We need to have new cars produced to have a healthy class
All of the sub $10,000 entry level cars that are refereed to are used. With no mass production of new cars, the supply of used FF's as entry level platforms will dry up further hurting class participation (and driving costs up).
What FD-600 (Or FB-1000) will do is:
-- Allow new cars to be built, with new modern components. These new cars will kick start the currently dormant trickle down new to used car market. Today's New $20-$25knew FD-600, will become tomorrow's $10,000 Starter.
-- Allows new opportunity for new lower cost, longer life technology to be introduced. Allot has been learned in the years was FF manufacturing was at it's peak. Now tools and process have been developed, new parts sources have been established.
-- It allows manufactures to enter the market as they see a profit making opportunity. Just look at the manufactures interest created by FB. Whole cars, Conversion Kits, Whole Car Kits and I bet, eventually Conversion or Kit Assembly contractors.
-- It creates a positive buzz, attracting drivers who for whatever reason don't find FF appealing in its current form (Old tech, Rebuild/longevity, Running Costs, Etc).
Perspective is every thing
I read Charles Warner's arguments and I am amazed that I can look at the same set of facts and arrive at the oposite conclusion.
F600 is not the real threat to FF. FC is probably the biggest threat. The cars used are about the same price. Operating costs are the same or less (cheeper tires and a slightly better engine life). All the newest FF are derived from FC. Right now it takes the combined market of FF and FC to keep most shops going. What is the attraction of FF over FC?
Arguing for alternative sources for engine parts for both FF and FC does nothing to expand the classes. The existance of thses parts makes it possible for people to continue to race but the cost of new engines continues to rise with every new part introduced. The engines are not in bone yards any more because the value of scrap iron. So over time you are going to be running pure racing engines. If you want FF blocks talk to Cosworth, they already have aluminum blocks that are almost identical to the FF block.
The Zetec engine was the last relative cheep engine conversion available for both FF and FC. But even that engine has a limited future because it is now out of production. FC took the plung and FF didn't.
As to real entry level classes, F500 has had more than a decade to catch on and hasn't. FV is still strong and in my estimation probably the best entry level class SCCA has. The cars cost way less that FF to buy and operate. The quality of the competition is probably the best of any SCCA class. You go to any national any where and you are likely to run against a former national champion, sometimes several. For the most part there is only one FV class racing because the performance of old and relative new cars is not much different. As a group of racers the FV people represent the best of SCCA. In truth, FV has delivered the promises made by the promoters of spec racing.
I see F600 as the savior of FF if it adopts the FF rules. F600 will increase the value of current model FF chassis, and creat a new supply of cars built to a lower cost target than FC and F1000.
To some extent, the future of SCCA club racing needs a new entry level formula class that will attract new drivers. The current formula car mix is not getting the job done.
The race groups are already a dumping ground so one more class is not going to alter anything. But if F600 takes off like SM, then you may see single class racing again with F600 or at least a more homogenous class grouping.
See Charlie, I'm not the only one who sees things differently.
observations from a stroll through the paddock
it's my sense most of the participants here at ApexSpeed observing a
newbie trying to set the ride height and tow of their car "by eye" on an
uneven piece of paddock would quickly conclude that the newbie's
probabiliy of success was one divided by an astronomicly large number.
it's also my sense that more, than not, would offer to help, some even
fetching the required equipment to to get it right for a fellow competitor.
in a far too similar manner, anyone with professional experience solving
problems in a technical environment would conclude on observing the
preoccupation with solutions here that the probability of success was
even less than the newbie's!!! people that solve problems for a
living invest a large amount of time doing clinically object analysis to
support coming to a quantifiable problem statement (ie: objectively
verifiable). without a quantifiable problem statement there is no hope
of forging a consensus on what the problem is. time spent on
objective analysis and data gathering is almost always required to
carry the day when the quantifiable problem statement is exposed to
the free and open partisan debate of a large distributed group of interested
parties. one of my favorite books/movies is "Fate is the Hunter" by
Ernest Gann; reading the book or watching the movie would be enjoyable
and enlightening time spent away from the raging debate. the character
portrayed by Glenn Ford in the movie was NEVER interested in designing
a new airplane; he was interested in identifing the "problem"!!!
