Scca eliminated classes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mmbeau

F2000 did, but allowing those cars to participate in FC was fought tooth and nail for a number of years for God only knows what reason. Now that they finally let them race it is under a ruleset that is so restrictive it's no wonder why none of them show up.

I would have thought with how much influence and money Mazda is (supposedly) throwing around that Mazda, the CRB/BOD as well as the competitors would all have wanted this. Almost certainly politics at play.

---

I was gonna mention that same thing.
unless I missed something..... the Mazda MZR is actually allowed in FC now, but -only- in full USF2000 trim (as it was in FX), despite the cars being the same as other FC cars. you cannot run just the engine, you have to run the entire package, with spec arms, wings, sequential box, etc.
that is a whole other argument. but it is odd, given the current discussion about support from Mazda.

Perhaps I could use some perspective from someone so anyone/everyone feel free to give me some guidance…

I’ve been a part of SCCA since 1985 and Zach started coming to races when he was two. We’ve been running FF since 2017. SCCA has been a part of lifestyle and much of what we do revolves around it. However, with the recent decision, it simply feels like SCCA had a plan, gathered comment and announced a decision then shortly after changed their minds. They decided that small OW cars aren’t wanted, which I think is a terrible decision but it seems to me that trying push back and get them to change their mind is a futile effort. They don’t want us, we are a nuisance to them and while we might be able to convince them to let us stick around, the continuing back room discussions will continue to work a plan that ultimately pushes us out anyway. It might just take longer. To remain in the organization, we will need to keep fighting them….. Why should I be battling with an organization to let me stay? I’m not even wanted. This whole thing is so disheartening but the SCCA that I knew appears to have disappeared and we’ve seen it coming for some time, just not in the overt actions that we have seen recently. Is it even worth it to push on this rope? Do we just find someplace else where we’ll be welcome?

Im not sure I understand the long game on this one…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt Clark

I was gonna mention that same thing.
unless I missed something..... the Mazda MZR is actually allowed in FC now, but -only- in full USF2000 trim (as it was in FX), despite the cars being the same as other FC cars. you cannot run just the engine, you have to run the entire package, with spec arms, wings, sequential box, etc.
that is a whole other argument. but it is odd, given the current discussion about support from Mazda.

---

Yep, but the one year FX ran as a Runoffs class I think they were four seconds quicker (at Indy, in ‘21). To be fair to the FC regulars, they were probably six seconds quicker.

FX included those Van Diemen MZRs, old FMs, *very old* Super Vees (older than 31 minimum), and a couple more oddball formulas. In an alternate world, FX could have been interesting, if not good for Mazda.

Obviously Mazda supports open wheel in Indycar feeders, too, so maybe their open-wheel interest is solely there. But obviously USF2000 at least could make for great Club racing stock — if it trickled down after a rules change.

The bottom line for most of us open wheel racers is that this action was sudden and unexpected, especially given the regular overall participation levels of FF and FV. We did not have time to act or adjust prior to the hammer coming down.

My biggest question is - Why is SMX an additional class when SCCA and it's members keep saying we already have too many classes? My first thought for a new Miata generation would be that this would be an evolution of the class, not an additional one. Why wouldn't the SMs be given a little more HP and/or the SMX a little restrictor?

Elimination of the small open wheel run group is a side effect of the same problem in SCCA, adding more to get a few more bucks but alienating people who were already there until they go somewhere else. Eventually, the cycle will break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E1pix

^^^ Noticed that forever, always accompanied by “Hmmm, Yeah…”

Curious what the F6 guys think here… though coming from no personal experience, it seems it’d be creepy to be in a F6 surrounded by Fs — if not also very tenuous for having presumably less line-of-sight.

---

The FF-FV-F6 race group is the preferred race grouping, though FF's do get PO'd seeing the fastest of the F6's being a second or two quicker.

FC's have been placed in the above grouping at Florida races - my observation is that FC see how close they can make it when overtaking the wingless cars in the race group.

The small formula cars have been placed with SRF's - THAT IS A DISASTER.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray Rivard

To remain in the organization, we will need to keep fighting them….. Why should I be battling with an organization to let me stay? I’m not even wanted. This whole thing is so disheartening...

