact patch is wider, then a softer compound will be a distinct advantage. The softer compound will give more grip and cornering speed, and may result in faster lap times, especially at shorter tracks like Lime Rock, Gingerman, HPT, etc.

This throws another huge variable into the mix, requiring serious competitors to test and evaluate the options.

I, for one, cannot afford large amounts of testing (money and vacation time), two different types (sizes) of wheels, multiple sets of tires from various manufacturers, etc., to sort this all out.

So, what is a nice idea for the few competitors that have the wider wheels already, is a distinct, costly, disadvantage to me (I only have my 10+ year old 6/8-in wheels), and certainly to others in similar situations.

On page 161 of my GCR, it appears that a Zetech FF2000 is still eligible to run as FA. You are not being excluded from SCCA racing with 8" & 10" wheels, just FC. Why don't you submit a proposal to reduce the minimum weight of the Zetech FF2000 as a FA to make it more competitive instead of proposing that all current (older) FC owners spend $1600/set to upgrade wheels?

As for racing budgets and expenses, you're going to burn enough fuel towing to VIR to pay for a set of wheels. If you really want to race FC in Club Racing, the choice is yours to make, invest in new/different equipment for the race car or blow the money out the tail pipe of your tow vehicle.

Dave

Oh Thomas, you crack me up.

You piss and moan about the Pinto engine and how expensive it is, so you get a Zetech so you don't have to piss and moan about how expensive it is, and now you piss and moan about how expensive wheels are.

Use all the money you saved on Pinto rebuilds and buy 10 sets of wheels. Some test days too.

So pissing and moaning are strengths, right?

Oh, and as for pissing and moaning about minimum weights, well, liposuction is almost as expensive as Pinto engines.

Thanks for entering the Double National. My car was sweet all weekend. Even cold and on GY250's. Looking forward to the competition. Winner buys the first round.

Glad I can still keep ya in stitches Greg.

DaveW. You make a good point (but there is also additional weight and additional rolling mass that counters that increased contact area). Then again we allow un-spec'd wings and un-spec'd shocks, and un-spec'd brakes, etc... All those are variables. Each of those are known to give a performance advantage. Yet nobody in FC seems the least bit aggrieved about allowing those to exists.

$3000 for a Pennon front wing/diffuser, $4000 for exotic shocks, $2000 for special lighten brake calipers, etc. Dare say neither you or I got $$ to put those on our car let alone test them. Yet all perfectly legal to do.

If we allow those to be un-spec then why are we requiring that the wheels be spec?

This is not being done to require that everybody that has 6x8 wheels now be required to buy 8x10 wheels, anymore than those using the wings, shocks, and brakes are requiring everybody to run those.

It being done to allow those with perfect good 8x10 wheels to be able to compete in FC. Which is where the car belongs...and not in FA. (A VD Zetec competing against a Swift--a real FA car?...come on!..Who are you kidding?). They are being excluded for no other reason than some paranoid belief that the 8x10 wheel advantage will outweigh all those other variables (wings, shocks, brakes). Simply not true.

Rhetorical questions:

1) if we have wheels spec'd, why not spec everything?

2) on the other hand, if some things are "free," why not allow everything to be "free?"

Answers:

1) Because there are lots of different cars out there where many spec'd things wouldn't fit, such as dampers, etc. No two cars have the same requirements, so, for instance, spring rates can't be spec'd. One of the class premises is that different makes can fit the rules.

2) We now have a pretty good compromise with spec dimensions, wheels, frame type, limited engines, etc. The more things are opened up, the more finding the right combination costs, and the less chance we have of achieving equal competition.

For those of us who are competitive, don't have huge budgets, but still aspire to win, having a reasonable level of restriction in the rules is the only way we can afford it.

"...being excluded for no other reason than some paranoid belief that the 8x10 wheel advantage will outweigh all those other variables (wings, shocks, brakes). Simply not true."

Proof? :confused:

Some controlled environment testing done in secret somewhere? Data not previously presented?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland

Then again we allow un-spec'd wings and un-spec'd shocks, and un-spec'd brakes, etc... All those are variables. Each of those are known to give a performance advantage. Yet nobody in FC seems the least bit aggrieved about allowing those to exists.

