To all SCCA Vee Drivers

Brian, I know what is in a tire sales contract. I'm over 60, I've bought a few tires.

If we allow a specified DOT radial to be used in the FV class on a specific wheel, and the chosen tire and wheel are readily available, then why do we need a contract between the SCCA and the chosen tire supplier?

You do not need to spec "durability, support and distribution requirements and sponsorship or contingencies". Just specify the tire to be used.

We do not currently have a contract with Hoosier regarding FV supply.

I'm trying really hard...

We don't have a contract with Hoosier now because folks can buy any non radial tire that fits our rim and no formal agreement exists between SCCA and Hoosier. It's the same with the Faulken program right now. If either company becomes a sole supplier to the class a contract would be needed to protect the members.

I'm not sure what you mean by specify. If by specify, you mean authorize one specific tire be used, isn't that the same as a spec tire? Without a formal agreement, the single supplier could do anything they want, including raising the price or changing the tire. A contract gives us some control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by budawe

We don't have a contract with Hoosier now because folks can buy any non radial tire that fits our rim and no formal agreement exists between SCCA and Hoosier. It's the same with the Faulken program right now. If either company becomes a sole supplier to the class a contract would be needed to protect the members.

I'm not sure what you mean by specify. If by specify, you mean authorize one specific tire be used, isn't that the same as a spec tire? Without a formal agreement, the single supplier could do anything they want, including raising the price or changing the tire. A contract gives us some control.

---

I am pretty sure people are asking why SCCA can't or won't change the GCR to allow a wider rim which would allow the Falkin radial to be used as well as other tires currently allowed within the GCR. Not a spec tire but allowing another option that currently is allowed based on the current writing in the GCR.

yes, by specify, it is a spec.

Quote:

---

Without a formal agreement, the single supplier could do anything they want, including raising the price or changing the tire. A contract gives us some control.

---

A large tire mfg has no need for our business and is unlikely to sign any contract of value to the SCCA. They can do anything they want. We can do anything we want. No contract needed.

The non FV marketplace governs the cost of the tires, supply, quality etc. No contract needed.

I'm still trying to understand what you think a contract is going to do?

The only thing I see it does is make having an alternate DOT tire impossible. Maybe that is the intention.

Steve,

Allowing a wider wheel/diameter without a specified tire opens up a real big can of worms. There are a lot of tires available, some are darn near race slicks (check out BFG for some of those). It would negate the whole reason for the alternate, inexpensive tire costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rolling Stone

Some folks are worried about going SLOWER with Falkens,"We dont want to be a chicane to faster clases we HAVE to race with....well in Canada(Ontario) HEY!!!! wait a minute...we RACE ON OUR OWN.."NO" other class with us.;););):):thumbsup::beer::checkered::trophy::tro phy_silver:.............................

(ME)last place driver"hey Im 2-4 seconds slower than you,1st place driver"Doesnt matter we are all having a BLAST"!!!.....(ME) hey your right!!thats WHAT the class is all about...:thumbsup::revs:I have about 7 trophies,I never in my wildest dreams thought that would ever happen ......I didnt win or come close in any race(Made a few good starts and missed STANDING STARTS)but I got my trophies,and dont give a crap about tires,big manifolds etc,etc I ENJOYED every minute of F1200 racing and the people.

---

I feel guilty....I got my trophies because I was Old(Masters Class) BUT!! I dont tell visitors to my house that...they are impressed with 2nd and 3rd place plaques on trophies,as most visitors are musicians and outa their heads it doesnt really matter!!:cool::D;):beer::beer::thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLS

Steve,

Allowing a wider wheel/diameter without a specified tire opens up a real big can of worms. There are a lot of tires available, some are darn near race slicks (check out BFG for some of those). It would negate the whole reason for the alternate, inexpensive tire costs.

---

So a bigger racing slick will still be slower then current slicks due to rotating mass. What's the issue, what can of worms? If it is such an issue specify a tire and rim package that is used by 50 plus current FV drivers in the US and Canada as an "option" rather then not allowing it at all. What's the harm in that?

"I am pretty sure people are asking why SCCA can't or won't change the GCR to allow a wider rim which would allow the Falkin radial to be used as well as other tires currently allowed within the GCR."

No one has said no, http://scca.growsites.net/pages/rule-making-process

Steve,

I am all for the alternate package. No harm at all that I can see.