---

Exactly how I feel.

One other thing I'd like to add into the discussion.

There's this statement by those up top, supporting the National line, that we can work our way back into Runoffs/National competition simply by making the numbers, getting cars out of garages and back at races.

While I agree this is a reasonable and appropriate response... I have to ask the obvious question, what threshold do we need to make to be welcome back? Would that be the 4.0 average participation requirement? What about if we make 3.0, or 3.5, or some other number below 4.0?

Do we get to bump another class that's already in the Runoffs but not making 4.0???

How can we espect to make those numbers if we're not invited to the premiere club events, the Super Tour???

Seems like we're being given the usual lip service, if you actually think this out; in theory, there's a way back in... but the reality of trying to achieve it is just not plausible.

As an aside, I see my letter #36541 "Create a Vision Statement for Formula and Prototype Racing" is once again tabled by the boards. So that letter-writing is working out real good. Maybe if they keep tabling it long enough, the problem (having formula cars and prototypes in SCCA run groups) will go away and they won't have to answer the hard questions.

I can expand on the two John's comments, but this will be a look at sausage making so feel free to skip on by.

The initial Majors proposal was based, in part, on an analysis of class entries by division to determine the top ten. The striking thing about that analysis was the glaring disparities among the divisions. Only four classes were common in the top four: SRF, SM, FV & EP. It was virtually impossible to find ten classes without creating problems for multiple divisions.

Another issue was how to combine divisions into conferences. As originally calculated, NEDiv and SEDiv were a single conference due to the predominance of regional racing in SEDiv. Similarly, SWDiv was included with MIDiv and RMDiv. For reasons above my paygrade to know or understand, SWDiv was broken out into its own conference. Similarly, NEDiv and SEDiv were broken out into separate conferences.

Issues with class proliferation at the Majors/HST level are another contributing factor.

My personal view of how and why we are in the current situation is due to the historic inability of the club to say "NO!" but that's just coming from a native of the NY metro area where that two letter word is commonly used as opposed to the rest of the country where it seems to be avoided to the point of absurdity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E1pix

Obviously Mazda supports open wheel in Indycar feeders, too, so maybe their open-wheel interest is solely there....

---

While the engines are still Mazda-based Elite's, it's been a few years since they have been publicly identified/promoted as Mazda's.
Purely my assumption, but I believe they pulled some (or all?) of their support money from that series years ago, as the cars bore no resemblance to anything they sold for the street. (A cliche but still valid justification for an OEM going racing).

I watched a Mazda race. Once.:thumbsdown:

At the ARRC at Road Atlanta today. One of the best yearly events put on well by the Atlanta Region at unquestionably a great track in fantastic weather... 8 small bore formula cars, only one FC.

The track rents for over $70k per day. 8 cars doesn't pay for its portion of run time.

Turn out the lights....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

At the ARRC at Road Atlanta today. One of the best yearly events put on well by the Atlanta Region at unquestionably a great track in fantastic weather... 8 small bore formula cars, only one FC.

The track rents for over $70k per day. 8 cars doesn't pay for its portion of run time.

Turn out the lights....

---

FWIW, I was considering making the run to Atlanta with some friends who are also running as part of expanding the schedule to include the Florida winter tour…. Until this announcement. I wonder how many others might have done the same. I know a couple teams that have run that race regularly but didn’t make the trip this year. That decree from SCCA was simply creating a self-fulfilling prophesy. They exclude us from all the big races and say “well, you met our minimum participation requirements for the Runoffs, but we need you to have more than that and “surprisingly” your participation numbers have been dropping after we excluded you from the premier weekends so you force us to drop you permanently.” They are doing this so that they can eliminate us and blame us for it. We were meeting their requirements, which made these actions inconvenient for their ultimate goal so they manufactured another way to justify their true intent.

As you can see, I’m a bit jaded by all of this but also surprised that they would so quickly turn their back on a group (small OW) that has supported them for so long.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See below -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 924RACR

Exactly how I feel.

One other thing I'd like to add into the discussion.

There's this statement by those up top, supporting the National line, that we can work our way back into Runoffs/National competition simply by making the numbers, getting cars out of garages and back at races.