---

Thomas,

I disagree with your premise. Those items are not "un-spec'd." Each of these has specifications that limit them, either in materials or sizes or applications. I believe the pro-spec VD Zetec has/had a different configuration of front wing, no? One that is not allowed in Club racing? Same situation as for the wheels.

Quote:

---

$3000 for a Pennon front wing/diffuser, $4000 for exotic shocks, $2000 for special lighten brake calipers, etc. Dare say neither you or I got $$ to put those on our car let alone test them. Yet all perfectly legal to do.

---

And Dave W. has certainly proven these fancy items are not required to be at the very pointy end of the grid.

Quote:

---

It being done to allow those with perfect good 8x10 wheels to be able to compete in FC. Which is where the car belongs...

---

No, sir. The car with 8/10 inch wheels does not belong in FC. It does not meet the established criteria that define the class. It may compete in FA (and do quite well if the Roeblilng Road times are to be considered) by the rules. You may truly feel it is unfair that you have 8/10 inch wheels around and can not use them in FC. More's the pity. Instead of complaining, write up a cogent and clear letter to the CRB stating your desires and provide logical and clear reasons for your proposed rule change. Then allow them to follow the established rules changing procedures, if they deem your arguments valid.

IMO, just because you already have 8/10 inch wheels and want to run them so as to avoid the inherent cost of bringing your car in line with the existing rules is not a very valid reason, but they may see it differently. And, I still maintain your assertion that the wider wheels will not provide a distinct performance advantage is spurious. The bottom line is that you knew the rules when you chose this course of action. These requirements were not hidden or masked in any way. Everyone who made the committment to run a Zetec car was well aware they would not be allowed to run the cars in FC with the bigger wheels. Now you claim you are being targeted with exclusion founded on paranoia. I don't see it that way.

I hope to do some real testing this year running both 6 & 8s and 8 & 10s. Not that my testing will translate to FC performance gains or losses, but it should be close.

Its my theory (as Dave suggested) that the wide wheels will be great for some tracks and not so much for others. I'll be willing to bet that the lap times at Road Atlanta are nearly the same, but at Barber the wider tires should do the trick.

If at the faster tracks the wide tires don't hurt too much I'll always go wide... they do look very cool. I just hope they don't always run that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carnut169

I'll always go wide... they do look very cool. I just hope they don't always run that way.

---

This has been a "known" issue in Atlantics for years, and is why their tires have gone from 15" wide contact patch over the past 10 years down to just 11" now...the narrowest that will fit the minimum permitted 14" wide rear rim. In Atlantics (I know, not the same car as an FC...) the skinniest tires are the fastest. This is also the reason the old SuperVees are permitted the 6" and 8" wheels in Atlantics -- to help make up for their sucky engines... :D

Stan

Sean, Stan...exactly my point. Bigger wheels = heavier wheels and more rolling mass = equal or even slower lap times. The wider wheels (tires) have no proven advantage at all.

Having run both the 6x8's and the 8x10's myself I'm pretty darn sure that the 8x10's have no real valued advantage over the 6x8's. They may even be slower than the 6x8's. They certainly appear to be that way at Sears Point (Infineon) which is hardly a fast speed track. Therefore it should favor the 8x10's. But seems to me that it doesn't. This is seems especially true when running the heavier 8x10 radials vs. the lighter 6x8 bias tires. I've run bias tires on 6x8's and radial tires on 8x10's with similar useage and I can't tell the difference.

Not only are the 8x10 wheels heavier the tires they use are heavier. Talk about stacking the deck in the other guys (smaller wheels) favor. Whew..and you guys are worried about an advantage? Talk about perception problems...

The Pennon wings, exotic shocks and lighten brakes have an known advantage and they provide an advantage at every track.. No dening that. Everybody knows it. Yet they allow those items to run in FC. So what's the big deal with the 8x10's?

There's no reason to exclude the 8x10 wheels other than just stubborn obstinance.

