Allowing Mazda motor and sequential transmission into FC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

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)

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 would have liked this twice if possible.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Wright

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

---

The only caveat is compliance with original series tire regulations.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rsmart

The only caveat is compliance with original series tire regulations.
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.
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

Sorry, I missed the GCR update that allowed tires in FX other than the original series specs.
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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickedlite44

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 CGOffroad

If you are interested in this level of performance, do a little research into the FR 2.0 vs. the new FMzR.

---

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 jpietz

I was told that there was a vote taken by the attendees at the runoffs to allow the Mazda engine and sequential transmission into FC.
I was surprised to hear that the vote was a yes! I am wondering if everyone just voted to make their cars obsolete.
I understand that getting parts etc might be easier for this set up than the aging Z tech but will the z tech be able to compete with the Mazda?

Adding the USF 2000 cars to FM (Now FX) has clearly put the FMs at the back of the pack. I have been reassured that parity can be achieved with engine maps etc. but I am wondering if Pandora will be able to close this box if needed.

I suspect SCCA would shed no tears if FC went away especially if that happened to make FE a more popular class.

As I make plans for next season I am thinking I might be holding off on any improvements. Even if the board approves this it will be a while before we know if there is parity.

I am truly confused. If anyone could enlighten me I would appreciate some insights.

---

FC should be a class limited to wheel sizes: 6" x 13" front and 8" x 13" rear.
If you want 8s and 10s, you are welcome jump up to F/A just like what happened to 1.8 supervees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnhafkenschiel

FC should be a class limited to wheel sizes: 6" x 13" front and 8" x 13" rear.
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) :D

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

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 problemchild

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.

---

Why don't you send a proposal to the competition board to rectify this problem?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

I do think that F2000 is vulnerable .....

---

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.

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

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.

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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

You above all people should know what I am trying to say because you have a lot of experience with both cars.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by problemchild

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.

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.

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Wright

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Lathrop

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.

---

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 .

A little common sense on how to rebuild the FC class you could buy

A) Citation for 80-100K . Fat chance of finding one for sale
B) Mygale 60-80 K . maybe 3 built in FC spec
C) USF MZR 30-40 K Roughly 40 out there and looking to be added to class.

From the January 2022 GCR Fastrack.

FC1. #31756 (Steve Thomson) Allow USF2000 cars in FC per FRP rules Thank 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 in participation 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 average of 4.0 cars per event without their participation.

From the 2022 Runoff Entry List.

#	Name	Class	Vehicle	Hometown	Sponsor
4	https://dl.motorsportreg.com/d4c4cbf.../-/format/jpg/ Kevin Fandozzi	FX	https://dl.motorsportreg.com/74fd1d4.../-/format/jpg/2012 Mygale FC	St Joseph, MI	Insight Driven | Hoosier Tire | LTD
8	https://dl.motorsportreg.com/7ab9a90.../-/format/jpg/ Austin Hill	FX	https://dl.motorsportreg.com/f96c8a4.../-/format/jpg/2014 Elan DP-08 Mazda	Frankfort, OH	Southern Ohio Equipment Co, G-Loc Brakes, Big Tex Trailers, PJ Trailers, CM Truck Beds, Rc Trailers,
31	TR Trevor A Russell	FX	https://dl.motorsportreg.com/081cd55.../-/format/jpg/2001 Van Diemen RF01, Van Diemen	Tucson, AZ
72	https://dl.motorsportreg.com/b861cc0.../-/format/jpg/ Dimitrios Tsesmetzis	FX	https://dl.motorsportreg.com/0afa4a7.../-/format/jpg/2005 Van Diemen RF 052USA	Mamaroneck, NY	Global Racing Team

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

My personal overview, certainly not fact supported, not because the facts may not support it, because I won't spend the time.

Atleast two of the FX Runoff entries are actually Zetec powered.

The guys with the Formula Renaults can not be bothered with the Runoffs.

The guys with the older FMs feel disenfranchised and can not be bothered with the Runoffs.

The FM service provider is now building and selling FE2 clones (to the casual observer) with the target market of non-SCCA racing.

Too many Mazda powered FC cars are sitting while FC needs more entries.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

Perhaps it is time that the powers-at-be at SCCA (including some FC people), stop with the delusional concept that it is better to grow FX than support FC. All the arguments for and against are in the previous 4 pages, so no need to rehash once again. It is clearly time to get the specific ex USF2000 VD cars included in FC. There is time to make this happen for 2023.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

Please contact any and all SCCA power figures you know (lots hanging out in Virginia next week) and convey your thoughts. Perhaps even forward this message. I would specifically target the SCCA power figures with FC connections, as they have the most influence, and appear to not be supporting this movement.