While I agree this is a reasonable and appropriate response... I have to ask the obvious question, what threshold do we need to make to be welcome back? Would that be the 4.0 average participation requirement? What about if we make 3.0, or 3.5, or some other number below 4.0?

Do we get to bump another class that's already in the Runoffs but not making 4.0?? If a class meets the new figure of 5.0 average entries it receives an automatic invitation, period. Runoffs eligible classes which do not meet that number can receive an invitation, it is not automatic.

How can we expect to make those numbers if we're not invited to the premiere club events, the Super Tour??? By attending the Majors events which count the same as the HST events but are less expensive and usually 2 vs 3 day in length. The Prototype and P2 class are still included in the HST events so you personally are set for 2025. For FF/FV/F6 they will also reportedly have additional races (at Regionals) which will count as Conference Majors so there should not be a reduction in opportunities to race, it just won't be at the HST events. This "might" prove to be the better deal. Hopefully Topeka will announce those alternative dates shortly.

Seems like we're being given the usual lip service, if you actually think this out; in theory, there's a way back in... but the reality of trying to achieve it is just not plausible. I don't like that this is where we are either, but its a result of not having enough cars on the grid, period. The internet makes it easier for us to complain and pontificate about how things should be. Racing, SCCA, your car set up, the weather... will never be perfect. We can try to make things better and should, but we also, as a collective group, need to stop tearing down what we have and participate. Think back to the pre Apexspeed/Internet days. We read about matters such as this in the printed version of Fastracks and, if we had strong feelings, would call our BoD or CRB representatives and/or write a letter. Today the vast majority of communication on such a topic will be via social media which likely won't be seen by the decision makers. Many seem to scream and yell about the injustice but don't want to participate in solving the problem(s). The postings on social media wouldn't be so bad but the discussion rarely stays on point and do more to push people away from our sport than to draw them in. In my reflections the problems and decline of formula car racing in SCCA seem to track pretty closely with the increasing popularity of the internet and social media, coincidence perhaps.

As an aside, I see my letter #36541 "Create a Vision Statement for Formula and Prototype Racing" is once again tabled by the boards. So that letter-writing is working out real good. Maybe if they keep tabling it long enough, the problem (having formula cars and prototypes in SCCA run groups) will go away and they won't have to answer the hard questions

All of the "General" letters were tabled during the decision making process; responses (to several hundred letters) will be in the coming issues of FT. BTW, thank you to all of the AC, CRB, Staff, and BOD members who assisted on those.

I think the vision statement is an interesting idea; the question is, who will prepare it and once it is in writing is it to be debated, voted upon, or taken as the gospel? Given the complexity of the matter and the details that would be a part of such would there ever be a consensus or would it further divide and dismantle the formula and prototype racing within SCCA? .

---

One last comment for me…..

John, you seem to take/accept the brunt of the complaining here and I regret that. You are an outstanding individual in SCCAs organization and they are fortunate to have you as one of their voices. You have reached out to me previously on some of my concerns and while not making it better in some cases, always made it a bit more understandable. I’m not sure it will get to that point this time but I wanted to be sure to let you know that you are truly appreciated!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Write your letter this weekend so it gets reviewed on Tuesday!! Even if its short, they need to hear our energy!!

Here's what I submitted - you may not completely agree, and I'm fine with that. But I had to start somewhere - and right now.

Hello SCCA,

This letter is in reference to the decision not to include small formula in most of the Hoosier Super Tour events. We are concerned about the future of FV and FF in particular. Naturally, stability and knowledge of the foreseeable future is key to any competitor’s financial planning relative to participation in the sport. The current and future value of the equipment we own is critical to figuring out our next chess moves including staying put or selling current equipment to purchase a different race car. We need to avoid surprises that will cost us tens of thousands of dollars. We need SCCA’s help in understanding the landscape. With that, here are the three questions –

1. When will the SCCA put out a five-year plan for the class structures?
2. When will the SCCA put out a ten-year vision for the class structures?
3. Can the SCCA commit to updating these each year?

