New FV Minimum Weight

Mike,

So if a 21% decline in participation since 2007 (5 yrs.) doesn't indicate a problem,
then what amount does indicate a problem in your view? Based on YOUR numbers,
we're heading for a 42% decline by 2017 since the trend has been downward since the mid 90"s. So does a 42% decline or loss of 300 - 400 drivers start to worry
you yet or only if it impacts National participation since that's where you hang?
I'm understand that the economy has contributed to some of the erosion and maybe
driver's will come back if it turns around, but who knows for sure? You mentioned
date supporting your side of the discussion, so please elaborate what the data has
determined, who gathered it etc?? You also mentioned that the problems needing
to be fixed are not tires and weight, if so then what in your view are they? You've
taken the opposing side the entire time so I respectfully ask your opinion on what
fixes are available that will bring back the garage queens.

Mark

Anyone have the average participation numbers for FV and SCCA by class over the last say 10 years (the more the better)? National and regional?

If you do and can't post here for any reason can you PM me and I will send you my email address.

Also, tire prices over time is an interesting study, but unfortunately may not be meaningful. One of my statistics professors once used an example that may fit here. Shark attacks increase as ice cream consumption increases therefore to cut down on shark attacks we should stop eating ice cream. When looking at tire prices and participation numbers we should remember that our first assumptions of correlation may be nothing more than an interesting anecdote.

Craig

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craigs

Anyone have the average participation numbers for FV and SCCA by class over the last say 10 years (the more the better)? National and regional?

If you do and can't post here for any reason can you PM me and I will send you my email address.

Also, tire prices over time is an interesting study, but unfortunately may not be meaningful. One of my statistics professors once used an example that may fit here. Shark attacks increase as ice cream consumption increases therefore to cut down on shark attacks we should stop eating ice cream. When looking at tire prices and participation numbers we should remember that our first assumptions of correlation may be nothing more than an interesting anecdote.

Craig

---

Or spend millions of dollars to find out what ingredient it is in the ice cream that attracts the sharks. (insert joke about the government here.....)

Its much easier to blame the economy than try to make things better. In not too distant times, FV had 3X the national entry average that we do now. In that same time, SRF and SM have come from zero to the numbers we had. If this was FA, or even FB or FC, then I could buy into the elitist attitude that we only want the best, most dedicated, athletic, competitors. Gimme a frickin break. FV was a class for the common people. Reducing costs and making the cars more accessible will absolutely slow the decline, by helping keep people enthused and enjoying their racing experience. Guys who are 50 lbs overweight now, will see some light in the tunnel, and lose 15 lbs or replace the floor, and will absolutely improve their performance. If weight is not so important, why are people fighting so hard to keep their advantage. If people got to September, and could do another race without buying another set of tires, they would be so much more likely to do another race or two. None of this is going to show up in data from one year to the next, to show a correlation to change. At this point, affecting change that would result in just 1/4 of the current racers doing just one more event per year, would be a huge improvement and would probably equalize the natural decline (FV drivers retiring/not renewing, die-ing,?).
Other than tires and minimum weight, what can be changed? Its easy to criticize others ideas, and say you're working on your own solutions, but those solutions never come. There is a problem. Why would there be 4 or 5 threads going on for 100s of posts, if not a problem? Quashing the people, who believe there is a problem, by a narrow margin, is not a solution. It just prevents the solution from coming now.

[FONT=Verdana]These threads are getting so frickin lengthy and redundant.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Is there any logical path for any of these recommendations i.e. weight, tires, engines, suspension, chassis, bodywork, grid girls, etc?[/FONT]

If I could be at a track unloading my trailer right now, instead of at work I would not be complaining that much at all....

Greg: Great post!!!


CenDiv20: If you don't like this thread or it's annoying, then don't participate!

Amon, re-read my post..... "Is there any logical path for any of these recommendations"

So, your recommendation is for me to not participate? Brillant idea!