The wheels belong on the F2000 car and the F2000 car belongs in FC. Not FA.

From the peanut gallery:

Am I the only one who is frustrated with "stubborn obstinance" of a few while at the same time finding it hard to be sympathetic to someone's desire to change a rule that was in place when they made their choice of classes and cars?

The "stubborn obstinance" is what will eventually lead to the demise of the FC and FF classes, while the "stubborn obstinance" has provided the rule stability over time that has lead to some other classes' success. Go figure :confused:

Call it lazy, but I'd rather not fight the system-take the easy way out and find another place to race. Let those refusing to change enjoy the stability and success of their class or be left scratching their heads in their empty sandbox wondering what happened. Meanwhile, I am going racing.

Generally, rules stability is a good thing. It protects people's investments and promotes closer racing.

If someone comes along with a good idea for a change, all they need to do is convince the rules makers and competitors that it is a good thing for the class.

If competitors do not seem receptive to the new proposal, find out why not, work with them and try to come up with a good compromise.

Sounds like a piece of cake. :-).

OK a compromise. You can run the larger wheels provided the contact patch of the tire is the same contact patch of the 6" and 8" tires currently available ..... Mulitple grooves not allowed. Now, please contact Goodyear, Hoosier, Avon and other to have your tires manufactured for a small fortune.

Truth be known and stated multiple times by many. It is a FORMULA CLASS. The formula is established. This is why no one is complaining about the Pennon Wings and the fancy shocks......... because they meet the rules. PERIOD

I am very sorry for those that bought a Zetec Pro Car and the series did not provide the playground you were looking for. Yes, we have a place in SCCA for you. It is a regional class called FS. Also, if you bite the bullet and buy $750 in used wheels, put in a restrictor and add some weight you can adapt your car to the FC national class. Seems pretty easy....yes!

Keith

Dave W said it best.

It is not up to the club to provide a place for anyone to run what they want to if it is decided to be detrimental to the people already vested in it. (cost of multiple sets of wheels, testing, revising geometry to optomize for them, etc etc)

Yes we have whizzy shocks and high dollar motors. But the insanity has to stop somewhere in a manner of speaking. We are CLUB racers and some level of effort to contain costs must be reasonably made. We are not here to accomodate everything that someone wants to bring in.

As Stan relates, there is a minimum wheel width for FA. The reason for this is about 1988 or 1989 someone showed up for the runoffa at Atlanta, before the chicane etc was added.

He had a Ralt RT-4, IIRC with Super vee wheels and was an absolute bullet in a straight line and handily won the race.

Well someone was smart and said, we need to stop the oinsanity now and thus, there are minimum rim widths in FA.

There are times and places that wider wheels will be ab advantage. But the cost would be ridiculous.

Another time when the rules were changed to accomodate a few and I wound up with a car that had finished a fighting third at the Runoffs and when I got it the next spring, it was a good Regional car at best. Because someone or group wanted their car allowed in and they were let in and a whole bunch of very competitive cars became obsolete overnight.

So if someone wants to run 8 and 10 wheels on a Ztec, run FS or FA.

Is F2000 an under powered or under tired class? Sorry, never driven one but know that FF is definitely an under powered or momentum class.

Every formula seems to fall on one side or the other. Utlimate performance is either limited by the amount of power avaialble or the amount of grip available in the formula, i.e. adding more power to an undertired class won't change its performance appreciatively, or adding more tires to an under powered class results in the same. Where does F2000 land? Nascar, CART and most other top series are under tired; obviulsy FV & FF are underpowered. Atlantic I had heard back in the day were about as balanced tire to hp than any formula i had heard of and it was said then that was key to its longevity at the level its at.

Note, I don't agree with the idea of yet another paramter to optimize around for amateur racing. A finite set is best, and since engine and tires are the two pirmary contributors to performance (the dampers & difusers are fine tuning in comparison) keeping those constant for me would seem to keep a healthier formula. Most every other form of major open wheel racing (& NASCAR) use a spec tire, so why would go even further away?

Steve sums it up pretty well "run FS or FA" if you feel the need to run different wheels, no-one is stopping you from racing.