A few opinions from us:

1. We typically run 9 SCCA weekends (16 races) per year and only one of those is an HST.
   
   1. Not being included in one race per year is not a big deal
   2. But, having the class evaporate is a huge deal!
   
   
2. Taking a reasonably close look a the HST points standings for 2024
   
   1. Not a single driver did every HST
   2. Two or three attended about 80% of the events
   3. A couple dozen more reached 50 - 60 percent
   4. The fields were mostly made up of people like us (1 or 2 events)
      
      1. We simply can’t afford the cost and vacation time to travel those distances
      
      
   5. I’m sympathetic to the schedule squeezes on the weekends. Given the fact that very few do more than six HST races per year, I’d suggest the following.
      
      1. Have a rolling class participation invitation solution for the HST’s to make them more interesting, take pressure off the event schedules, and serve all the club members. It would look like this –
      2. Each group would be invited to 6 HST events.
         
         1. 2/3 of the race groups at each event, 1/3 sits that event out.
         2. The next year, you go to three tracks you did not go to the year before, and three you did.
         
         
      3. Advantage to this:
         
         1. No one can commit to ten’ish events per year, but maybe six. This may increase total entries.
         2. Way more interesting to touch new tracks or seldom attended tracks
         3. More time for turnover/clean-up between groups
         4. Trains competitors that not everyone has to be at every race
            
            1. Few attend every race anyway, including their local events
   
   
3. We believe that the SCCA needs to make a much bigger deal out of the Divisional and Conference championships.
   
   1. These are more financially and vacation time feasible for the majority of people
      
      1. People have work and family obligations
      
      
   2. The clubs need much bigger fields at these less prestigious events
      
      1. So, make them more prestigious
   
   
4. We believe the current rules package for FF is reasonable and strong
   
   1. The spec tire is a big help to our budget
      
      1. We did 22 races this year on a $22K budget (some not SCCA)
         
         1. That is typical, and not ridiculous
         
         
      2. Entry fees and tires are 70% of our budget
         
         1. More event entries would lower this for us
         
         
      3. We sleep in our converted van at the track
      4. We have an absolute blast!
      
      
   2. We do hear people complain about the power advantage of the Honda engine vs the Kent. We know from the last two runoffs that his is not an accurate perception. But perception is reality. So how do we overcome the perception?
      
      1. Kent engines crossed the line first at the last two runoffs.
         
         1. But I wonder if it would motivationally help to reduce the Honda restrictor from 30.5mm to 30.3mm or so to encourage Kent cars to get out and race.
      
      
   3. Some complain about the cost of upgrading to the Honda engine
      
      1. We podiumed at the runoffs with a Honda engine that had 82 races since its last refresh. We are aiming for 100 and rebuilds are under $4K. $40/race is cheap racing and SCCA needs to advertise that.
      2. I’m under the impression that the Honda package is now about $18K compared to its original $11K price tag (a new Kent is around $12k I’m told)
         
         1. But I also hear it’s $15K for a decent Miata or B-Spec motor
         2. And it’s about the same for the SRF3 engine package
         3. The SCCA needs to inform people about this.
      
      
   4. SRF and Spec Miata/SMX are of not interest whatsoever to us
      
      1. The thread the needle driving experience is completely different
      2. If we want, we can do the same tweaking and development on our car as the F1 teams do. That makes it a lot more fun between races.
      3. A new SFR and SMX cost the same as a new FF, so why would we aim for a heavier and less precise driving experience??
         
         1. If a BoD member would like to try a FF on for size at a test day, we’d be happy to make this happen at no cost to them.
         
         
      4. We hate doing bodywork. And those classes cause a lot of that.
      5. Reviewing the Majors entries for the last two years about 70% of the entries are not SRF, FE2, and SM/SMX. So, we’re not alone in our choices.

Thank you,

Tazio and Tony Stefanelli

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RideMore

Write your letter this weekend so it gets reviewed on Tuesday!! Even if its short, they need to hear our energy!!

Here's what I submitted - you may not completely agree, and I'm fine with that. But I had to start somewhere - and right now.