Quote:

---

What's the issue, what can of worms?

---

My opinion, allowing a wider rim without a "spec" tire will not achieve the desired goal, lowering the tire costs for the budget FV racer. A wider, larger diameter rim will certainly provide more options, but it will not save money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLS

...lowering the tire costs for the budget FV racer.

---

This is a funny & ironic description to me (no malice intended toward you BLS. You just happened to type the words everybody uses including me). Isn't the whole class supposed to be budget? Isn't that the the original intent? For the guys who are arguing they want to go faster and don't mind spending money on tires in Formula Vee, why not step up to FF or FC? There's all kinds of opportunity to spend boat loads of cash and go really fast there.

When I was racing karts at a local track, there was a guy that was a millionaire that raced there. He had like 19 spare engines in his huge palace like trailer with spare karts and an entourage. He was fast. He was dominant. And it ruined the experience for everyone else. Sure it's a free world. He's free to race with and beat up on us lowly budget racers all he wants, but should he?

My point is, if going fast is your goal, then maybe consider entering a faster class.

If it is normal to spend $10k a year on tires and that or more on engines to be competitive in a budget minded class, it seems the original spirit and intent of the class has gone astray somehow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobs66440

If it is normal to spend $10k a year on tires and that or more on engines to be competitive in a budget minded class, it seems the original spirit and intent of the class has gone astray somehow.

---

Exactly......................

Quote:

---

For the guys who are arguing they want to go faster and don't mind spending money on tires in Formula Vee, why not step up to FF or FC?

---

Some of us like FV :)

Every class will have those with more monetary capability than others. FV is one of the classes that will allow a competitor without large financial resources (or the willingness to spend it) to substitute effort for cash and do well.

I'm in favor of an alternate wheel/tire combo. It doesn't mean I don't like the slicks. After 35 years away from the class, and once I got some of the handling gremlins sorted out, I really liked the way the car drove on the modern slicks Vs the old slicks I drove on as a young guy.

Every class has guys with money trying to win. As long as they play within the rules that's just the way it is. If I had a few million extra I would still race FV, just would do more of it and probably have a better tire budget;)

There are guys running at the front that are spending very little on tires. There are guys running at the front spending a lot on tires. You have to figure out how to be like the first group...

Brian M I guess I don't constantly think about this country's obsession with the right to sue and I can see where it has taken almost everything in life to be afraid of everything because of peoples notion that when things go wrong it can't possibly be their fault. I didn't go looking at other possible tires that could fit on the Diamond wheel but like Steve B said if you want to circumvent the tire of choice and go with a virtual slick in the disguise of a DOT approved tire I would think with it's sticky tread and the low HP of a FV would probably mean a slower time do to increased rolling resistance, just my guess.

Within the rules of FV just about everything is laid out and if I am correct it says if in doubt it isn't legal. So if a revision to the rules would that allow an alternate wheel and tire option and it mentioned a specific wheel size and manufacture as well as the same for the tire what would make it any different from the rules for the class? Everything in the class is regulated but I don't remember having a contract with my engine builder or for that matter with a chassis supplier or for that matter any other pieces used on the car.
I do understand your reason but still don't get why it has to be that way and I think that is what is the issue is with a lot of people on this discussion.

Ed

Here's an idea I'll throw out to everyone as food for thought; how bout instead of "spec"ing out a specific tire for the class (as this has gone NOWHERE for how long now?) how bout putting a limit on how many sets of tires competitors are allowed to use throughout a season?

You can run whatever tire your heart desires, but say you are only allowed 2 or 3 sets. For those who want to spend the money on buying the most trick racing slick they can get their hands on...great, BUT can you manage those tires for 5 race weekends? You may be blazing fast those first two, but then you'll be pretty screwed throughout the rest of the season.

If you don't want/have the resources to buy 3 sets of slicks but can do 1 set of radials, you may not be as competitive at first, but strategically you will have less drop off in performance (heck maybe even gain from what I've heard about them) throughout the rest of the season.

No matter what, this will save everyone money whether they like it or not. As far as being able to manage a system like that, I'll let someone else figure that out. This is just another idea of looking at the issues that everyone keeps bringing up instead of this constant argument that has gone beyond ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mysterianfreak

Here's an idea I'll throw out to everyone as food for thought; how bout instead of "spec"ing out a specific tire for the class (as this has gone NOWHERE for how long now?) how bout putting a limit on how many sets of tires competitors are allowed to use throughout a season?

