Printable View
Ric wrote (at the end): FF is alive and well in england. maybe something can be learned there....ric
Are you aware that FF in England is completely different than it is in the US? The Kent is gone. Do you think that SCCA FF drivers/racers would accept that?
Dave
We would have had it been done when the class still had a chance at relevancy, say circa 1994. But that ship has sailed and is not a solution for 2009 and forward, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Gomberg
Tim
Tim W -
Hence my earlier point about the classes either growing and adapting or simply aging to the point of extinction. We can't have both as I see it; everything has a life cycle including racecars and classes. There are simply too many diverging interests and opinions within the CLub to resolve the problem so all that will likely ever happen is a continuing band-aid solution.
The club propsered in the 60's, 70's and into the 80's because they were essentially working with a clean sheet of paper; today unless the BOD is willing to take a lot of heat there are too many competing interests to address. Ask yourself this: If you were going to start with a clean sheet of paper to form a racing organization which classes would you adopt? Would it make any sense to adopt all that we currently have? If it doesn't make sense for a new organization why does it make sense for SCCA to do so? Is there a provision in the GCR or By Laws which entiel one to a perpetual place to run their car?
John:
Arguably, SCCA FF competition currently is vintage racing, as you say. Very few new cars, very few new drivers. The train to make SCCA FF a viable ladder rung has left the station and no matter what you make FF into now its not going to be that going forward. That opportunity expired before a decision was made.
But, it has become a pretty viable place for old guys like me with my 16 year old car to have fun. I would be much more excited about racing formula ford now had the class evolved over the prime points in its life. But now its simply too late to make a drastic change so supporting it in its current vintage form for some finite period of time seems the best for the club, IMO.
What would have been a good decision in 1994 likely can't have the same effect 15 years later. But don't get me wrong, I'd much rather race a duratec FF in 30 car fields. I just don't have any confidence it will happen here; its strong in England & Aus/NZ because they don't have Pro FMazda, Skippy, etc so the user base is not nearly as diluted for those future world beaters.
Tim
Apply John's last post to Ric's re FF...What did happen to the FF spec migration in England and why did it happen? As Tim says, maybe that boat sailed, but maybe it hasn't in some other classes (FC?) Sometimes things only get done when there is nothing to lose; I hope issues can be addressed before that happens both on a class and club basis. There's enough experience and brain power on this forum alone to accomplish it.
Apparently you are not aware that the Kent FFs have had a resurgence over the last few years with numerous championships - it is hardly "gone" from the English scene. Those hundreds of cars that were produced over there are still running and very, very popular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Gomberg
However, it seems that over here the Kent engine, while no one wants to change away from it, will probably be one of the reasons behind a slow and continual decline of the class.
Yes, I am aware of the Kent FF resurgence there - but it is not "the" FF class any longer. As I understand it, it is more like vintage FF.
Dave
Considered "vintage" because the Duratec conversion into a pre-2000 chassis is an expensive challenge that most people aren't interested in doing in the UK. While the idea of a new engine option in FF is appealing to many, the reality is that older cars aren't going to be very receptive to new engines without costly conversions. Duratecs in newer cars offer more Kents on the second-hand market, much like the 2-liter Pinto here in FC.
What needs to happen in US FF, IMO, is to continue improving the existing Kent engine formula with more durable engine parts options, a new block source, and other parts on the car to reduce overall costs and bring some form of progress to the aging class (alloy calipers, etc). The progress made over the last few years has been good for the engine durability and parts sourcing but certainly more can be done. Like Tim mentioned, the horse is already out of the barn on bringing new engines into this class. Too little, too late.
Finding engines shouldn't be drawing blood from a stone. This is the only class that suffers this problem, and that does not spell a bright future for the class.
Mainly because the resultant old chassis/new engine balance is terrible - it's bad enough with the Duratec, and it was horrible with the Zetec.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
Yet, for some reason, there are a sizeable number of Duratec cars being retrofitted with Kent motors!
Hmmm... go figure! ;)
As long as they were plentiful and durable, another option would be nice. It's just not realistic anymore for this class in this country. The best solution is to increase the life of the Kent with more durable and plentiful parts (like already done with the pistons, head and crank). If an optional block source could be developed, a lot of grief would go away I'm guessing.
China can make everything for 10¢ on the dollar, why can't we get new Kent blocks?
At least the value of a Kent engine you build is going to hold some value for a while. :rolleyes: That's the only thing keeping me from giving up on the class completely. I know that unless I blowed 'er up, it won't be a total loss from the cash I'm putting into it.
What are the car counts of formula/sports racers compared to the tin tops? What is the club base ratio of owners and participants of each group?
Would the SCCA be better served focusing on one group of racer than trying to make everyone happy?