Hello SCCA,

This letter is in reference to the decision not to include small formula in most of the Hoosier Super Tour events. We are concerned about the future of FV and FF in particular. Naturally, stability and knowledge of the foreseeable future is key to any competitor’s financial planning relative to participation in the sport. The current and future value of the equipment we own is critical to figuring out our next chess moves including staying put or selling current equipment to purchase a different race car. We need to avoid surprises that will cost us tens of thousands of dollars. We need SCCA’s help in understanding the landscape. With that, here are the three questions –

1. When will the SCCA put out a five-year plan for the class structures?
2. When will the SCCA put out a ten-year vision for the class structures?
3. Can the SCCA commit to updating these each year?

A few opinions from us:

1. We typically run 9 SCCA weekends (16 races) per year and only one of those is an HST.
   
   1. Not being included in one race per year is not a big deal
   2. But, having the class evaporate is a huge deal!
   
   
2. Taking a reasonably close look a the HST points standings for 2024
   
   1. Not a single driver did every HST
   2. Two or three attended about 80% of the events
   3. A couple dozen more reached 50 - 60 percent
   4. The fields were mostly made up of people like us (1 or 2 events)
      
      1. We simply can’t afford the cost and vacation time to travel those distances
      
      
   5. I’m sympathetic to the schedule squeezes on the weekends. Given the fact that very few do more than six HST races per year, I’d suggest the following.
      
      1. Have a rolling class participation invitation solution for the HST’s to make them more interesting, take pressure off the event schedules, and serve all the club members. It would look like this –
      2. Each group would be invited to 6 HST events.
         
         1. 2/3 of the race groups at each event, 1/3 sits that event out.
         2. The next year, you go to three tracks you did not go to the year before, and three you did.
         
         
      3. Advantage to this:
         
         1. No one can commit to ten’ish events per year, but maybe six. This may increase total entries.
         2. Way more interesting to touch new tracks or seldom attended tracks
         3. More time for turnover/clean-up between groups
         4. Trains competitors that not everyone has to be at every race
            
            1. Few attend every race anyway, including their local events
   
   
3. We believe that the SCCA needs to make a much bigger deal out of the Divisional and Conference championships.
   
   1. These are more financially and vacation time feasible for the majority of people
      
      1. People have work and family obligations
      
      
   2. The clubs need much bigger fields at these less prestigious events
      
      1. So, make them more prestigious
   
   
4. We believe the current rules package for FF is reasonable and strong
   
   1. The spec tire is a big help to our budget
      
      1. We did 22 races this year on a $22K budget (some not SCCA)
         
         1. That is typical, and not ridiculous
         
         
      2. Entry fees and tires are 70% of our budget
         
         1. More event entries would lower this for us
         
         
      3. We sleep in our converted van at the track
      4. We have an absolute blast!
      
      
   2. We do hear people complain about the power advantage of the Honda engine vs the Kent. We know from the last two runoffs that his is not an accurate perception. But perception is reality. So how do we overcome the perception?
      
      1. Kent engines crossed the line first at the last two runoffs.
         
         1. But I wonder if it would motivationally help to reduce the Honda restrictor from 30.5mm to 30.3mm or so to encourage Kent cars to get out and race.
      
      
   3. Some complain about the cost of upgrading to the Honda engine
      
      1. We podiumed at the runoffs with a Honda engine that had 82 races since its last refresh. We are aiming for 100 and rebuilds are under $4K. $40/race is cheap racing and SCCA needs to advertise that.
      2. I’m under the impression that the Honda package is now about $18K compared to its original $11K price tag (a new Kent is around $12k I’m told)
         
         1. But I also hear it’s $15K for a decent Miata or B-Spec motor
         2. And it’s about the same for the SRF3 engine package
         3. The SCCA needs to inform people about this.
      
      
   4. SRF and Spec Miata/SMX are of not interest whatsoever to us
      
      1. The thread the needle driving experience is completely different
      2. If we want, we can do the same tweaking and development on our car as the F1 teams do. That makes it a lot more fun between races.
      3. A new SFR and SMX cost the same as a new FF, so why would we aim for a heavier and less precise driving experience??
         
         1. If a BoD member would like to try a FF on for size at a test day, we’d be happy to make this happen at no cost to them.
         
         
      4. We hate doing bodywork. And those classes cause a lot of that.
      5. Reviewing the Majors entries for the last two years about 70% of the entries are not SRF, FE2, and SM/SMX. So, we’re not alone in our choices.