Then give us your solution to these posts and what you see as a way to solve
the declining numbers as Greg mentioned this morning? I agree we need to move beyond this discussion so take the lead and we'll hopefully consider it?

I do not know how to attract more drivers to our class yet... do I wish I had the answer, Absolutely.

I would rather have a field of 20+ cars every race instead of less than 10 cars most of the time. I just don't believe that changing the tires and weight is going to get someone "off the bench". If they have been off the track for that long, they will incur other mandatory expenses... HANS this year, Engine rebuild at least a valve job, restraints, med-physical, license, gear, brakes, trailer maint, trailer registration, etc. Do I agree it's tougher to attract someone new into the class and make that initial investment rather than get someone who has a car sitting... of course. Although that car is sitting for a reason and I don't believe it is because of the GCR.... of course there is someone out there though but I am referring to the majority.

The biggest thing that amazes anyone when they see my car, or picture of.... First question "how fast do you go" Second question "do you get paid to do that". A lot of people cannot even wrap their head around the fact we will go racing for a whole weekend if not longer, drive to another state to earn points and a trophy.
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]

Cendiv20:

So explain to me how paying less for something (tires) over a period of a year is not
a benefit for those involved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amon

Cendiv20:

So explain to me how paying less for something (tires) over a period of a year is not
a benefit for those involved?

---

Everyone is assuming a spec tire is going to make it cheaper. That's a very big and risky assumption. Ask those in SRF, FE, SM, ect. what their tire expenses are. There is a HUGE possibility that this spec tire bs will backfire and we end up with a tire that is worse then what we have now. We currently have tires that are effectively cheaper, last longer, and have less drop off from new to coords then anytime in the history of our class. Let that soak in for a minute....

If FV's are following the same decline as SCCA as a whole, then doesn't that mean there is some common factor not related to class specific rules?

My ideas have nothing to do with spec tires or weight issues. SCCA club racing as a whole needs to be re-worked. Simple things like a reduction in classes and programs like the newly implemented Majors program are a step in the right direction. Creating a more quality experience like SCCA is trying to do will bring people back into the club. More people in the club = more FV's. It seems to me that attacking the problem at the core is a much better and less risky proposition then altering class rules. Spec tires and adding 25 lbs is not going to fix SCCA...and that's what broke. Not FV. FV's are still the most bang for the buck of any class in SCCA. It's impossible to make a class so that everyone who wants to race can race. It's not feasible.

I never did say it was "not" a benefit.

I believe and know there are many more variables to this equation. We have done all these surveys so far... how about survey the garage queens and ask them "will you come out and race all season because we changed the tires? That will be more of an accurate approach and I would bet it wont be "Yes, I have been waiting for a spec tire forever, I will start getting the car together tonight"

I will be at Blackhawk at the start of the season with sticker Hoosiers or Spec tires regardless... I have 106 days from today to put a couple dollars away each day for them. Or I have no problem using the tires I have on the car from the Runoffs, they might be the better choice?

To sum this all up, I am not looking for a pis*ing match. Most of us on here are the drivers out there. We want to get more drivers out there and I believe it will take more than just a set of tires.

I have much more confidence that tweeking FV within the basic "status quo" concept can have much more positive effect than expecting SCCA to recover/reform/evolve.
The SCCA's non-profit club business model has little chance of recovery as it competes with real business organizations targeting specific classes/people/markets.
If FV can stabilize itself over the next few years, then it is in position to continue with a re-organized SCCA or other racing organizations.

This thread has become the same as talking to a wall at this point. Some people have the opinion to make changes & others want it to remain the same & we are moving no where other then writting a bunch of hot air at this point.

Some people want to hear from the garage queens...well some have already answered earlier in this thread as to why they left or what it would take to come back. Now maybe that is an excuse, I can not speak for anyone but they did write what they were in support of.

A few people have posted that the SCCA should do more to attract racers to FV. I don't think it the SCCA's job to attract racers to FV, maybe to attract racers to all classes possibly but it is not there job to attract racers specifically to FV. Let's throw that one out the window now.