If the SCCA hypothetically were to keep GT1/Trans Am and let the sedans go to say, NASA, and just focus on formula cars and sports racers, would the car counts increase with the increased track time and focus?
And speaking of Formula Ford options, does anyone know how far the Zetec can be "detuned" backwards? Could it get to, maybe about 115hp? Would a car that could be bought as a FF or a FC (with added wings, new wheels and a computer re-map) be a solution to anything?
Maybe the solution lies in properly identifying the problem, too. What is SCCA? What does it want to be? Should it be everything to everyone? Is it a sports car club for recreational racers or a feeder system for pro racing? Does it want growth and development or just stability and consistency? Should Formula Ford need to be a growth class or is it destined to be a vintage class before too long? Does it matter?
Sorry, too much Easter candy tonight plus hydrocodone for bruised ribs and I'm having trouble keeping one train of thought... :o
:yellowflag:
Doug, you nailed the REAL question! Where is the SCCA going? What does the SCCA want to look like in 5 or 10 years? It's my impression that the SCCA lacks a vision for the future. Does it want to be pro road racing (as it was in the 60's)? Does it want to be amateur racing, with a place to race everthing for everyone? Does it want to be a training grounds for rising stars?
Right now the SCCA "muddles through," taking the path of least resistance, but not taking a path towards a destination. It move in one direction until there is some resistance, and then it moves away from the resistance.
The club has tried to reduce the number of classes by limiting the number of groups at the Runoffs. That's one way, and a politically-expedient way. Then it met some resistance, and it modified its original plan due to the resistance. Just as with FF, suggestions on adding new engines have been welcomed by some and derided by others, so the club stalled--paralyzed due to resistance. Indecision is a decision in itself, and is usually worse than making a wrong decision.
Larry Oliver
International Racing Products
I like this, and it's exactly what a friend and I discussed over beers the other night. A de-tuned 2.0L zetec - smaller restrictor plate, different map, rev limit - to bring it down to FF levels. Allows easy back-and-forth between FF and FC (wings/tires/map/restrictor), & bolts up to the current trannies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
Gary
One car, one engine, potentially 3 classes (FF, FC and FS), and maybe even FB if the owner was so inclined. How inviting would that be to a father of a 15 year old looking to start racing in a year or two? One cash outlay and maybe 2 or three rungs in the experience ladder. Would be easier on the car builders, too, and maybe even more inviting to them.
I think SCCA needs to pick a lane and stick with it. Decide what they want to be, then do it. Aimlessly wandering from one focus to another does nothing but perpetuate my ADHD. Trying to please everyone and be everything to everybody handcuffs the club when trying to do anything progressive or even stabilizing.
Until that is done, I don't believe that anything can be fixed or get better. It's a 12-step process that starts with identifying and accepting that there is a problem. Until that happens, nothing we write or say will have any impact.
Good analogy, and good luck getting leadership to admit to a problem!Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
Yes, this was discussed during the FF ad-hoc advisory committee a few years ago. The advantage of the detuned zetec is that it fits up to the current cars bell housings making a non-club FF conversion somewhat simpler (though not simple). However, the Zetec is already out of production in this country and never was marketed as a 1.6L in the states, which made it tough to be a go forward long term solution. When I inquired with my contacts at Ford, he did not think the number of zetecs manufactured was near that of the pinto or kent but hard numbers were difficult to gather.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary_T
But a detuned 2.0l zetec since its arguably the go forward continental motor was also a discussion that had some merit.
Also discussed was the Duratec at the 145 bhp that the UK & Aus/NZ series run and modifying the kent to get to similar levels (its bottom end is the same as a BDA, right?) which had some merit since many 'modern' FFs are converted or dual designed as FF & FC now anyway, so have adequate gearbox & brakes to handle the higher power.
Is this becoming the now 'late winter FF engine thread?'
Tim
No, it just follows me everywhere because I can't find a damn engine that isn't $8,000. LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimW
Even with a newer more modern engine the Class will probably never attract the Young drivers that have been driving Karts for many years. They will be excited by the Motorcycle powered cars with their High reving engine sound and sequential shift 6 speed gearboxs.:revs: When Ralph Firman got back into building Formula cars he could see that as the future. I don't care for the package :thumbsdown: but I'm not one of those Wizz kids thats on the way up the ladder!
It probably makes more sense (in this country) to keep the Kent engine as any big $ change with the idea of making it more appealing to the younger drivers will probably not have the desired affect?
Just my 2 cents.
To the original question of the thread... Are there too many classes in SCCA national racing?
And the answer is.... Probably not!
LOOK at Stan's 25 years of data again. 22 or 23 classes over those years and a blip up to 30 in the last 3.