how can anyone conclude the current group(s) in Topeka is/are any more
likely to fix the alledged problem than their predessors? continued use
of the same techniques and processes that brought us F500, SRF,
F/SCCA, F/M, and F1000 doesn't enspire an abundance of confidence
in me!! a quantifiable problem statement that can survive open extreme
partisan debate is required. it may not be fun, glamorus, or your cup
of tea, but it is what is required. the "New Rational Manager" by
Kepner & Tregoe will make interesting reading to those who haven't
been exposed to professional problem solving and decision making
techniques.
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
Need a Plan-Never going to get there if you don't know where u want to go
Need a Plan-Never going to get there if you don't know where u want to go
Rennie brought up the "N"Word, NASA. NASA is structured fundamentally different then the "Club". They are a for profit organization, who needs to tune their products and services to pull in membership and have membership event participation. If they feel that there is profit potential and the desire to compete in the Formula Car Racing Sanctioning business, they'll do as any good for profit entity should, they will:
1- Look at all the data available
2- Look at the Competition
3- Look at other outside factors
4- Look at demographic trends
5- Determine the audience - including their needs and desires
6- Will do market research/focus groups
7- Will determine goals/objectives/milestones
8- See how the new venture fits into the overall "Product Mix", both short and long term
--- Make sure there is no cannibalization
9- Analyze the risk/reward
10- Make a business decision
11- Develop and execute a plan (Includes assigning resources)
12- Market/promote it
13- Adjust as needed
The idea is to minimize risk and maximize the reward. As a club, we need to go through most of the above steps. Unfortunately, it probably won't be as efficient, as our club structure is not naturally suited to this type of approach, nor do I know if we have the resources.
Even before the above steps, I believe it starts developing a broad master plan for the Formula Car Classes. Then defining the attributes of each class (Audience, performance, cost, etc). Put this information into a grid. What you hope to see are very few overlaps. When this most basic information is on paper, the opportunities and issues will present themselves, as they will support or not support the master plan.
Still No Action, Just More Talk
WOW! This is the super-sized version of the so-called yearly FF alternate engine and/or tire discussion... GOOD!!! People disparagingly refer to these discussions as harmful to FF, calling it the "silly season", the "yearly discussion", or worse. Well that's a BS negative attitude that just won't fly anymore. So I'm saying this is the most positive way possible...
Won't you guys ever get anything going? It's getting just like a continuous circle-jerk now (although I personally have never shared such an experience!) with everyone patting themselves on the back saying how great each others comments are or agreeing how wrong the other people's comments are. I have always argued that "internet areas" such as this cannot ever conclude any serious results, and have hated ever even trying to get anything organized in such a place. I think the biggest section here is the joke section... how appropriate. (Yes, that might sound like a few negative comments, but don't let the
usual panty wadding begin just yet, I'm just trying to make a point on how the this whole thing is not heading in any useful direction. And yes this is another long post of mine...blah, blah, blah... get over it.)
Well FF is not dead (just "dying on the vine" - gotta call it that since nothing better describes how it's fallen from grace), but FF might just as well be dead to the SCCA. FF is a de facto VINTAGE CLASS, and the SCCA doesn't do vintage. In many parts of the country FF activity in "vintage" organizations exceeds FF activity in so-called "racing" organizations. So yes, by definition FF will never actually "die". For some, unfortunately, that seems to be enough! And if you are OK with that, then NOTHING, obviously, needs to be done to help the class, as you pin your hopes on the tiniest little blip on the participation radar.
