Printable View
Back when the Zetec was coming in I was totally against it and then 5 years later I swapped my pinto out for a Zetec and loved it. It wasn't because it was faster it was because it allowed me to not have to rebuild the motor every year. Also it was so smooth in comparison to the pinto it didn't shake everything loose.
New motors are inevitable to keep a class healthy for the long term. Also as mentioned before making them equal is much easier with restrictors or map tweeks.
Brian
Vaughn's (race winner) best race lap in FX was a 1:38.8. Simon (race winnter) ran a 1:36.9 in FC, with a Zetec and an H pattern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wright
Have we clutched our pearls hard enough? The SCCA better ban the Zetec in FX because it's going to ruin the class.
Not sure why this thread is talking about MZR engines, or other engines, being put in existing or future FC cars.
The idea is to allow approximately 20 existing ex USF2000 cars to race in the FC class, thereby increasing FC car counts, and helping FC maintain its status as a National class. This is not a favor to MZR owners, but in the best interest of every FC enthusiast, whether Zetec, Pinto, VD, Citation, engine builder, car manufacturer, driver, crewmember, or fan of the class. We have now lost another year with no progress on this matter.
Any discussion beyond allowing these specific ex Usf2000 cars, is a completely different topic, perhaps for another day.
FC1. #31756 (Steve Thomson) Allow USF2000 cars in FC per FRP rulesThank you for your letter. The Club Racing Board does not recommend this change. Introduction of the MZR-powered USF2000cars would serve to reopen the debate about balance of performance issues in FC, which would likely result in a decrease inparticipation in the class. In addition, USF2000 cars are an integral part of the FX class. During the 2021 U.S. Majors seasonUSF2000 cars accounted for approximately 20% of the entries in FX, and the class would have been unable to achieve an averageof 4.0 cars per event without their participation.
These people are delusional.
Every once in a while, you think that there may be some SCCA politicians that actually care and are trying to improve things for competitors. Then you read garbage like this. "Who cares about the owners of the USF cars and owners of FC cars who want to improve the health of their class? We need to protect FX. And throw out some BOP fear-mongering propaganda so it sounds like we do care."
With the new maps (Zetec Pectel T2, PE3 ECU's and MZR) that were just written to equalize the engines in FRP, I'd have thought the USF2K car would have been approved for FC.
So SCCA needs to protect a hodge-podge catch-all class that has been around for a few years at the expense of a real class that has been around for decades? And the best argument for this is some disingenuous, half baked, false claim about parity? Brilliant! :rolleyes:
The only reason the few USF cars that show up enter in FX is because it's all they have. Maybe, and call me crazy here, but if the USF cars could race with other FCs you would get many more than show up to run in FC than you do in FX. Does SCCA really think FX is an answer to anything?
If USF cars were allowed in FC, that wouldn't mean they couldn't also enter FX and get double track time. SCCA's reply assumes if given the option no USF car would enter FX, but rather go to FC. Which, should be telling about the appeal of FX if the only way to keep it afloat is through protective measures.
This makes no sense other than for SCCA to artificially prop up a lame catch-all class. And even that itself, makes no sense. This is just dumb. Sorry, not sorry. :thumbsdown:
You're crazy. Doesn't mean you're wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
Quote:
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
Can anybody remember a time where the SCCA took stewardship over an open wheel class that they don't own? It must be tough accepting entry fees for cars they don't sell. F4 was a big success. Look at it go. FE marches on, what a coincidence. More cars for FC? Probably not.
The way Steve phrased his letter is kind of pointless. He is asking to allow USF2000 cars into the FC class. He should have just asked to allow the MZR as an alternative motor. Saying USF2000 cars would make it seem as though any and all USF2000 cars even current carbon tubed cars should be allowed. I’m not saying it would have made a difference because clearly it’s never going to happen with the powers that be.
At this point, Steve would be better off just swapping to a zetec motor and calling it a day. If he sells his MZR and then takes the money and builds a zetec and sticks it in he’s ready to go. I mean it’s literally an engine swap. Everything on the car, shocks, brakes, wheels, chassis harness, ecu, wings including the sequential gearbox is FC legal.
Brian
All y'all realize that SCCA allowed the MZR engine to run in Sports 2000 like 10 or so years ago "to help save the class"?