It seems we will continue to have a difference of opinion as we did from page one to page five now.

My question is where & when or how do we try to get the attention of the SCCA to bring some ideas forward. We can differ in opinion & those who want things to stay the same should have a voice just as much as those who want to make a change.

Two questions:

1). A couple of people have mentioned that weight was a factor in them leaving the class. Some of them have moved on to other classes. Have they committed to dropping that program and making a return to FV if the weight is raised?

2). The only way there will be any movement on this issue is if the FVAC takes up the cause and makes a recommendation to the CRB. Several FVAC members have participated in this thread. What is the committee's position on it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amon

Cendiv20:So explain to me how paying less for something (tires) over a period of a year is not a benefit for those involved?

---

Sure it does, so then why the political difficulty getting it done. Just try it in your local us area and see how far you can get.

Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt King

The only way there will be any movement on this issue is if the FVAC takes up the cause and makes a recommendation to the CRB. Several FVAC members have participated in this thread. What is the committee's position on it?

---

The FVAC does not have the political power. For that you must look to the NE Division... Carr and Pastore.

Brian

People, expecting concrete proof that something will help, are being unrealistic. If I own a restaurant, and my food is average, but overpriced, and my parking lot is small and difficult to access .... I continue to sell average food, but lower the price and inprove my parking ..... it is logical that my general business will improve. Not in one day! Not in a week!
I could also leave everything the same and hope I'm still in business when the economy improves.

It's a bigger and more risky assumption to believe that by doing nothing, the numbers
will all of a sudden, magically correct themselves and head in the other direction. The
new tires aren't cheaper because that goes against the increase costs associated w/
production of tires, and they aren't COMPETITIVE any longer than before. Sure you can run on a set for 10-12 heat cycles, but I bet Mike, SteveO and others don't race on tires with that many heat cycles at a National because they're no longer competitive with tires that are new.

Mike,

Why should we reinvent the wheel (pun intended) when the Canadians have been running successfully on spec tires for years. SRF and SM are heavier cars and will have more wear. We're a lot lighter and the Falken radials they use in Canada don't seem to get harder over a period of 2 years. I know I checked new tires with ones that had 12 races+ 4 qualifying sessions and a set that was 2 years old and the durometer readings were almost identical. It's easy to shrug off tire expense as a National Champ (they're free) or one that is consistently winning nationals (Hoosier 1 nat win = 2 tires and correct me if I'm wrong Goodyear = 1 set). I hear all the time that everyone wears them down to the cords, but walk by the Goodyear or Hoosier trailers at a national and there are lots and lots of FV tires. I agree that tires are way better than they were yeas ago, but that doesn't mean that the tire s can't get better.


Yes the FV numbers are in the same decline as SCCA but does that mean we need to just say "Oh well...."


Reduction of classes? Be careful what you wish for. Who's to say that SCCA in their infinite wisdom won't eliminate FORMULA VEE. We're antiquated and we don't provide any sponsoship money to the club. SCCA had a program a few years ago that gave everyone that bought a Subaru a years membership, but never followed up on retaining those members. So the CLUB spent OUR MONEY (dues and renewals) to GIVE AWAY memberships then pissed it away. Greg made a good point with his restaurant analogy; what makes us think that overall numbers will increase OUR numbers. Yes FV is more bang for the buck, but SCCA will not do anything for us. We must do that ourselves. Spec tires, more weight, outlandish promotion; what ever it takes. My wife watches some of those cooking shows on the Food channel and I'll admit that I watch them too. ( Perhaps I could get a job at Greg Rice's restaurant.) Well there's a show called Diners, Drive Ins and Dives that apparently has lots of viewers. Well one episode I watched they went back to some of the restaurants they showcased to see the impact National TV made to their restaurant's business . In all cases the restaurants businesses enjoyed explosive growth. Maybe we could find someone with rental cars, or available cars and invite the hosts of the Car Show or American Top Gear to drive the cars in a Regional race or at the 50th Birthday Party. Heck why don't we invite the Top Gear guys from England, they have something like 300 million viewers and heck if we could get just 1/1000 of a percent of their viewers to come race with us that would be someting like 300 new drivers. Why don't we invite the Canadians to the birthday party and give them a race of their own. I'd bet that Greg Rice and Billy Vallis could wrangle up some extra sets of tires for an American driver or drivers. This world and this economy require us to think outside the box and not use the thinking that was popular when Dr. Ing designed the first Beetle....