Cheers!

Note: I will essentially be "on-the-road" supporting my business and the SCCA Runoffs later today. No need to argue with me personally as I will not be monitoring Apexspeed. Please turn any venom into honey and direct toward SCCA power figures ...... rather than me or each other. Thanks!

Note #2: Just to quell any Runoff schedule banter, SCCA has honored their commitment to those who supported FX this year, although, I am sure the SM and SRF3 guys will not be impressed. The FX class runs with other classes on the test days, and with FE2 for Q sessions. They race last on Friday, which would be considered the lowest impact time slot. I expect this single class status was maintained because 25% of the field also races in FA and another 25% of the field races in FC. Both those drivers did support SCCA Club racing events.

Baffling to me that 4 cars that are essentially FCs get grouped with FE2 rather than FC for qualifying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by problemchild

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 average of 4.0 cars per event without their participation.

---

FX: the answer to the question that nobody asked.

The statement above makes it clear that the SCCA will not move USF2000 cars because it would be admitting they made a mistake in creating FX. They will continue to prop up FX until changes are made in the FSRAC and CRB.
On the other hand, I look forward to the livestream of the four car FX Runoffs race. I wonder if the announcers will mention that half the field are actually FCs...

I don't think we need to disparage anyone who is racing the FX class at the Runoffs. I know all 4, 2 are occasional customers, and certainly have no problem with any. My local dirt-track runs the Novice Sportsman after the Modified Main Feature. It lets the competitors on to the track to race, while most of the crowd heads for the gate. I consider this a similar situation.

This Runoffs turn out may be the trigger to get this sorted out for 2023. Let's take advantage of the situation!

The FRP podium today was Zetec - MZR - Pinto. I’m sure that’s not the first time that has happened, but if that isn’t proof these cars can coexist I don’t know what will be.

Several years ago, I raced in the USF2000 series supporting IndyCar. The series, at the time, offered a National class so club-spec FC Zetec cars could compete at the same time in the big show. The twist is...I was driving a USF2-spec car--MZR, 5sp. sequential. This was fine because my engine was re-mapped to make 170hp to match the Zetecs. I also had to weigh an additional 50 lbs. compared to every other car, pro MZR and club Zetec. We felt this was a bit harsh because, according to my team, the 5 sp. has no advantage over the 4 sp. FC 'box. It's heavier and has more inertia. Of course another gear is nice so maybe it's close to a wash.

I just wanted to offer this info to help the conversation. I'm hoping the USF2 cars can get into FC because...I also race an FM. :D

I've been seeing a handful of Facebook posts saying this is close to being completed. Anyone know where it stands? Spec-line USF2000 or MZR as a new engine option?

See Race Memo:

https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/067/767/RM%2023-07%20USF2000%20MZR%20F2000%20FC%20Classification.p df?1683816997

So the entire car package was made as a Spec Line, and not just the engine/gearbox?
That seems a bit of a waste, considering the car is the same another DP08 with a Zetec or Pinto. What is the issue with not allowing the same chassis rules as the rest of the field?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt Clark

So the entire car package was made as a Spec Line, and not just the engine/gearbox?
That seems a bit of a waste, considering the car is the same another DP08 with a Zetec or Pinto. What is the issue with not allowing the same chassis rules as the rest of the field?

---

Because the same influential people who have blocked this inclusion for the last decade, want to keep the USF cars at a disadvantage, This does give people a place to run these cars and will add to FC participation numbers.

The better news is that there is such a disparity in driving and preparation within the FC class, that well-driven and well-prepped USF cars can beat all but the top 5 or so FC cars in the country, which makes them competitive for podiums, if not wins, at almost any event other than the Runoffs and Sprints. Considering the price point of these USF cars, that is reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt Clark

So the entire car package was made as a Spec Line, and not just the engine/gearbox?
That seems a bit of a waste, considering the car is the same another DP08 with a Zetec or Pinto. What is the issue with not allowing the same chassis rules as the rest of the field?

---

Probably to prevent existing FC from adopting the MZR.
Isn't the sequential box already allowed (some USF cars had Zetecs) ?

I am surprised they didn't limit the box to 4 spd. BUT this is progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing

Probably to prevent existing FC from adopting the MZR.

---

What good reason is there for this?

Our entire class consists of engines that are either 50 or 30 years old. Parts are in short supply. I don't understand why there should be opposition to introducing a more recent, readily available engine that's already been proven to be equalized to the current engines. Not saying it has to be the MZR though it is by far the most logical choice.