Look how that panned out.:rolleyes:
Allowing USF2000 cars in FC is a no brainer, Mr Wright seems to have mastered the challenge.
My personal opinion is one person can change the world but a committee can't change baby's poopy diaper.
Steve
When was LMP1 and LMP2 formed?
Seems to me it was more than 10 years ago. S2000 has ceased to exist outside of (ahem) groups that aren't the SCCA since then.
It's a win- win situation. More cars to race against!
That's what Honda wanted just to compete not dominate offer an option. Look what it did to Formula Ford. Once you spend the money for engine package whatever it is you will lobby whatever rules body you need to to be competitive. It is the nature of the process.
Why don't y'all put together a committee and re-write the FC rules like you did when you created FB?
If it's supposed to be a formula, then make it a formula, not something with a bunch of exceptions glued on.
While you're at it, why not approve EFI for the Pinto so we can just get down to matching maps.
Like Rich K, Brian T, others, and myself in an earlier post have pointed out - you only need to get the MZR approved - NOT the whole USF car. The engine itself is a smaller bite and a much easier ask. Data can be provided to show parity. It's much harder to equalize a package, not to mention that would create a spec line in a formula car class.
Remove the MZR, pop in a Zetec and it's a compliant car. With murmurs Zetecs are harder to find now this could be pitched as a slightly newer engine with better availability. To get anything done, you need to have critical mass - multiple people writing letters who are all on the same page - i.e. FF spec tires. One letter won't do it. Get maps and dyno data showing parity, give that to SCCA and get a group of people together to write letters.
You don't need to bring in the MZR at a disadvantage - like Mike pointed out that didn't go well for FF. The engines are equalized and you just need to provide the maps to SCCA to prove it. I'm sure Quicksilver and Elite have those comparison maps.
Unfortunately, SCCA's reasoning in their reply to not allow USF cars/MZRs forestalls any chance of the above because it is clear it is not about parity, it is about protecting and propping up FX.
Great post Reid, but am curious...
What would SCCA’s motivation be for prioritizing FX over FC?
Could it be as simple as their seeing FC is currently quite successful as is, and FX provides a place for a lot of garaged cars to come race?
Looking in from outside, FX to me has real growth potential in that it’s quite the opposite of their FE2 spec class, or any spec class for that matter.
Good question. I would only be guessing with no more to go on than the next person. FX was an attempt to reduce the number of classes. Standard SCCA - right idea, wrong implementation. Part of this was kicking FB to FA and putting FM into FX with USF cars, F4 cars, and anything else without fenders. Now the FM folks have made their own series within SCCA because they would otherwise get smoked by a USF car so why bother competing in FX? This shows the FM folks have no allegiance to the FX concept, and only show up there because they don't have a better option. But, once they do....(see S2000, FB)Quote:
Originally Posted by E1pix
My guess (and it's just a guess) is FX was an attempt to have a NASA/ChumpCar type group where it's a run-what-ya-brung deal and serve as a catch all to consolidate under performing classes. I think this format has wider appeal to NASA types than SCCA, especially open wheel. A NASA competitor has a former street car they have modified as they want, likely over time, to become a dedicated track car. They don't want to bother with understanding the nuance of a rulebook and want to build the car how they want. That's not how open wheel, purpose built cars are born. If there was a large pull for that type of class FS would be popular. It is not.
Why SCCA wants to employ protective measures to prop up FX at the cost of FC makes little sense. Maybe stubbornness? They created FX and dont' want to admit it doesn't have a great rationale behind it?
I may be way off base with this thought, but given the money that Mazda flows into scca, is it possible that FX was reluctantly created by scca to give older mazda-powered open-wheel cars a place to play?Quote:
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
Both posts make sense, Guys.
Of the eight formulae allowed in the GCR for FX, two use MZRs and a third is FM rotaries. I just looked to confirm that FMs were over seven seconds off at the Runoffs, and it seems clear no amount of equalization can overcome that. All 15 starters had Mazda engines and eight were (FM) Star Mazdas.
I do admit to fascination with former-Pro Super Vee cars being eligible, especially if using the 1835 engine option. A lifetime friend hopes to bring his new acquisition to the Runoffs this year, and I wonder how many S/V owners know their cars could run the Runoffs again instead of vintage races.
And yes Reid, I think it’s tragic how FB was handled. Special class, big loss.