I've yet to read a reason for weight increase that comes from an averaged sized race car driver. I know not everyone is designed to be racing cars. Those that are, will always have an advantage. Adding weight does not equal that advantage. The best FV race car driver is not short, but he fits into his car within the rules, he did not have the rules changed for his car to fit him. There will always be a few that will never race a FV, but then there are things that everyone will not do.
Stinking to the question, it is simple, I sent in my opposition.

Bruce,

Why would an average size driver concern himself with weight? The larger than
average drivers are the one's concerned and if you don't want them racing (based
on your post), then you may soon get your wish!

Good luck!

Mark

Amon,

I hope so. The title of the thread is New FV Minimum Weight. I kept to that.

How so other than to dump on larger drivers? You must be of the Horse Jockey
size who doesn't care about anyone but yourself?

Bruce you post is rather narrow minded; Anyone other than average size should not be driving a FV. Why don't we eliminate anyone over the age of 40 (reaction times probably are slower and therfore not safe), how about anyone over 6'2 (they may need and extension on the roll hoop to meet requirements and the extra welding might be unsafe) how about people from west of the Mississippi,( they don't have large enough numbers to make SCCA profitable", etc, etc.

I for one hope you don't get your wish

Al

Al:

I guess it takes ALL kinds to make the world go around.


Mark

I'm relatively new to FV but not new to racing or the club.

Just my opinion, I'm not in favor of anything that makes these cars any slower than they already are.

If I have to add 25lbs to my car, I won't agree with it, will probably bitch about it but I won't stop racing because of it. I have already added a stainless steel floor pan and still run about 20lbs of ballast. If I have to add more ballast it will in a place that helps my car.

A spec tire is a different thing. I have zero interest in running on a harder spec tire and while I won't stop racing, I would change classes.

The spec slick tire has been tried at the national level in other classes and accomplished none of the issues raised here and has never lasted. It doesn't compress the field, get anyone any closer to the front and most importantly, doesn't make driving these cars anymore fun. A spec tire has some favor at the regional level but it is very specific to certain divisions and I think it should stay a regional issue.

Agree with several of Mikes' points. If I thought for a second this would help the class in any way, shape or form, I'd jump on the bandwagon. I spend a lot of time talking to drivers in my division and I can tell the reason drivers choose to stay home is a complex issue, but never has one mentioned a spec tire or weight or really any single car related issue to me as their reason. Most choices have to do with time commitment and perceived value compared to all the other things going on in their lives.


Bill Johnson

Bill:

1.) Add a National Manifold and you'll maintian your times!

2.) I wish I could add weight to make the min. reg'd amount.

3.) I'll probably change classes if we don't adopt a spec tire so I guess we're even.

4.) Don't ask the FST, Canadian and Vintage Vee drivers about their "spec-tire"
because you won't like their response!

5.) So NONE of your friends EVER mentioned the cost of racing as the reason they
stayed home? I find that hard to believe unless they're all well off financially.

6.) I don't agree with Mike's comments and DO believe the changes are for the
betterment of the class, and not one individual.

Mark

92' Protoform P-2/05'

Bill,

The Canadian spec tire is a street radial

I don't own or race a FV but we're having a similar discuss in F5/F6. Some information I found while looking at weight increases in the USA.