You can run whatever tire your heart desires, but say you are only allowed 2 or 3 sets. For those who want to spend the money on buying the most trick racing slick they can get their hands on...great, BUT can you manage those tires for 5 race weekends? You may be blazing fast those first two, but then you'll be pretty screwed throughout the rest of the season.

If you don't want/have the resources to buy 3 sets of slicks but can do 1 set of radials, you may not be as competitive at first, but strategically you will have less drop off in performance (heck maybe even gain from what I've heard about them) throughout the rest of the season.

No matter what, this will save everyone money whether they like it or not. As far as being able to manage a system like that, I'll let someone else figure that out. This is just another idea of looking at the issues that everyone keeps bringing up instead of this constant argument that has gone beyond ridiculous.

---

Good idea but I think the fast guys who want their current tire will simply run less to use their tires to be at the front. This might lower some competitors participation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLS

Some of us like FV :)

If I had a few million extra I would still race FV, just would do more of it and probably have a better tire budget;)

---

Good point....and I would have to agree!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Bamford

Good idea but I think the fast guys who want their current tire will simply run less to use their tires to be at the front. This might lower some competitors participation.

---

Yes this is a valid point, and unfortunately that is a factor that plays into the strategy game of tire choice & management. If we look at the majors specifically and include the runoffs, you still have to run a minimum amount of races to qualify (3 double header weekends I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) and usually 1 other weekend if your in the conference championship hunt. I don't remember how regional championship points work, but I'll assume its pretty close to the majors path.

That is still a lot of track time for a limited amount of tires, since there are people going through almost 3 sets in one weekend! Those same tires then have to get you through 2 days testing at the runoffs, 3-4 days of qualifying, and then the big show (assuming you opted for testing). I feel that the front runners are either already doing a few select events and not arbitrarily doing a lot else, so this strategy wouldn't be new. The only people this hurts for participation are the people who are running any race they can enter in AND spending money on 3 sets of tires for a weekend.

The question to ask is whats the delta of a few front runners running a couple less races compared to how many interested people would participate in more races more knowing they could have a running for the conference championships and the runoffs. If you have 2 front runners in your area run a couple less races, but you have 3-4 other people run a couple more races then they normally have, then you'd be up in participation.

*EDIT* For the record I am not saying that the limit should be specifically set a 3, I am only using that number as an example in case anyone was curious. The proper amount would have to be looked into and analysed much more thoroughly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobs66440

He's free to race with and beat up on us lowly budget racers all he wants, but should he?

---

You need to find a different hobby. Being out budgeted is a fact of life from karting to F1. There has never been a successful method of controlling it unless you go to a spec rental car series.

Most SCCA Regions and all Divisions have a FV competitor that has dominated the class for many years.... if not decades. I would not argue that their dominance is bad for participation. Could be the reason very few FV competitor stay in FV racing more than 4-5 years. Unfortunately that is just part of life in racing. Accept it or move on and save yourself the frustration.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mysterianfreak

Yes this is a valid point, and unfortunately that is a factor that plays into the strategy game of tire choice & management. If we look at the majors specifically and include the runoffs, you still have to run a minimum amount of races to qualify (3 double header weekends I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) and usually 1 other weekend if your in the conference championship hunt. I don't remember how regional championship points work, but I'll assume its pretty close to the majors path.

That is still a lot of track time for a limited amount of tires, since there are people going through almost 3 sets in one weekend! Those same tires then have to get you through 2 days testing at the runoffs, 3-4 days of qualifying, and then the big show (assuming you opted for testing). I feel that the front runners are either already doing a few select events and not arbitrarily doing a lot else, so this strategy wouldn't be new. The only people this hurts for participation are the people who are running any race they can enter in AND spending money on 3 sets of tires for a weekend.

The question to ask is whats the delta of a few front runners running a couple less races compared to how many interested people would participate in more races more knowing they could have a running for the conference championships and the runoffs. If you have 2 front runners in your area run a couple less races, but you have 3-4 other people run a couple more races then they normally have, then you'd be up in participation.