I think the hot car in FX is the 2010-2017 Renault 2.0. Think about a USF2000 Tatuus with about 210 hp. There is one entered at COTA next week.
To answer Ian- I suspect you are partially right, but it also serves as a dumping ground for all the cars that don't fit somewhere else but aren't fast enough for FA. See copy from the GCR page 286 below.
B. Eligibility - the following cars are approved for competition within Formula X:
1. Formula Mazda – Shall comply with GCR 9.1.1.E (2019)
2. Formula 4 – Shall comply with FIA Formula 4 Technical Regulations (2015) and all subsequent safety requirements as issued by the FIA and/or SCCA.
3. USF2000 (tube frame) – Shall comply with FRP F2000 Technical Specifications (2018)
4. Pro Formula F2000 (tube frame) – Engine must be prepared to current FC rules.
5. Ex-Pro Formula Super Vee - Shall comply with notes in Table 1.
6. FormulaSPEED - Shall comply with notes in Table 1.
7. Formula Ireland / Formula FX - Shall comply with notes in Table 1.
8. 2010–2017 Formula Renault 2.0 – Shall comply with notes in Table 1.
9. 2000-2009 Formula Renault 2.0 / Fran-Am 2000 - Shall comply with notes in Table 1
I would have liked this twice if possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
FX is prod car thinking applied to Formula cars.
There is no more parity in FX than in the prod classes (which may be fading away as well).
I was at MSR Houston last week and there were 4 or 5 Pinto FCs on site testing for an up coming (non-SCCA) event at COTA. I offered an SCCA logbook to any compliant (as they all seemed to be) FC on site. No takers.
I told them that in the Southwest Division of the SCCA all the active FCs were Pinto powered and they would be racing in their peer group. No takers.
What are we doing wrong that these drivers won’t race against cars of similar power and vintage in SCCA events?
There are no FCs registered for the COTA Super Tour next weekend, mostly due to home town weather issues.
Want 50 Super Tour points in FC? Come to COTA this weekend.
Online registration closes at midnight tonight, but walk up registration at the track is available Friday and Saturday.
The only caveat is compliance with original series tire regulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wright
the Formula Renault could be a strong contender in this series. Only question is if the original tires are available or if you can sell SCCA on the fact that they aren’t.
Sorry, I missed the GCR update that allowed tires in FX other than the original series specs.Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmart
As per the February GCR, tires are free in FX for the Formula Renault 2.0.
Could be a strong FX contender!
I learned this last weekend at COTA while speaking to an active driver who owns two FR 2.0 and plans to race them in the SOWDIV. Another FR 2.0 did compete very successfully in FX, finishing first on Saturday, second on Sunday on Hoosier tires.Congrats to Avery Towns!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmart
I am very curious about the FR 2.0 cars. Has anyone seen one for sale here in the states recently? I'd like to say I keep up with the normal listing sites and havent seen one of these for sale ever.
If you are interested in this level of performance, do a little research into the FR 2.0 vs. the new FMzR.Quote:
Originally Posted by wickedlite44
Reached out to Moses three times now but haven’t heard back. Emails appear to go to a black hole. Hence I’m looking specifically at FR 2.0’s for sale.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGOffroad
FC should be a class limited to wheel sizes: 6" x 13" front and 8" x 13" rear.Quote:
Originally Posted by jpietz
If you want 8s and 10s, you are welcome jump up to F/A just like what happened to 1.8 supervees.
formula continental IS a class limited to 6 and 8 (GCR pg 221) :DQuote:
Originally Posted by johnhafkenschiel
The discussion of allowing the Mazda motor and sequential boxes in FC is not what most of the posts here are advocating. What is being pushed is allowing the USF2000 cars to run with FC as a spec car. That is contrary to the rules governing FC. The only way that the Mazda engine and sequential box can run in FC is for that engine to be allowed as the Zetec and Pinto engines are today. The Mazda engine could be used in a Citation as well as in a VD or Elan chassis.
As to gear boxes: sequential gear boxes are allowed but they can only have 4 forward gears. And unlike USF2000, you can use any ratio you want.
I think it would be fun to see what I could do with a Mazda engine in a Citation. I think there are a lot of people who would not like to see that. And I don't think it would be healthy for F2000 as a class.