PROBLEM SOLVED!

No one has to go to the added expense of buying new wheels which makes it all the more incluse for EVERYONE.

You will obviously be on the track with all of the other continentals anyway.

The $5 trophy can't mean that much......

For crying out $#%^@*&^$# loud!!!!....I really do have to spell it out in alphabet blocks!!! $#@^%$%*#$%#@&%^&.....You guys just don't get it...

I'm not trying to increase car counts in FS and FA. I'm trying to increase car counts in FC!!

I saw something once at the zoo swinging from a tree that had more sense than some of you guys..

You are the ones always sobbing we're losing numbers. Now you turn your noses up at a perfectly good solution. There are at least 20 F2000 cars on the West coast alone with 8x10 wheels that are excluded from running in FC. Christ O'Mighty...you know...this class deserves to be taken over by the Spec Miata cancer. You don't even know how to save yourselfs when you are thrown a life preserver. Go ahead DROWN. I'll just sit here laughing watching you as you go under...It's hysterical!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland

For crying out $#%^@*&^$# loud!!!!....I really do have to spell it out in alphabet blocks!!! $#@^%$%*#$%#@&%^&.....You guys just don't get it...

I'm not trying to increase car counts in FS and FA. I'm trying to increase car counts in FC!!

I saw something once at the zoo swinging from a tree that had more sense than some of you guys..

You are the ones always sobbing we're losing numbers. Now you turn your noses up at a perfectly good solution. There are at least 20 F2000 cars on the West coast alone with 8x10 wheels that are excluded from running in FC. Christ O'Mighty...you know...this class deserves to be taken over by the Spec Miata cancer. You don't even know how to save yourselfs when you are thrown a life preserver. Go ahead DROWN. I'll just sit here laughing watching you as you go under...It's hysterical!!

---

UUUUhhhhhhhh

Thomas, maybe you ought to reflect a bit on these responses. Just because you think something is the best thing since sliced bread, doesn't mean that everyone will. Nor that it is what is best for the situation. Just because we don't ALL agree with you, doesn't mean we are all stupid. Think about it.

I just got back from Roebling Road with my unrestricted zetec in FA. Had 8&10 wheels with Hoosier 35 compound. Roebling is a high speed track where aero is set up for low drag. Grant it I had the Cooper 06 setup on the car (high downforce rear wing and stock diffuser) but without the extra HP Cole Morgan would of had the better car. With the rear wing trimmed out, he had about 1 mph higher top speed than me. The end result was the FA set up was only 1/2 of a second quicker per lap, take away the extra HP and loose about 1 second per lap or better.

Thomas, I think you'll have much better chance of success if you try and understand why there are many people that are not open to your idea. If you truly understand their reasons, you can work constructively towards your goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland

For crying out $#%^@*&^$# loud!!!!....I really do have to spell it out in alphabet blocks!!! $#@^%$%*#$%#@&%^&.....You guys just don't get it...

I'm not trying to increase car counts in FS and FA. I'm trying to increase car counts in FC!!

I saw something once at the zoo swinging from a tree that had more sense than some of you guys..

You are the ones always sobbing we're losing numbers. Now you turn your noses up at a perfectly good solution. There are at least 20 F2000 cars on the West coast alone with 8x10 wheels that are excluded from running in FC. Christ O'Mighty...you know...this class deserves to be taken over by the Spec Miata cancer. You don't even know how to save yourselfs when you are thrown a life preserver. Go ahead DROWN. I'll just sit here laughing watching you as you go under...It's hysterical!!

---

UUUUhhhhhh Dave, I didn't say anybody was stupid....those aren't my words... and part of that last bit was a joke. Looks like you didn't quite get that part of it. (did ya at least laugh....just a little?) Anyway, this thing is looking pretty raw. Don't know if we can beat anymore daylight outta it. You guys are more than willing to try without me. It's been a real hoot. Ah, come on...you had SOME FUN didn't ya?

Now time to find a nice serene garden somewhere, a fortress of solitude, and reflect on all that has past posted.