Thank you,

Tazio and Tony Stefanelli

---

A lot of great points. My letter is in progress. Trying to get Jeremy to write one as well.

Meg Sauce-Grenier
SowDiv FF#10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sauce_racer

A lot of great points. My letter is in progress. Trying to get Jeremy to write one as well.

Meg Sauce-Grenier
SowDiv FF#10

---

Letter submitted


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RideMore

Write your letter this weekend so it gets reviewed on Tuesday!! Even if its short, they need to hear our energy!!

We do hear people complain about the power advantage of the Honda engine vs the Kent. We know from the last two runoffs that his is not an accurate perception. But perception is reality. So how do we overcome the perception.

Tazio and Tony Stefanelli

---

I don't mean to get off topic, and I appreciate the effort that Mr. Stefanelli put into his reply, he brings up good points that some of you can use to write your letters.

I do not agree with his statement of kent engines though. In the context of talking about average kents vs average hondas.

Moments from the onboard video such as:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lgZSmKWXO8
3:26
14:55
15:30
30:41
Show that there was in differences in power between some competitors.


If you notice how difficult it is for Kotyk to get by, like at 17:17. He barely creeps up and takes the position at the very end of the straight.

Compare this to 17:45, the car with the onboard camera goes by Kotyk much easier. He also clears Kotyk a little more than half way down the straight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lgZSmKWXO8


This theme is consistent for the entire race. The Swift Ford package is supposed to be the best car on the top end, but this video shows something else.

Not taking up for any infractions made during the race, but this is my guess why so much blocking was going on...


It is completely absurd to think that Ford has an advantage over the Honda. Only top level Fords can compete - and that cost lots of time and money.

Yes, for the first 5 years when the Honda was released, the average Ford and average Honda were pretty equal.
Engines in 2024, the average Honda will beat the average Ford by 6 hp every day of the week.

Oh no Jonathon !!! 180+ posts in this thread and now you will give somebody reason to start the Pinto vs. Zetec debate again. LOL ;) ;) :rolleyes:

OBTW, I bet those "super Kents" won't go 82 races like Tazio and Tony's Honda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

Oh no Jonathon !!! 180+ posts in this thread and now you will give somebody reason to start the Pinto vs. Zetec debate again. LOL ;) ;) :rolleyes:

OBTW, I bet those "super Kents" won't go 82 races like Tazio and Tony's Honda.

---

:p

In 2019 I would choose "super kent" with my eyes closed.
From 2022 onwards, I would choose "super honda" - it's a no brainer - you have equal or more power than the "super kent" - and also the reliability!

The issue isn't "super kent" vs "super honda" - they are pretty close.
The issue is average kent vs. average honda :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray Rivard

Perhaps I could use some perspective from someone so anyone/everyone feel free to give me some guidance…

Im not sure I understand the long game on this one…

---

The end game is simple, active SCCA competitors/entrants call the shots. SCCA and the Regions wanting to survive financially provide events that satisfy the majority of the entrants.

The entrant/car class mix is always changing. New entrants have no knowledge of the past class structures. They will have no sympathy for older declining classes.

Open wheel SCCA racing has been declining for decades, nothing you can do to change that. Enjoy the time you have left.

Brian

Actually only took me 2 minutes, I think it can be improved by our art department for sure but I think it works nicely.;)

If you have no sense of humor then call me an eh hole and move on to writing your letter............

Brian.

For what it is worth - Mazda power
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...d=113051&stc=1

Gents:

When I started, there were only eight (8) race groups. Just say’in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Graham

Actually only took me 2 minutes, I think it can be improved by our art department for sure but I think it works nicely.;)

If you have no sense of humor then call me an eh hole and move on to writing your letter............

Brian.

---

EXACTLY my suggestion, save for the art. :ha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Iverson

Gents:

When I started, there were only eight (8) race groups. Just say’in.

---

Memory test:
FV
FF
FA, FB, FC, FSV
ASR, BSR, CSR
AP, BP, CP, AS
DP, EP, FP, BS
GP, HP, CS, DSR
SSA, SSB, SSC

Didn’t you run Cen Div back when, Rick?