For those who actually WANT a healthy contemporary class, the purpose here is NOT to "change" FF but as I have always stated to instead "RESTORE" it! Rein in the technology creep (costs), and do some other things (improved competition). YES, naysayers, it can be done with rules updates which again place FF in the correct level of "racing value" to be attractive to new racers and new manufacturers, while enhancing existing drivers experiences with minimal impact (For one possible example, see the "FF in the 21st Century" plan). The rules are just a container into which a car fits. The need is to just change the shape of the container a bit so that ALL existing cars still fit in, and yet allows new cars a chance to be made to fit in too according to market forces, BUT does NOT change the actual product itself. As stated many times, new chassis MUST be built to bring in new racers, and the often-stated simplistic line of saying "well just go race and we'll all be fine" is a failure to understand the reality that "it" will NEVER work unless it makes "sense" in every sense of that word. That means it's an all-or-nothing, integrated solution that is needed. Unless you "fix" the several weaknesses together, you fix none.
Earlier in this thread, you were being warned, AGAIN, by the "powers-that-be" in the SCCA. This is about the third warning in as many years - do something or "we" will do it for you. Since it appears that the FF community still cannot act on any items that are more than just minor engine-builder-driven tweaks which only "prolong the agony", I wish that the SCCA would just go ahead and "shotgun" some changes. Example: I believe there were enough letters in support of a tire rule (I call it a need for a "tire formula", NOT a "spec tire") - why didn't the SCCA just do it? Same with the engine thing - other parts of the world already use the Duratec - just do it SCCA (an "engine formula"). But Fastrack says no action on either tires or engine. But now here it was stated that the so-called ad hoc committee might look at two engines (Duratec and Miata I bet - a year later and back to square one with the original idea brought up). Is this more conflicting information? Another desperate attempt at propriety? But in any case, the SCCA should have the balls to just do BOTH now!
Since lotsa people are using asinine little cliches to describe the situation, here's my own asinine little cliche. Since FF is "dying", in some sense anyway, here are the classic "Five Stages of Death" as relates to the ongoing demise of FF:
1. Denial and Isolation: (up to 2002) Head in the sand; "There's no problem"; "This kinda talk hurts the FFU forum".
2. Anger: (2002 to 2004) "You are ruining the class"; "It will never work"; "It's somebody else's fault".
3. Bargaining: (2004 to present - our current situation!) "Let other classes save FF"; "Maybe we should do something?"
4. Depression: (Future) Sour grapes; Why didn't we do something?; "It used to be such a great class".
5. Acceptance: (Future) "Vintage car for sale"; "Yeah sonny, I used to race those back in my day".
It's not like something HAS to be done, so keep racing your vintage cars. Hey, let's apply to the SCCA to make FF the first official vintage class they have. And I see a "new" 50-year-old technology Kent in the classifieds for over 12 big ones. Gee, and it will even last 25 hours! Boy, you'll never be able to keep the kids down on the farm once they see that! Like they used to say in this former chicken ranch town that I live in: "We're crowin' cuz we're growin'".
Ron
I think this really is getting quite constructive
Art, Jim, Sean O., Rennie, (et al),
Again I agree with almost 100% of your comments. The real problem with your expectations is that the Club Racing staff at Topeka are largely caretakers. I spent a few unproductive years before I bought the Zetec car, writing letters to the BOD and Comp Boards essentially saying "FC needs the Zetec, let it in". Those letters mostly frustrated the Comp Board and never got me anywhere.
So a few years ago, I was running the Zetec car as a FA in the Runoffs. I had a chance at the formula group tent meeting to talk to several influential SCCA members (Dave G., Joe S., Sandy S., and Kevin K.). Dave and Joe did a very good job of explaining the root problem to me. The SCCA is a member driven organization. The Club Racing staff is not expected or intended to provide any strategic direction or long term planning. They are there to administer the will of the masses. In short I needed to offer not suggested tweaks, but a comprehensive plan.
I came away from the Runoffs with a new understanding. If I wanted the SCCA to change, it was up to me to get the ball rolling. The SCCA would willingly adopt such a reasonable plan, if and only if it was precrafted, fully vetted and seemed to have strong member support.
Shortly after the Runoffs, Rick Silver contacted me. With Rick carrying the flag, a group of Pinto and Zetec FC drivers banded together and worked out a new paradigm for the FC class. I am proud of that work, but it also opened my eyes. The SCCA is relying on us the members/drivers to tell them what we want to happen. If we don't organize and provide them with a clear easily implemented road map, no one else will. Stagnation and status quo will follow.
Sean