Average weight around the world

Brazil 160.3 Measured 2008–2009
Chile 170.4 Measured 2009–2010
Germany 181.7 Measured 2005
United States 190.9 Measured 1999–2002

Average adult Americans are about one inch taller, but nearly a whopping 25 pounds heavier than they were in 1960, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The bad news, says CDC is that average BMI (body mass index, a weight-for-height formula used to measure obesity) has increased among adults from approximately 25 in 1960 to 28 in 2002.
The report, Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index (BMI) 1960-2002: United States, shows that the average height of a man aged 20-74 years increased from just over 5'8" in 1960 to 5'9½" in 2002, while the average height of a woman the same age increased from slightly over 5'3" 1960 to 5'4" in 2002.
Meanwhile, the average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002, while the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002.
Though the average weight for men aged 20-39 years increased by nearly 20 pounds over the last four decades, the increase was greater among older men:
• Men between the ages of 40 and 49 were nearly 27 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
• Men between the ages of 50 and 59 were nearly 28 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
• Men between the ages of 60 and 74 were almost 33 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Johnson 42

I'm relatively new to FV but not new to racing or the club.

Just my opinion, I'm not in favor of anything that makes these cars any slower than they already are.

If I have to add 25lbs to my car, I won't agree with it, will probably bitch about it but I won't stop racing because of it. I have already added a stainless steel floor pan and still run about 20lbs of ballast. If I have to add more ballast it will in a place that helps my car.

A spec tire is a different thing. I have zero interest in running on a harder spec tire and while I won't stop racing, I would change classes.

The spec slick tire has been tried at the national level in other classes and accomplished none of the issues raised here and has never lasted. It doesn't compress the field, get anyone any closer to the front and most importantly, doesn't make driving these cars anymore fun. A spec tire has some favor at the regional level but it is very specific to certain divisions and I think it should stay a regional issue.

Agree with several of Mikes' points. If I thought for a second this would help the class in any way, shape or form, I'd jump on the bandwagon. I spend a lot of time talking to drivers in my division and I can tell the reason drivers choose to stay home is a complex issue, but never has one mentioned a spec tire or weight or really any single car related issue to me as their reason. Most choices have to do with time commitment and perceived value compared to all the other things going on in their lives.


Bill Johnson

---

Bill,
How many people join the FV class by buying a brand new Vortech and buying the best Quicksilver engine to put in it? Including newbies like yourself in the program is needed, but you cannot expect to build the class around a handful of people like yourself. Have you looked at other FVs to see how the level of side protection and crashworthiness compare? Not everyone wants to drive a car as light as yours. Its an opportunity for you to be safer without any competitive disadvantage. Many others need that help just to be more competitive. It would be a shame if those were reasons you would leave FV.

Greg & AL,

We're wasting our time and it's time to head in another direction!


Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by problemchild

Bill,
How many people join the FV class by buying a brand new Vortech and buying the best Quicksilver engine to put in it? Including newbies like yourself in the program is needed, but you cannot expect to build the class around a handful of people like yourself. Have you looked at other FVs to see how the level of side protection and crashworthiness compare? Not everyone wants to drive a car as light as yours.

---

Greg I don't understand, shouldn't we all spend 20 - 30 grand for our cars to help build the class?

Steve,

My wife would probably divorce me if I spent $30K on a new Vortech :D!!


Mark

92' Protoform P-2/05'

There is a place for people in FV that can afford nice stuff. We just have to have rules that minimize their advantages so that driving and preparation skill matters most.

Not to change the subject (like it hasn't been changed before), but re: the cost of racing... I buy AMB transponders 10 at a time for wholesale pricing. They have just raised the wholesale price to more that what the retail price used to be. Suggested retail is now $489. (I sell them cheaper than that).... This is nothing but an epoxy sealed RFID amplified circuit worth about $25. Now that the SCCA (and tracks) have locked into them they have us by the gonads.