Two years ago I bought a set of used 6&8 for $550, Shep has his listed today for twice that, and ya think there's no supply problem? I suppose we'll have to see if he gets that much at sale.

Some rules stability is good. Too much is just as bad as not enough. Stagnation is just as deadly as needless escalation. This entire situation is a prime example of these forces colliding. Stagnation leads to new classes out of desparation (FSCCA, F1000, F600???).

USAC, in the days when Indy cars weren't spec - used to put the kabosh on needless escalation, thoroughly pissing off influential owners (Granitelli turbine, Penske pushrod-mercedes, etc) that had the deep pockets to find speed at any cost. Both of those were seen as a threat to car count because you either got one or went home. So, they were allowed to run for one year (ya got us there, we didn't think of that one) and then legislated away. I'm on the fence about ground effects - they may have seen them as making the cars safer and more predictable. Say what you will about their incompetence in other areas, but they had a decent handle on stuff like this.

The SCCA on the other hand rarely has the balls to say no. I can think of a couple of things: Diffusers and 5" clutches. Both are perfectly legal. Both make the car faster. Both are short-lived expensive items requireing frequent replacement, or at most are screw-up intolerant. They do nothing to improve the quality or competition of the racing. They only increase the cost of the cars and as much as some folks think not, I believe there's a direct relationship between the cost of the car and the number racing. I'm sure there are other examples, but the only thing I remember the SCCA saying no to was Corvettes with cut-down windshields (mid 1980's) and Fran-AM. Both good decisions (one can question how the whole Fran-am thing came about however).

Gradual change is good and necessary, but you need a long-term plan and target. How many of you want to work for a company that makes a widget and has not plans to ever make anything other than that widget? I refuse to believe that our small niche in this sport is any different. What we want to avoid are sudden technology injections that are costly, required to be competitive, and do little more than make the cars faster. On the other hand, stuff that increases longevity, reduces operating costs, and promotes closer competition are good things.

Stuff happens out of desparation because of lack of leadership. Sudden, well intentioned, but not necessarily well-thought out changes are often the result. Stan is trying to provide some leadership and long term thinking, but he's not revealed all his thinking yet. Charlie balances that out to some degree, as he's more a traditionalist. We would be better off debating the processes and long term direction than individual proposed changes, but at least there's a debate going on.

Inaction, is action, it just takes longer to see the results.

Oh Thomas.

I just dropped down from the upper branches to say this:

YOU bought the Zetech.
YOU knew what the rules were when you bought the Zetech.
YOU are the one who is NOW unwilling to buy the wheels YOU knew were required.
YOU want to increase participation, but only on your terms.
YOU want us to support your piss-poor? decision?

YOU can prove that there is no competitive advantage by buying a set of wheels.
YOU can do the testing required to offer proof the the CRB.

(since this thread was really about you, I thought I'd throw in a few YOU'S)

See ya next week at the track. If you'd like, I'll waive your wheel requirement, and I'll lobby everyone else in the group to waive your wheel requirement, I'll get the Chief Steward to waive your wheel requirement and I'll issue you a Tech Sticker with 8 and 10" wheels. The we'll see if the proof is in the pudding. If YOU don't kick our asses, it will not be the tires right? And if you do, then it had to be the tires, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland

UUUUhhhhhh Dave, I didn't say anybody was stupid....those aren't my words... and part of that last bit was a joke. Looks like you didn't quite get that part of it. (did ya at least laugh....just a little?) Anyway, this thing is looking pretty raw. Don't know if we can beat anymore daylight outta it. You guys are more than willing to try without me. It's been a real hoot. Ah, come on...you had SOME FUN didn't ya?

Now time to find a nice serene garden somewhere, a fortress of solitude, and reflect on all that has past posted.

---

Thomas,

Yeah, I did have a few laughs over this, but in the most part, unless you can see someone's face, or hear their inflection, you can't tell if they are joking. I had hoped it was at least partially a joke. You impress me as being pretty intelligent, but being apt to place your foot in your mouth on occasion. I hoped to provoke a response like this from you, because it (the post I commented on) really needed to be clarified.

Good luck this year.