The number that is TROUBLESUM is the sine wave over the 140 average entry's per national race! The population of racers has grown, the disposable income has grown, the number of people racing has grown and the number of national races per year has remained around 70 yet, no growth in national entry's. That's the WHY question.
If you assume there are some (yes some) guys under 40 racing in SCCA, the classes available has remained pretty steady (but for the last 3 years) what has happened to the car counts PER CLASS? Accepting that there HAS to be more people road racing in the USA then there was in the 1980's that leads to the conclusion that a LOT of previous SCCA grided cars have moved on to the alternative clubs AND/OR away from National racing. Why?
1.
As Doug mentioned in another thread, the SCCA novice licensing program is WEAK! The novice licensing program is why too 'involved', stressful on the car and driver due to the way the schools (IF ANY) are scheduled and run, a rediculously streached out process. This IS having a major impact on the total number of drivers licensed in SCCA as their primary club.
2.
Cost of running Nationals is way too high. Yes, there are those who race for nothing MORE then to make the Runoffs (indeed a worthy and rewarding goal). But for those lacking the budget (but, having the credentials to hold a national license) there is NO incentive to enter (or pay) the cost of running the local national races if you don't plan on going to the Runoffs.
That is why I wonder what Stan's graphs would look like (average entry's, races run) for the SCCA Regional racing program over the past 25 years?
3.
A huge issue with most drivers (be it regional or national) is track time. Really, to some extent that is NOT an issue of quantity of classes. After all, that's been pretty steady at about 23 or 24 till the 'bump'.
"Back in the day" before all the restrictions, the race day started with cars on track at 8:00AM and we ran till the track was too dark to see (somewhere between 6:30 and 8:00PM) if needed! Not in todays world and that more then anything has eaten up the track time per group. The time/noise restrictions limit racing schedules to a very tight budget per group.
Can something be done about this with the number of classes in national racing? Oh sure, just eliminate enough classes to wipe out an ENTIRE run group and you've freed up a lot of time!
4.
Some say, the quality of the drivers in national racing are a 'level above' those running in regionals. In the totality of that comment I say.... Hogwash! I've seen enough races in my 50 years of going to the track to recognize the UN-truth of that. There are plenty of regionally licensed drivers that could/can/ and do out perform or equal many national licensed drivers. There are national licensed drivers who under preform their regional conterparts consistently.
The point? Somebody once suggested finding a way to incorporate the Runoffs qualifying program to include the regional racing program. Which isn't a bad idea.
Right now, we "import" national Stewards, tech people, registrars, T&S people to any National race (at a HUGE COST driving the entry fee way up) to ensure a national race is run properly. Sure, there is merit in that.
But being quite honest, our local staff of these specialties are PERFECTLY qualified and highly professional. When the 'carpet baggers' show up, I find the entire environment for the national races suddenly becomes UN-participant friendly and rather 'snobbish' toward us local 'hicks'. Could this be another reason for the decline in national participation?
Someone talked about making ALL races a way to qual for the Runoffs. Maybe.
A.
Points are accumulated toward the runoffs in any race a driver participates in. Top 6 finish's count.
B.
Drivers MUST have at least 2 seasons (minimum of 10 races total) to have their points count toward the Runoffs.
NOTE:
That's tougher then it is now to get national license upgrade.
C.
Start invites to Runoffs with the top 10 in each class and work down the list of those qualified until the Runoffs grid is filled.
NOTE:
Regional licensed qualifiers must upgrade to a national license prior to the Runoffs.
I dunno, something like that. Think outside the traditional box.
GROUPINGS:
Speed differentials, GET OVER IT! It's been there since the start of road racing. It's something good drivers learn to deal with minus the complaints! Yes, Le Mans had to take corrective action when the differential reached 140 MPH on the Mulsanne straight but that's not sprint racing.
We have the 120% rule (with a waiver available) that works pretty good within a class. I just took a look at our tracks, Portland International and Pacific Raceway which both have long straights. IN ICSCC, F1000's and FV's are in the same run group (nobody complains either). An FV is JUST 5 seconds per lap outside the 120% window of qualifying at F1000 lap times! The F1000 I'm talking about is Kyle Oberndorf (a superior F1000 driver who holds the lap records). Somebody came up with that 120% and it just demonstrates the differential that's premitted within a CLASS let alone a run group. As I said, deal with it.
Again, using Stans data, 140 average entries per National using 5 run groups would result in 20 cars per run group (in a perfect world). That's I'm sure is nowhere near the tracks cars per mile limit in 99% of the cases. So, allowing some flexability in run group mix up till the point where total entry's per class are known, no more then 5 groups should be needed. Get the National entry's UP/UP with a better program (or ALL races are Runoffs qual events), more track time and get RID of the HPDE's, Track Trials, 'restricted regionals' and 'imported bosses' (that cost a lot of extra bucks on the entry fee) at the national races and you've got it made.