Mr. Stefanelli's ideas and a letter writing effort may help, but consolidation and promotion remain the most likely route to preserving OWR in SCCA. Cars on track is what counts most to the powers that be. I'd say we have to save and build the regional championships, and work back up from there. F-1's recent increased visibility in the USA helps, but no one connects that to amateur racing unless they are aware of what is out there. None of this is news. It's all been discussed here before, but there may be more incentive to act at this point. Open trailers and a willingness to answer questions, going to local car shows, any kind of press or exposure may generate some interest. Talking about your racing at the local go-cart track, or giving talks at any car club that will have you may help. Trailering your car to "cars and coffee" events may be worth the trouble [and fun]. Even going to an SCCA meeting may promote your class. Many of the old time racers are aging out, and recruiting the young [or younger] will be crucial to survival. I have made, [and am happy to share], a power-point talk on the history of Formula Ford. I will likely present it to a crowd of retired, 70 year-old NASCAR fans, so likely little help, but others may have opportunities with more potential. Again, these are not new suggestions, I know, but we can do more than write letters and talk among ourselves. If OWR is to survive in SCCA, I think we have to.

Disclaimer: I don't know how to post a power-point file here and don't know the legality of using my pictures of other people and their cars. However, as long as you don't sell it or charge a fee, I suspect there is no risk. I can e-mail the presentation to anyone who wants to use it, or post it here if that is possible.

Longtime stock photo seller here…

Not a lawyer but am confident in saying…

Provided you’re not using someone’s likeness in advertising for profit, or using it in any detrimental, insulting, illegal, or dangerous manner, you do not need Releases or any other permissions of any kind.

There may be additional provisions for underaged kids, but for your purposes I don’t think that’s a problem, either.

letter sent...here it is for what it's worth

Letter ID Number: #37261
Title: FF/FV class future
Class: FF
Request: I will make this brief: Does SCCA want to preserve the FF and FV (and eventually FC and FA) classes as a viable option for Club racing?

If not, keep doing what you are currently doing and you don't need to read any further.

If yes, read on. I suspect you will get many letters, and some very good ideas within those letters. I will add a couple of simple thoughts to build on, and I will be willing to work with the CRB to implement a plan to keep the classes viable. I have a vested interest in seeing these classes thrive.

1) Be willing to enact rules that enhance, not restrict, e.g. new, more economical motors in FF and FC. Be willing to embrace new technology that reduces cost or makes the racing better.

2) Build the regional championships such as MARRS, SARRC, NARRC, GLC. Reinstate the runoff points for FRP, add Challenge Cup FV. Make it inclusive, don't fight it. The more choices available to potential new participants, the better the overall health of the classes.

3) There are new FFs readily available in the US marketplace at prices competitive or better than other class options, Piper, Ray, Spectrum in both FF and FC for starters. New Honda or Kent motors are ~$22,000 each and hard to source, Zetecs are virtually unavailable. There are alternatives at less cost.

It will take some work and a little risk on the part of the CRB and BoD to correct the damage done to these classes if you want to do it. There are members who will be willing to help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan Lee

I don't mean to get off topic, and I appreciate the effort that Mr. Stefanelli put into his reply, he brings up good points that some of you can use to write your letters.

I do not agree with his statement of kent engines though. In the context of talking about average kents vs average hondas.

Moments from the onboard video such as:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lgZSmKWXO8
3:26
14:55
15:30
30:41
Show that there was in differences in power between some competitors.


If you notice how difficult it is for Kotyk to get by, like at 17:17. He barely creeps up and takes the position at the very end of the straight.

Compare this to 17:45, the car with the onboard camera goes by Kotyk much easier. He also clears Kotyk a little more than half way down the straight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lgZSmKWXO8


This theme is consistent for the entire race. The Swift Ford package is supposed to be the best car on the top end, but this video shows something else.

Not taking up for any infractions made during the race, but this is my guess why so much blocking was going on...


It is completely absurd to think that Ford has an advantage over the Honda. Only top level Fords can compete - and that cost lots of time and money.

Yes, for the first 5 years when the Honda was released, the average Ford and average Honda were pretty equal.
Engines in 2024, the average Honda will beat the average Ford by 6 hp every day of the week.