Quote:

---

"The SCCA on the other hand rarely has the balls to say no. I can think of a couple of things: Diffusers and 5" clutches. Both are perfectly legal. Both make the car faster. Both are short-lived expensive items requireing frequent replacement, or at most are screw-up intolerant. They do nothing to improve the quality or competition of the racing."

---

Just an interested observer in this discussion, but Rick's comment begs a question: What items or modifications would you consider to have improved the quality or competition of the racing? I have heard this statement thrown around in other discussions and I always wondered about these marvelous items. I'm just slightly being a smartass, but seriously, can you name a few items that improve the quality or competition of amateur racing?
A few examples may help me understand what is meant by this argument.

Thanks for helping my simple mind get a grasp on this idea.

Steve H

Steve- you bring up some interesting points (this should probably be a new thread, but what the hey).

One thing that has been pointed out is FC is a Formula class, not a spec class. A spec class by definition gives the closest competition, but maybe not the best. I contend that one of the reasons there is so much crashing in the junior spec classes is because the cars are so close, the drivers have to take extraordinary chances to get ahead.

A 'formula' class allows innovation within a set of rules and 'the unfair advantage' by being smart enough to build the better mousetrap. Yes, its more expensive than spec, but I think far more interesting and healthy for the class in the long run.

There have been a number of items that I can think of over the years that have improved the quality (if not the competition): AP clutches- in the dark ages we used stock clutches in FF and had to change them more often than I care to think about. Along that vein-the new Taylor clutch slave cylinder- how many times have you had to split a bellhousing to replace o rings in a VD? Brake pads, rotors, improved cv joints...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Wright

One thing that has been pointed out is FC is a Formula class, not a spec class.... A 'formula' class allows innovation within a set of rules and 'the unfair advantage' by being smart enough to build the better mousetrap. Yes, its more expensive than spec, but I think far more interesting and healthy for the class in the long run.

---

Hi, my name is Steve and i'm the newbie. The above makes A LOT of sense. Yes it also means the guys with the large bank accounts will be able to develop their cars to the Formula faster than those of us who live in our enclosed trailer. Bob makes a good point.

Open up the Aero formula for real fun, Please, please please I have some people who would like to do some interesting things but hit a few roadblocks with the Formula

Charles Finelli

Charles... you drinking again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zebra

Open up the Aero formula for real fun, Please, please please I have some people who would like to do some interesting things but hit a few roadblocks with the Formula

Charles Finelli

---

Is this a serious request?

As has been suggested before, if you want a formula car with unlimited aero (actually unlimited everything) there is a class already available to play in. It's called Formula S.

I don't know how I missed this one. Being a foot in mouth guy too I will join in.

There is no way 8's and 10's should be allowed!!!!! They are faster dah.

First the Alum head and now this!!!!!!!!!! All that crap from the engine builders about no good cores, just none of the cores they want to use...something like 1973 casting #. We were duped into that rule change so they could sell us all new $4000 heads.

The Alum head IS faster!!

The 8 and 10's ARE faster!!

So now I will have to go buy 12 new wheels too!:mad: :mad:

If we let this one slip by too WE ALL WILL HAVE TO SPEND $5000!!!!!!!!!!!:eek: :skull:

If we vote for this whats next..... Hillary??;)

Thomas: There are only 2 FC's on the grid for next weekend. That gives you 5 track sessions to do back to back testing of your precepts. If you can talk Steve and Rick into changing tires during the practice and qualifying sessions you could have true data comparisons.

I promise not to protest any results as long as you don't have contact. ;)

Are you game for the Great Experiment?

Greg

do you mean I can turn down my HP and run too ??? I dont have small wheels but the rest is FC legal ........ or could be ...... with a few key strokes ........
or does any one have a few 6" wheels ?? I have 4 ..8" ........

Ill be there any way ...........:rolleyes:

Thomas ??? ...... <echo>
Greg ..??? ...... <echo>.......