Mark,

Probably..?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sracing

Not to change the subject (like it hasn't been changed before), but re: the cost of racing... I buy AMB transponders 10 at a time for wholesale pricing. They have just raised the wholesale price to more that what the retail price used to be. Suggested retail is now $489. (I sell them cheaper than that).... This is nothing but an epoxy sealed RFID amplified circuit worth about $25. Now that the SCCA (and tracks) have locked into them they have us by the gonads.

---

That's nuts, but they have probably also realized that the majority of people who will ever need a transponder already have one. As this thread has discussed, club racing is not growing, so there is not a huge demand for new AMBs. Most people either already own one that they move from car to car (mine has been on four cars I've raced) or they get one when they buy a car from somebody who is quitting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt King

That's nuts, but they have probably also realized that the majority of people who will ever need a transponder already have one.

---

Yep. But I am going to do some research and see if I can find the encoding scheme they use. If so, I am going to produce them here. Looks like to me I can certainly produce them for my "personal use". Resale may be an issue of patent or copyright.
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]

From the GCR.... "Transponder/transmitter systems used in SCCA Club Racing shall be [/FONT]][FONT=Univers]manufactured by AMB or be compatible with AMB systems"[/FONT]

[/FONT]

Mark, respect your opinion, just disagree.

Have a national manifold - talk about a waste of money for what it is, that ought to be a $20 part

I didn't say drivers never mentioned cost as a reason they stayed home, but it is just 1 factor out of many and to try and pin that problem down to a single reason is just a shallow approach to a complicated issue and doesn't do justice to the realities of why people make choices in todays' society.

Understand the Canadian spec tire is a radial, while I really don't want a spec tire I would do a radial long before I'd do a harder slick tire.

Completely agree with you guys on the crash worthiness of these cars but the conversation isn't really about redesigning all of our cars. If making the class safer is where this is going I'm with you, but just adding weight to some cars doesn't help that cause.

I'm not a spokesman for the class, I don't have the Runoffs results to brag about (yet), it's just my opinion based on a long time in the club in other classes facing the same issues as V.

Not really looking for a debate, just wanted to add my opinion to all the others here.

Hope to see you guys at the track

Bill

I thought this thread was a good read.. http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36283

In addition to the new Majors pilot program, SCCA is working to initiate a comprehensive marketing plan for the club. As you can imagine, knowing the future of amateur motorsports in the USA and learning who the customers of the future will be is a significant undertaking. It will take time but declining membership and participation is a reality of which the club is keenly aware of.

I once surveyed an entire field of SM drivers to learn why they choose SM and not vees. The overwelming response was that open wheel/cockpit cars scared the XXX out of them. I decided for many people, formula racing is not for them. Combine the arrive and drive folks and general distaste for working on cars themselves, and there's not much this or any formula class could do to change their minds.

As badly as SCCA could use a new "cost effective, entry level formula class" it's a bit of a nonstarter. A new class won't have used cars to reduce costs and new cars, at even the lowest levels, cost over $20K. I think Vees and Firsts have a niche that can be filled for many years by recycling our cars that stay competitive with stable rules and addressing issues, like this weight increase, with open minds and taking advantage of the rules program outlined by the club.

People, you all obviously do not know me, so let me fill you in. I'm 60 years old, have been involved in FV since '83. I'm 5' 9", currently 260#, somewhat shaped like a bowling ball. I do not see why changing rules to cause others inconveniences is a good enough reason. Can not remember a time when the demise of FV was not mentioned. There have been cycles of participation in the class over this time. The one thing that stood the test, has already been mentioned, was the stability of the rules. Most of the changes have been for parts and their availability. I have no problem with that. If someone has a problem with cost, I'm sorry but that ship has long since sailed. I mean I can remember when a loaf of bread cost .15 cents and I could get a candy bar for a nickle. Entry fees were $15.00. I would die. if I looked or expect to find prices that low again. This is racing and if you are on a budget, then FV is about as good as it gets. My opinion. I'm sorry if I offend, but not everyone is built to race a FV, but then again I never played in the Major League. We all have our barriers.