*EDIT* For the record I am not saying that the limit should be specifically set a 3, I am only using that number as an example in case anyone was curious. The proper amount would have to be looked into and analysed much more thoroughly

---

I don't race FV yet, so my opinion is pretty unimportant....that said, I love this idea. It also makes things financially more predictable for those of us who are just getting started or thinking of getting started.

The biggest negative with the alt tire proposal is that it would preclude the production and sale of a spec racing slick. Without any doubt the tire survey is going to indicate that the majority want a spec racing slick with about the same performance as the current Hoosier. Any manufacture is going the class a favor producing a spec tire that has limited sales potential. They are simply not going to participate in a spec tire program that has a alt tire associated with it.

If the majority want a spec slick tire.. then the alt tire proposal is an administrative non-starter.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

You need to find a different hobby. Being out budgeted is a fact of life from karting to F1. There has never been a successful method of controlling it unless you go to a spec rental car series.

Most SCCA Regions and all Divisions have a FV competitor that has dominated the class for many years.... if not decades. I would not argue that their dominance is bad for participation. Could be the reason very few FV competitor stay in FV racing more than 4-5 years. Unfortunately that is just part of life in racing. Accept it or move on and save yourself the frustration.

Brian

---

Brian,

Initially you call everyone complete failures regarding the spec tire issue, and now you're encouraging a competitor to find another hobby or rather like you, go bench racing instead of actual racing. Good recommendation as we need less FV drivers rather than more???? :confused:

Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mysterianfreak

how bout putting a limit on how many sets of tires competitors are allowed to use throughout a season?

---

1) Absolutely no way to police or administer such an idea. Certainly SCCA would never accept such a proposal.

2) Now if you have your heart set on making it possible for the non-competitive entrants to win.... how about a sliding weight penalty based on say the points standing. The simplest method to administer would be assignments made at the start of the season based on the previous year's ending Regional or Divisional point standings. Post your assignment weight on the side of the car for tech and other competitor to verify during the season.

But please don't be under the illusion that best competitors are still not going to end up wining.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amon

Good recommendation as we need less FV drivers rather than more???? :confused:

---

What is the point of trying to accommodate an entrant that is simply never going to be satisfied with his FV experience? Most new competitors simply do not have enough facts available to make the correct SCCA class decision.

Many have not clearly delineated what their actual goals are and how specific SCCA classes might help meet those goals. In most cases new competitors with complaints about FV could easily satisfy those complaints by choosing a different SCCA class.

Face the statistical facts: An extremely small number of new FV competitors make it beyond the 3-4 year participation time period. There is simply nothing to indicate that there is anything that we can do about this at the class level.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amon

go bench racing instead of actual racing.

---

I have developed a very clear understanding of how I can enjoy racing. It fits perfectly with my time and financial budget constants. My lack of actual track participation is not really going to have any effect on the future of FV West of the Rockies. It has been dying for two decades and nothing is going to reverse that trend.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobs66440

My point is, if going fast is your goal, then maybe consider entering a faster class.

If it is normal to spend $10k a year on tires and that or more on engines to be competitive in a budget minded class, it seems the original spirit and intent of the class has gone astray somehow.

---

Wish I would have said that. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

Many have not clearly delineated what their actual goals are and how specific SCCA classes might help meet those goals. In most cases new competitors with complaints about FV could easily satisfy those complaints by choosing a different SCCA class.


Brian

---

Exactly my point! If you don't like the reality that FV is a budget minded class and that there will always be people trying to keep it that way, you can always move to another class! How can you expect someone who enters a budget class with the desire to compete in that class as it's intended to "accept" that the costs are making it unaffordable?? Naturally, they will always want to change it. Otherwise it's no longer an entry level class. There are plenty of other classes out there that don't claim to be budgeted. Why try to make something into what it's not supposed to be??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

What is the point of trying to accommodate an entrant that is simply never going to be satisfied with his FV experience? Most new competitors simply do not have enough facts available to make the correct SCCA class decision.

Many have not clearly delineated what their actual goals are and how specific SCCA classes might help meet those goals. In most cases new competitors with complaints about FV could easily satisfy those complaints by choosing a different SCCA class.

Face the statistical facts: An extremely small number of new FV competitors make it beyond the 3-4 year participation time period. There is simply nothing to indicate that there is anything that we can do about this at the class level.