Im about 95% JK ...........but I couldnt resist the generous offer ..........:D

Greg: I'd do it because I think I remember Thomas promised to spank you too. Last year, right here in this forum. But I'd use the 10 and 8's so there'd be no unfair advanage. ;)

You guys can go head to head, add some data to TC's experiment, and have yourseves a race. I'll watch. I'll try to keep up as best I can in that old chassis with the skinny wheelz. Brenner can take pictures. We can post the results er..data..right here. Hafta warn ya tho TC, I'm changin' gears this weekend, changin' the oil too. That old POS is gonna be loaded for BEAR!

In all seriousness, if you really want to run in FC, I have a set of wheel you can use. They need tires though, the ones that are on them have 4 heat cycles.

DID Thomas REALLY say he was going to kick my ass ??? IN public ?? SILLY man !!! I thought one of his goals this year was not to embarrass himself on THIS forum.........OR on the track !! ............LOL

maybe Ill have to think on this FC thing ....... if you have wheels for me ........then its just key stokes and pedal work !!

..........hummmmm.......

6 days .....

Guys:

Sorry to have to play the spoiler again, but this "test" you are proposing will prove nothing that any halfway decent engineer or race mechanic already knows:

1 - The cars will accellerate slightly slower because of the greater MOI of the heavier wheels and tires.

2 - The cars will be a bit slower in a straight line because of the extra drag.

3 - Assuming that there is a diameter difference ( I honestly don't know - never looked at the spec comparisons), geometry may be adversly affected - camber curves may need to be VERY different.

4 - If the car was at max width with the smaller tires, with the wider tires offset inwards to match the max width, scrub radiuses will be adversly affected. Without making major changes to the upright geometry, this will necessitate caster changes that may be out of the range of available adjustment

5 - If the wider tires are used on a car that wasn't already at max width, the above doesn't apply, assuming that the center of the contact patch can be placed at the same widths, though caster changes may still be necessary for decent steering effort.

6 - If the tires have to place all their extra width inboard, suspension interferance can become an issue, especially front lock availibility. Front wing interferance might also become an issue on many cars.

7 - Differences in lateral and vertical tire spring rate will necessitate different springs and shock valving ( already necessary because of the greater unsprung weight). These differences might also necessitate changes to the RC heights.

There's a lot more, but you should get the gist of what I'm saying : Just throwing on a wider set of tires proves NOTHING one way or the other. It is ONLY when the car gets optimized (which might necessitate cutting and welding) for the wider tires that you can start to get legitimate answers.

Sorry!

Richard,
In this case I think the situation is that folks have already been running 8s & 10s on their VDS in the Cooper zetec pro spec. So throwing on 8s & 10s is not an issue. Going back to 6s & 8s may require set up changes...

Rumor has it that Sean O'Connell is going to test his F1000 (FB) at the Road Atlanta test day with both 8s & 10s, and 6s & 8s, both on fresh rubber. Same track, same day, same car, same driver. Should be interesting... at least for Sean. I'm already training to do my Crashcar, over-the-wall rapid tire change, impersonation. The last time I did it was at HOLY Topeka for Dave. :D 1:50 and change...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

1:50 and change...

---

Slacker! Back in the day at Le Mans the driver used to have time to hop out for a smoke, a glass of wine and a personal pit stop while the mechanics took 3 or 4 minutes to service the car. :eek:

Froggie:

This whole thread has been a debate about the vices and/or virtues of allowing 8s & 10s, and whether or not it will force cars not designed for them - ie - all current Club FCs - to switch.

So, this "experiment" is supposedly being performed to answer that exact question, when in reality it cannot do anything more than highlight the obvious - that a car designed and optimized for 6s & 8s is most likely going to underperform with the larger shoes just thrown on. It does NOT answer the question as to whether or not a 6&8 car will be faster or slower with 8s & 10s once optimized, or whether or not there will be "preferred" packages at different tracks - ie - one package at Road America vs the other at Gratten. To prove that one way or the other will take someone willing to spend the $$$ and time, and who is at the pointy end of the spectrum both engineering-wise and driving-wise.

Not to denigrate those who plan to do this test, but that isn't the scenario we have here! ;)

If anyone really thinks this test will truely answer the question, they are only kidding themselves.