By the way, we have 4 possibly 5 going to driver's school in FV this year. Two of them are female and one is a youngster almost out of his teens. I'm in the San Francisco Region. I am for a Regional spec tire, but am against Nationally. It has to do with reward and loyalty to a product. The one thing I forgot to mention is the FV class is not a spec class, and do not wish it to be.

It disappoints me that some of the people that I alway looked up to in this sport have the most narrow minded thoughts when it comes to the class that they only want whats best for them and not the class as a whole. I really thought this should be a simple issue with a simple solution.


Just Fyi- I was one of the youngest racers at the 45th birthday party and I think I will be again at the 50th. There is no new blood in this class. For all of the people that are shooting down ideas please come up with some new ideas. I think people like Mark and Greg are for anything that will help the class but status quo has not worked so change may be an option.

For all of those that are saying that all of the people complaining are going to find something new to complain about when they dont win are so wrong. If it were only about winning I would cheat. Cheating would be the easiest way to win but I think people are just looking for a level playing field to start from. The cream will still rise to the top.

Billy Cooper
Wild Eggs Racing #64

Here is the file showing the changes in FV through the years:

http://snetpwp.att.net/c/z/czarzycki...preadsheet.pdf

Some the changes might be out of sequence, and dates may be off a year or two.

These are theoretical - based on rules and changes in technology.

The assmption is that even with an older car (Lynx B/C or D-13) a driver of 174 lbs should be able to make minimum weight. My guesstimate is that at one time a driver of 189 lbs COULD have made minimum weight, hence my reasoning for 1040 as being a reasonable minimum weight.

ChrisZ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FVRacer21

The assmption is that even with an older car (Lynx B/C or D-13) a driver of 174 lbs should be able to make minimum weight. My guesstimate is that at one time a driver of 189 lbs COULD have made minimum weight, hence my reasoning for 1040 as being a reasonable minimum weight.
ChrisZ

---

Its interesting that through all your research and statistical analysis, you always come back to whats best for you.

I can use your numbers and conclude; that if 189 lb drivers could once make minimum weight, and the average weight of American males has risen 24.7 lbs during the life of FV, that the proper minimum weight for FV would be 1064.7 lbs. Since we are actually trying to increase accessability, rather than maintain it, we should just round up to 1075 and be done with it. I'm sure that number would be perfect for some.

Since you think 1040 is the appropriate weight to maintain the ideals of our "forefathers", why don't you just round that up to 1050 to help your fellow racers. Why are those 10 lbs so important to you?

IMHO, the reason why the average adult male weight has risen over the years is do to our eating habits. Poor as they can be, instead of increasing the weight of racecars to compensate. Maybe its best (and cheaper) to go on a diet and exercise. It will probably increase your health in the long run.

Fire away.

There are plenty of cars TODAY that can make minimum weight with a 200 pound driver. I have one--a Citation--which I don't think anyone would consider to be a particularly lightweight design. I think 200 pounds is a reasonable target weight for the average driver. Plenty of guys are heavier and lighter, but that is a reasonable average to shoot for. If the average car weighs 825-850 you can see a sweet spot forming in the range of 1040-1050, which I think the results of the poll I started in the other thread would verify, although I would still like to see at least twice as many respondents to that question to gather a better data set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTMRacing

IMHO, the reason why the average adult male weight has risen over the years is do to our eating habits. Poor as they can be, instead of increasing the weight of racecars to compensate. Maybe its best (and cheaper) to go on a diet and exercise. It will probably increase your health in the long run.

Fire away.

---

Not worth the trouble. If you had read through the thread you would see that the fat shots have already been taken by people in the FV community. Once we get spec tires for FV, we can work at solving the social and health problems of American society:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TTMRacing

IMHO, the reason why the average adult male weight has risen over the years is do to our eating habits. Poor as they can be, instead of increasing the weight of racecars to compensate. Maybe its best (and cheaper) to go on a diet and exercise. It will probably increase your health in the long run.

Fire away.

---

It worked for me!