This is certainly a step in the right direction, and I look forward to seeing bigger fields with cars that say C on them instead of X. I just hope it's a stepping stone into adding the MZR as an engine option.

Fair points, Greg.

I know they can run competitive in FRP as-is, but it just doesn't make sense not to allow "standard" replacement parts from an identical chassis, so there can't be many reasons beyond your conclusion. Maybe I am wrong here, but if I bang a corner up with my DP08 MZR, why can't I borrow or buy an arm from my buddy pitted next to me with a DP08 Zetec, and not have to get the special USF2000-stickered one?
Keeping the engine/gearbox combo as a required pair & not allow mix/match would probably even be semi-reasonable, even though mixing should also be allowed in my mind. If I bust up a sequential gearbox in a MZR car, I can't put in a H-Pattern box to replace it?

Definitely progress... but still a missed opportunity.
How are things going to be handled when a new FC engine is introduced now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockbeau25

What good reason is there for this?

---

So it remains a line spec car and not another engine option.

Unfortunate, should have just kept things simple and allowed it as an alternate engine. The MZR the USF cars use is pretty old too though so while I am happy we now have a big batch of extremely affordable and nice FC cars even that is just a bandaid for the problem of dwindling Zetec supplies. I guess our hopes for a potential new FC engine lie with the Sigma discussed in the Road Atlanta FF thread.

Are they still building DP08s with an MZR?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spengo

I guess our hopes for a potential new FC engine lie with the Sigma discussed in the Road Atlanta FF thread.

---

That's 20 years old already and doesn't produce the target HP.
So, I would say that isn't an option.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Sigma_engine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing

That's 20 years old already and doesn't produce the target HP.
So, I would say that isn't an option.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Sigma_engine

---

But it's literally in development & should be on track later this year. QuickSilver is getting the numbers out of it, alongside the Ray chassis stuff.

... going back to the MZR discussion...

Is the post a few above this one correct in that only USF-identified chassis components are allowed on MZR cars in scca FC?

i.e. paying full Haas markups?
and how long will they be available given the USF cars have all been superceded?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotus7

... going back to the MZR discussion...

Is the post a few above this one correct in that only USF-identified chassis components are allowed on MZR cars in scca FC?

i.e. paying full Haas markups?
and how long will they be available given the USF cars have all been superceded?

---

Per the RM21-07 Memo & document referenced/linked within that, that certainly appears to be the case. It gives specific part numbers for basically all body components, and has the sentence "Components must bear the intact approved seal applied by the authorized Van Diemen distributor" in the suspension section.

https://www.scca.com/downloads/67761...fc-v2/download

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt Clark

But it's literally in development & should be on track later this year. QuickSilver is getting the numbers out of it, alongside the Ray chassis stuff.

---

Are there really that many engines available of the specific model that will be needed?

So were going to take a 1.6 or 1.7 and up-tune it out of reliability ?

It seems 155hp is attainable but that is what is yielded from a racing version.
https://www.burtonpower.com/tuning-g...ng-guide.html#

To me the goal of any new engine should be low mods and low increase in power to attain the desired power.
That translates into reliability and reduced long term cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt Clark

Per the RM21-07 Memo & document referenced/linked within that, that certainly appears to be the case. It gives specific part numbers for basically all body components, and has the sentence "Components must bear the intact approved seal applied by the authorized Van Diemen distributor" in the suspension section.

https://www.scca.com/downloads/67761...fc-v2/download

---

I don’t believe that’s true. A arms, bell cranks, etc are the exact same as from Brad Baytos as they are from Haas other than cost. I think what they are saying is, the car has to stay in usf2000 spec. Meaning you can’t run the low aero wing like they do at Road America or some other special whizzy bits that may come from alternate supply.

I think them having this as a spec line car because it’s the exact same Vandiemen as with a zetec or pinto that’s been around for 20 years is a good thing. If they opened up motors or gearboxes it would be a slippery slope. Let’s see how this brings numbers up and then take baby steps for the future. Unless someone is in line to dump 20k to upgrade to a new engine package this seems like a more sane model for now.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianT1

If they opened up motors or gearboxes it would be a slippery slope.
Brian

---

But they specifically aren't opening up the motor or the gearbox:
they are restricting chassis and aero components, which have always been essentially free in the concept of a "formula" class.
Fixed spec already exists in their inhouse FE2 class for those that want it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing

Are there really that many engines available of the specific model that will be needed?

So were going to take a 1.6 or 1.7 and up-tune it out of reliability ?