Let's say that this test goes as I expect - the cars are slower - and the rules are changed based on these results. Now, that hypothetical monied and capable car owner spends the time and $$ modifying and testing and finds that indeed the 6s & 8s are faster at RA under all conditions, and the 8s & 10 are faster at Gratten once the suspension is redesigned, shocks changed, springs changed (or worse yet - faster on hot days, but slower on cold days!).

I'll leave it up to those here to fill in the blanks about what has just been done to the class!

The simple fact is that your car needs to conform to the rules NOT the rules conform to your car. The guys who bought the Cooper spec cars knew that their cars were not legal in FC without the proper mapping and proper wheel size. So just because the series that you bought your car for is now defunct you want the rules changed so that you are now legal in FC:confused: . Cooper spec cars are legal in FA already so no one is stopping you from running. If you want to run FC then , Thomas buy some 6" & 8" wheels.

JR

I agree with Richard that this test will only tell us how the different sizes effect MY car at Road Atlanta. I run RA often so for me this is fantastic info. Not sure yet if I'll share it or let all the guys w/ new F1000s find out for themselves (I'm going to need all the help I can get for the ARRC)... ;)


I also own equal sets of wide and narrow so no additional $$ other than testing both sets.

I do think that the test will give us some clue as to what might happen if we allowed the wider tires on an FC as my car is very close to an FC in terms of aero, weight, power, etc.


Now to confuse matters more the wider tires are actually a bit lighter than the narrow ones! As weighed today both used sets, one on 5 spoke OZ, one on Jongbloeds (I'll weigh the naked rims later when my tires arrive, but I remember the rears were the same and the OZ fronts weighed less).
OZ & Hoosier 6 & 8's: Front- 19.8, rear- 24.2lbs
Jongbloed & Hoosier 8 & 10's: Front- 19.8, rear- 23.8.

Hmmm.

Aero drag is not so clear-cut eithor.
OZ front: 21" x 8" (to sidewall buldge) and 6.5" of tread
OZ rear: 22.125"x 10.25 and 8.5" of tread

the wider tires are
front: 20.25"x9.5" with 8.5" of tread
rear: 22.375"x11.750" with 10" of tread.

So the fronts, while wider are .750 shorter- wonder how that plays into determining drag?

Rears are both taller and wider but are 4lbs less each...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/carnut169/8oz.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ut169/8oz2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ut169/10jb.jpg


I guess I don't personally care if 8 & 10s are allowed in FC or not. If the plan is to eventually combine classes then having the wider wheels make sense. If not, leave the skinny wheels in place.
FWIW The guys at Hoosier firmly believe the 6 & 8s will be better in almost every condition. They said it was the case in both FM and FA- going skinny meant going fast. Too bad the fat ones look so cool.

But we will see.....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...51_2678_01.jpg

Sean:

Good info on the size and weight differences.

I think that you will find that the wider tires will indeed be heavier when mounted on like manufacturers rims - Jongbloeds tend to be very light, and OZ's very heavy.

Aero footprint-wise, one of the biggest factors is the width of the contact patch, and therefore the width of the high pressure wedge of air that is being pushed just ahead of it. Wider = more drag (and lift). Some old SAE papers actually show that both ( drag and lift) can be decreased almost linearly with grooves in the tread, but obviously at the expense of contact patch area. Overall width played a larger role than height, but the percentage differences were small. The shape of the shoulder ( how square or round) played a major role.

The wheel design also will play a major role in aero drag - try a spin coast down test with different designs and you'll be in for a surprise.

With the current body width rules, almost nothing can be done on an FC to mitigate the aero drag from the wider tires. F1000 with it's rules, well, that's another story altogether!

The next big factor will be getting heat in the rubber - generally a bit harder to do with the bigger tires as the unit loading of the contact patch is decreased - but this can be overcome quite a lot with the right shock valving, and gets helped big time when the track temps are sky-high - when the skinny tires are more prone to over-heating unless you go to harder compounds. Fat tires will generally allow the use of much softer compounds, even in the high heat situations. Under these conditions, the fat tires will almost assuredly have a big advantage at tight, twisty tracks.