And we can just let the class fade away based on ideals from 30 years ago (when F2000 cars were selling like hotcakes), and leave a dozen worthy cars banished to uncompetitive status in other classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by S Lathrop
Why don't you send a proposal to the competition board to rectify this problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
I do think that F2000 is vulnerable because the power plants we use are out of production and have questionable support from the manufacturers. I believe the Mazda engine is available in junk yards and that is a good thing.
Yet you continue to spew that spec car garbage. Those "spec" cars are the same as 70% of our current field of FC cars. Spec cars are the race cars of the 21st century, and accepting that realization, is key to successfully managing and promoting any class in today's world. Inclusion may have been a dirty word in the 80s and 90s, but not today. It is no longer 1985.Quote:
Originally Posted by S Lathrop
Powerful SCCA politicians keep killing any attempts to add the USF cars. They want to kill FC as a class. The FC community needs to keep pushing to include the limited number of USF2000 cars. Hopefully, through SCCA board configuration changes, or just common sense, the inclusion can happen in a timeline that can have a positive effect. I am not holding my breath, but will personally support any such activities.
I think we can go as far as to say that spec cars are exactly what the SCCA wants, they literally sell one that competes with FC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
Greg: I have no problem with the USF cars running in FC if, and only if, I can use the same engine in one of my cars. The only reason that the Citations have been competitive with the USF cars is because of design of the Citation chassis and the
aero package. Who at most SCCA events will be able to inspect the USF cars to ascertain that they are in compliance with the USF rules and beyond that where are the rules for the individual parts other than specifying the source for those parts. I have done some engineering work on the USF cars to know a fair amount about the package.
You above all people should know what I am trying to say because you have a lot of experience with both cars.
cars evolve, time moves on; rules need to change to follow. Certain parts are no longer made, accommodations of the rules become necessary. The original USF cars have any number of parts on them that aren't made anymore (brake calipers, wings, upright castings, T2 ECU, to name a few examples) so there is no way they can be legal as originally spec'd. In fact the current 2022 FRP rules are quite different from the 2018 rules that SCCA Club insists on using for them in FX..
The Zetec rules are quite different from when they were first allowed in 2005 (pistons, injectors, rods, for example, not to mention the motor is more than twenty years out of production and simply no longer available in any form).
The CRB has rejected the inclusion of the USF car at least twice, and rejected the MZR as an alternate motor in FC more than that, voicing what I think are weak arguments.
So now what?
I am more concerned about keeping the class healthy than petty bickering between former manufacturers. This is not 1995. In case you have not noticed, we have no current manufacturers. Our car supply is limited to existing cars. FWIW, the consensus is that a Zetec VD is marginally faster than a Mazda VD, by the proven FRP rule set. Just slightly, probably handicapped by the transmission as many dollars have been spent equalizing the engines. That has nothing to do with Citations engineering or aero. If a Citation (or Mygale, Spectrum, whatever) can beat a Zetec VD then it will beat a Mazda VD.Quote:
Originally Posted by S Lathrop
Considering the wide disparity between a few fast FC cars and the "pack" we have room on our grids for more competitive cars without making our few fast FC cars obsolete. Although it is not the issue on hand, I would have absolutely no problem with you building a Citation with the USF engine/transmission package. That would be the first new F2000/FC car built in 5 years, probably the 3rd in the last decade. Bring it on!
The problem is not the USF2000 cars. The problem is SCCA politics.
The only issue that prevents the USF being included in FC is the engine. Get the engine approved for FC and the issue is resolved. The class will benefit from a more modern engine that is easier to get. Coming up with an engine map that equates the performance of the engine to the Zetec and lets go racing. This approach is consistent with the history and philosophy of FC.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
Getting the MZR approved seems to be the problem. The mapping has already been done (thank you FRP) for that motor for both the T2 and PE3 ECUs.
I would pose to the CRB that they outline their long-term plans for both the FC and FX class....
It sounds to me like a letter writing campaign is in order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wright
If someone with the knowledge could write out the specs on the MZR engine (that would basically need to be pasted into the GCR) then we could all include that language in our letters so there is no ambiguity.
I think earlier in this thread I suggested a sealed ECU to improve/ease tech inspections. They already have enough problems with the Zetec in that regard.
Maybe Im missing something but you prefer a MZR with FRP mapping that is on par with a Zetek and spec gears in a gearbox that is about 25 lbs heavier ? Oh and also slower to shift .Quote:
Originally Posted by S Lathrop