Brian

---

Brian,

How do you know if a person is or will be satisfied with his FV experience and how many competitors in other classes stay beyond 3-4 years? An individual may leave the racing scene due to many different reasons, and disatisfaction with the racing might not be one of them. I briefly got out racing vee's in 97' and 08' for reasons completely seperate from my experience on the track, and I'm sure I haven't been the only one.
Your negativity astounds me and if many FV drivers followed your reasoning then they never would have raced in the first place, and missed out on a great experience. Each person is different and each out come is different so please quit your all encompasing remarks!

StumpThumper,

Your opinion isn't unimportant relative to this topic of conversation. Many people reference the "possible new people" into vee and the hopes of bringing them in. It may not carry a lot of weight in a decision making process yet, but still valid information and feedback to help aid the discussion along.

Brian,

For starters, there are a couple different ways that such a system could be managed. I'm sure it would be a lot easier for Hoosier to include a marker of some sort for every tire sold (and could be registered to the purchaser who declares these markers at the beginning of the season) for example, than say ask for a version of the current tire that lasts for 3 times the life with the same performance and no drop-off (cause unfortunately that's not how it works).

I am only proposing a possible different solution to the tire issue that has been horribly beaten to death; if it is a popular idea and that everyone can agree to, I'm sure a method could easily be found for implementing & policing it.

I am under no illusion that this will change the outcome of races in which the people who put the most effort into their program will come out on top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobs66440

If it is normal to spend $10k a year on tires and that or more on engines to be competitive in a budget minded class, it seems the original spirit and intent of the class has gone astray somehow.

---

Someone spends $10k a year on tires? That would be about 13 sets of tires?!?!

If someone seriously goes through that many tires, kudos to them, I wish I could race 50 times a year too! But that would be about $17,500 in entry fees, so alas, I will not be able to do that. :-(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobs66440

How can you expect someone who enters a budget class

---

It would be my contention that you are trying to make FV into what 'you' describe as a 'budget' class.

Facts is that FV as a class is clearly defined by the current SCCA rule set. This has been developed over a five decade time period by the FV participants. Trying to assign the word 'budget' to that rule set is meaningless. Simply it is what it is... and it must be assumed that the majority is happy with the rule set or they would have crafted it differently.

It would seem to me that a 'budget' class would use a spec tire. Clearly FV has not had a spec tire for 50 years so it cannot be a budget class. At this point in time it still has no spec tire. So anyone new or considering FV should not consider it a 'budget' class.

Do your due diligence and choose the class that meets your requirements.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mysterianfreak

"possible new people" into vee and the hopes of bringing them in. It may not carry a lot of weight in a decision making process yet...

---

Possible 'new people' have no relevance. By definition the are an unknown. How can you craft FV into something for 'new people' when their requirements are not known.

'New people'.. what ever their very small numbers might be.. simply cannot be given any status in relation to current FV participants. How can 'new people' express any opinion when they have a very limited knowledge of the FV ethos?

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

Possible 'new people' have no relevance. By definition the are an unknown. How can you craft FV into something for 'new people' when their requirements are not known.

---

How can you craft something into something people want? Gosh darn, if only humanity had any sort of history in marketing to a speci.. Oh wait, isn't that.. Yeah, that's what marketing is all about, incredible!

Stop throwing your opinions around as facts, it's gross.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

Possible 'new people' have no relevance. By definition the are an unknown. How can you craft FV into something for 'new people' when their requirements are not known.

'New people'.. what ever their very small numbers might be.. simply cannot be given any status in relation to current FV participants. How can 'new people' express any opinion when they have a very limited knowledge of the FV ethos?

Brian

---

Wow you are off your meds. I guess you haven't been paying any attention to the call for recrutment from the SCCA. Not only does FV provide an excellent source for upcoming drivers. But it is also a class that formor racers will come back to. If YOU enjoy racing a two car field. Then keep your head under your rock and have a great time. There are people across the country doing thier best, deticating their time and effort to revive a class that YES is a budget class. Like it or not there are few classes in racing that provide the level of competition that FV does for the dollars invested. Why do youi need to turn every topic into a snot throwing contest. Go back to sniffing your resin. DEAN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

.. and it must be assumed that the majority is happy with the rule set or they would have crafted it differently.

---

Happiness, THAT'S why they are leaving, ahh I get it now.