FF ENGINE issue:
Long, well known problem. Now that blocks are in short supply an even bigger problem. How about changing to FH if the Duratec is a bad retro on older chassis? FH? yes find a small phyisical size current production, 125 HP HONDA engine that fits! Woo Haa start the war!
I'm not sure why people are so quick to write off Formula Ford as a legitimate semi-pro/amateur/entry level feeder series.
Unless you are jumping into F2000, Star Mazda or one of those other high performance formula series, you will be hard pressed to find a more bang for buck full size formula car than Formula Ford.
Spec treaded tires and reliable modern engines make running costs relatively low, while maintaining pretty substantial performance. If Formula Ford's could get the same backing as say the skip barber or formula BMW series, it would take off in my opinion. The cars just make a lot more sense as an introduction to formula racing.
I agree that the fact that it can take a year to get a license (depending on your region and when you start) is a _huge_ problem for getting people started, especially for people in formula cars who don't really have anything to do with their car between schools.Quote:
Originally Posted by rickb99
I disagree with this. I race for a challenge, not seat time (that's what test days are for). The issue for me is good competition at a quality track. I'm sure it depends on the region and the class, but I've found that I'm competitive (altough not necessarily winning) at regionals, and I'm getting lapped at Nationals. I find that there is a lot more to learn from getting passed by a champion that tooling around on my own in an undersubscribed regional.Quote:
3.
A huge issue with most drivers (be it regional or national) is track time. Really, to some extent that is NOT an issue of quantity of classes. After all, that's been pretty steady at about 23 or 24 till the 'bump'.
...
4.
Some say, the quality of the drivers in national racing are a 'level above' those running in regionals. In the totality of that comment I say.... Hogwash! I've seen enough races in my 50 years of going to the track to recognize the UN-truth of that. There are plenty of regionally licensed drivers that could/can/ and do out perform or equal many national licensed drivers. There are national licensed drivers who under preform their regional conterparts consistently.
My :twocents:
I think looking at National participation for "how the SCCA is doing" is simply the wrong metric. Looking at Regional numbers would be quite revealing, I suspect. Because the reality is, as regional participation goes up, interest in national participation wanes.
SFR is a prime example. As mentioned, despite being a large region, it holds only one National weekend a year -- and this year it got roughly 100 entries for the double national as compared to roughly 230 entries for the single regional held last weekend. And to top that, a non-trivial number of those entries were from out-of-region folks (ten in SRF alone).
And the simple reason is that as a class gains traction in an area, the Runoffs become less likely. Heck, just being a popular class, period, reduces interest in competing in Nationals. Take my case. I am in my second year of racing (I have an SRF) and I have competed in 5 Nationals this year...and have yet to score a single point. Twice I've finished in front of 8 other competitors.
Right now I run Nationals because I'm trying to get as much seat time as I can. But if I have to cut anything out this year, it will be the Nationals first, because probably for the next couple of years (at least) the likelihood of me scoring enough points to go the the Runoffs is asymptotic to zero.
Bottom line is, using National participation as a metric for how well the SCCA is doing is akin to using the sales of a particular color to determine how well a particular model of car is selling.
Steve
I understand and agree. The point I was trying to get across was, a National license is not a Magic Card signifying the holder may be destined for Formula One. Race X times on your regional license, put the paper work in and magic, you're a genuine national driver! Point is...Quote:
Originally Posted by Evl
1.
Race in nationals and some darn good talent will show up in super-preped cars. But that doesn't mean there aren't some equally talented drivers with MUCH more experience who only race regionals. Yes, depends upon the region and class.
2.
Just because you've met the bare minimum to hold that National license doesn't automatically mean you are highly skilled with a lot of track awareness.
Thus my point. On any given day, there's no assurance that an overall national grid will be made up totally of drivers with 'superior' skills over a regional field.
The 'glitch' in this concept is, SCCA mixes the novices in with regional races right out of school.
So, if ALL races were to count toward Runoffs points the 'risk' with pure novices on the track (as SCCA does it) would be greater. On the other hand, you wouldn't have big time hot shoes showing up from out of region because they wouldn't need those races to qualify for the Runoffs grid.
Our club avoids this issue totally. Novices race in their OWN closed or open wheel races for 3 events under going observation and evaluation before moving up with the senior driver run groups. Safe, sane, sensible.
I don't understand why we can't stick to SCCA's orginal plan on minimum participation numbers to maintain / earn national status, and let things sort themselves out?? Wasn't that the whole point? Not enough cars = regional status only. Problem solved, no?
This issue is my biggest issue with SCCA. I want reduced classes on a national level, and they keep adding more! Ugh.