It seems 155hp is attainable but that is what is yielded from a racing version.
https://www.burtonpower.com/tuning-g...ng-guide.html#

To me the goal of any new engine should be low mods and low increase in power to attain the desired power.
That translates into reliability and reduced long term cost.

---

Being that this is the same engine as the SRF3, I would guess there are more than enough engines for everyone to convert if they want.
I cannot speak to any of the other points, other than to say it did surprise me too a bit, but I believe Erik at QS when he says he can make it work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianT1

I don’t believe that’s true. A arms, bell cranks, etc are the exact same as from Brad Baytos as they are from Haas other than cost. I think what they are saying is, the car has to stay in usf2000 spec. Meaning you can’t run the low aero wing like they do at Road America or some other special whizzy bits that may come from alternate supply.

I think them having this as a spec line car because it’s the exact same Vandiemen as with a zetec or pinto that’s been around for 20 years is a good thing. If they opened up motors or gearboxes it would be a slippery slope. Let’s see how this brings numbers up and then take baby steps for the future. Unless someone is in line to dump 20k to upgrade to a new engine package this seems like a more sane model for now.

Brian

---

And that is possible... I am just going off where it spells out exactly what the requirements are, which says it has to have the stickers & such.
But like is said above, the motors/gearboxes arent opened up. They are restricting you from doing chassis changes that are allowed on identical chassis with other engines. Why would you not be allowed to run low-drag wings or wizzy bits? All that is doing is purposely hindering you, so why even bother attempting the Runoffs at that point? Seems to be counter-productive if you are trying to expand the field size.

While I agree that the rule, as written, is lacking, why is anybody surprised? Inclusion of the USF cars is only a decade late which is typical of the SCCA process. Influential SCCA people did not want this to happen and they certainly don't want to hear anything about the next FC engine.

Having said that, I will agree that the USF cars and FC engine evolution should be treated as separate issues. It was difficult enough to get the USF inclusion. Now the FC community can independently pursue cleaning up the new rule and finding the next FC engine.

This rules package will be good for FC numbers the short term. Having an engine package that is current or close to current is a good and necessary thing.

But I don't see anyone making a new F2000 or doing a conversion of a popular FF to F2000 because they would have to use engines that have been out of production for decades and no longer have any form of factory support. Say good by to the Piper and the Citation, at least any new car designs in F2000.

If I wanted to make a car to smoke the competition, I might think about a Pinto powered car. But that would just be a one time project with no future.

Running a non-VD car in FC will not be as rough as running F2000 cars against the Ralt RT4 as we did when F2000 first started in SCCA.

The days of classic formula car racing where there were a set of rules, the formula, and you built a car to those rules are gone. Spec car racing is now the norm.

My guess is it is possible to bring a new current motor into the FC class if the competitors want. I helped lead the effort to bring the Zetec into FC in ~ 2006. I was the FC rep on the SCCA formula car advisory committee at the time and I think Dave Gomberg was on the board and supported the idea. I may get some of the facts wrong but as I remember we did the following.

The Zetec was current and available as a crate engine and had been introduced to the pro series which was robust at the time. So it made sense to write a set of SCCA rules. Myself, and a group of FC competitors, IIRC Tim Minor and Chas Shaffer and few others were directly involved. Quick Silver and Eric and Sandy also played a very important role. The engine was dynoed and baselined at QS to match the Pinto as best possible in the shop. Then we got Summit Point to do a test day and on track comparisons. We had my car with a very good Pinto and a Zetec car, maybe more than one. We did side by side tests, drag races on the straight and QS tweaked the mapping and restrictor until things looked pretty equal. We always knew the Zetec spun up easier at the time, but that has been largely addressed since.

Then we wrote (the group of us and QS) a detailed set of rules that intended to absolutely minimize development and only use crate engines with factory OEM unaltered parts that were still available at the time. We submitted the detailed rule set and it got sent out for comment and approved.

The biggest difference then and now was the clear choice of engine already being installed in the pro cars. But if a clear choice of engine were identified and QS was on board, some sort of FC driver/team driven process could be followed again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Silver

The biggest difference then and now was the clear choice of engine already being installed in the pro cars. But if a clear choice of engine were identified and QS was on board, some sort of FC driver/team driven process could be followed again.

---

Correct me if any of this is wrong, but the pro series cars still use a 2L MZR, and they're still available as a crate engine. They're not in a club legal car anymore but the supply of engines hasn't gone away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockbeau25

Correct me if any of this is wrong, but the pro series cars still use a 2L MZR, and they're still available as a crate engine. They're not in a club legal car anymore but the supply of engines hasn't gone away.

---

Correct. The FE is running an MZR as is the latest USF2000 Tatuus.