Hey all, remember this thread? "Future tire choices for FV" This thread is starting to resemble that one......

If you got a survey fill it out and let the chips fall as they may. Get involved, if you don't answer it you let non-FV people make a decision for your class.

JMO

G.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dean Curtis

...call for recrutment from the SCCA. .... provide an excellent source for upcoming drivers... YES is a budget class.

---

SCCA's call for recruitment has going on for 50 years. That is how they make their money.. they are a membership club.

You are joking about "an excellent source for upcoming drivers'. The car has no relevance to any other advanced stepping stone class. You can claim good competition but it is not going to be found in a vintage car on street tires. It is going to take something just a little more expensive than you are willing to admit... to fined a true level of competition. At that level of expense SRF and SM are a much better choice.

Yes... faded/unimproved FV's on street tires is a budget class. But that is not the SCCA FV class that you fined at the Major event level.

Brian

Brian

I felling left out...

6 years racing FV/F1200, I have honestly owned 2 sets of tires. I have raced 6 weekend per seasons. Never changed to a pair of rain tires. Am i missing something? is there a fun aspect of racing I am missing by not having more tires?

BTW, we have 20+ racers doing the same thing every season in our region, and they are competitive with each other. You have another 30+ in the Challenge Cup Series when they get together every one is competitive.

So the competitive aspect, put it to bed. I have yet to see anyone shave a set of tires..and if they do..so be it.

The real fact is the organization has a sponsor that injects $$$ into racing, if you dilute what possible sales there is, someone is going to get upset. When sugar daddy's get upset, some bad usually happens.

Alternate tire is the way to go, very clear an simple

Whether Regional, Major, National..if a driver is going to run slick they will continue to do so and challenge for the top spot doing so.

If there are drivers that will return to racing, do 3 races instead of 1 race, race a whole series because now they have the extra funds to do so. That benefits everyone. Period. More entries = More $$$ for all racing and it supports the regions / organizers so there are more races.

People may be too proud to admit it, but $$$ is the #1 reason they race or don't Time is #2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

You can claim good competition but it is not going to be found in a vintage car on street tires.

Yes... faded/unimproved FV's on street tires is a budget class.

But that is not the SCCA FV class that you fined at the Major event level.

Brian

Brian

---

I am trying to understand what you mean by this post? "Good Competition is not going to be found in a vintage car on street tires"

I see closer, and tighter competition on spec tire? maybe because there is more cars on the track?

Why is it that the rest of the world has been able to adopt spec tires and improvements to FV, but we are always waiting for the world to end before doing something.

FF brought in Honda, from what understand, maintenance and rebuild cost dropped next to nothing in comparison to a 30 year old engine. They did it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

It would be my contention that you are trying to make FV into what 'you' describe as a 'budget' class.

Facts is that FV as a class is clearly defined by the current SCCA rule set. This has been developed over a five decade time period by the FV participants. Trying to assign the word 'budget' to that rule set is meaningless. Simply it is what it is... and it must be assumed that the majority is happy with the rule set or they would have crafted it differently.

It would seem to me that a 'budget' class would use a spec tire. Clearly FV has not had a spec tire for 50 years so it cannot be a budget class. At this point in time it still has no spec tire. So anyone new or considering FV should not consider it a 'budget' class.

Do your due diligence and choose the class that meets your requirements.

Brian

---

Brain, I will agree with you, the majority has lived with it over the years. More than likely due to lack of options. When there "were" big fields, no one cared you went racing, you have your own grid.life was good.

This is a different day an age, when kids idea of racing is Grand Turismo on the PS4, with a $5000. motion seat.

FV is and always will be the entry level open wheel class for road racing. The cars were designed as such.

No racing is not a budget sport, but like any sport everyone wants to be competitive with skill. What we are doing is letting $$$ over ride the skill aspect (Development / set-up aside, that is part of skill)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smsazzy

Someone spends $10k a year on tires? That would be about 13 sets of tires?!?!

If someone seriously goes through that many tires, kudos to them, I wish I could race 50 times a year too! But that would be about $17,500 in entry fees, so alas, I will not be able to do that. :-(

---

Stephen,

Where do you find a race that cost $350.00 to enter?? I just entered my son in the upcoming Major race and it was $540.00. Even regionals at Laguna are $500+