---

Not disagreeing with you at all, trying to be constructive in asking this question..
Because of the big pistons should the club change the restrictor size to make it more equal?

Again please don't come at me and start a fight. I'm asking for Jeremy. He's using me to ask his questions. Something about not logging back into apexspeed.. :confused:

Meg Sauce-Grenier
SowDiv FF#10

I don’t know, Kids, probably just more yammerin’ from this still non-competing username…

But with the new rain lights, Flagtronics, and seeming bias against “open wheel” by definition, what do they all have in common?

Is it SCCA that’s lost interest in open wheel?

Or the insurer?


Just spitballing, but have wondered this for a while now. Despite my occasional comments to the contrary, our interests for racing are still strong.

Yet, ignorance is only Bliss if wanting ignorance.


Everyone needs to know what the hell is going on here.

But the ones paying Entry fees really *deserve to know*.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swiftdrivr

Open trailers and a willingness to answer questions, going to local car shows, any kind of press or exposure may generate some interest. Talking about your racing at the local go-cart track, or giving talks at any car club that will have you may help. Trailering your car to "cars and coffee" events may be worth the trouble [and fun]. Even going to an SCCA meeting may promote your class. Many of the old time racers are aging out, and recruiting the young [or younger] will be crucial to survival.

---

This grassroots type of out reach is definitely crucial. Once or twice a year I take my Driverz Cup FV out to Cars and Coffee. It gets tons of attention. Lots of questions asked. I ensure that every kid interested in the car gets to sit in it. All that good stuff. Same goes for getting it out to autocross once or twice a year. Multiply this kind of outreach by a hundred cars across the country and I find it very hard to believe it wouldn't have a positive and tangible impact.

Short spending big bucks on advertising online to get a metric crap ton of eyes on the amateur open wheel world where you're merely making it a numbers game, there isn't much else that's better than being visible in the car community at-large.

1. Now that the clocks have changed.................the thought occurs - for at least the January Sebring Super Tour......the sunlight portion of days is shorter. Eliminating a group sort of seems reasonable.......but the Event went off before.....so length of daylight is not a reasonable variable.
2. Why didn't the SCCA conceive of cutting a Class or two on a rotational basis from varying HST Events in the future instead of only punishing as what's going on now? ...........entry fees I'm sure.
Remember > Murphy's Golden Rule.........................>>> He who has the gold makes the rules.
3. The way things are going............with more and more Miata Classes that is (especially at the Regional level)...........soon will there be a White Miata class and a Blue Miata Class and a Red Miata Class and an Orange Miata Class and a Green.......???

This has been a long steady decline , I guess after 39 years I picked a good time to retire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E1pix

IIs it SCCA that’s lost interest in open wheel?

Or the insurer?

---

My information may be out of date, but the statistics on losses never used to show any difference between open and closed wheel cars.

So. Does this mean FF cannot race in Majors AND Hoosier Pro Tour?

Eric:

Yep, started in 1973 out of Winona. I remember the Kettle Moraine at RA circa 1974, sixty-five (65) FFs on the false grid.

From my chair here, these gents need to stand in the corner and think about it. This is NOT a growth industry.

My fix: vote them out - all of them. Lest we forget, THIS is our Club. We pay their salaries. Don’t get pissed. Don’t get mad. Get even. Just say’in

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E1pix

Memory test:
FV
FF
FA, FB, FC, FSV
ASR, BSR, CSR
AP, BP, CP, AS
DP, EP, FP, BS
GP, HP, CS, DSR
SSA, SSB, SSC

Didn’t you run Cen Div back when, Rick?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jtovo

So. Does this mean FF cannot race in Majors AND Hoosier Pro Tour?

---

read the link in post#2

Joe,

It basically says FF, FC, FV won't be allowed to enter approximately 5 Super Tour events. They will most likely be allowed at the Sprints (because Chicago Region), and most West coast Super Tours.

They can enter all the other Majors, Regionals, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purple frog

joe,

it basically says ff, f6, fv won't be allowed to enter approximately 5 super tour events.

---

ftfy

This is what I see we need to get the numbers up for Formula Ford.

1. North America or USA FF Common Tire:
   
   • Easier to cross and experience other racing organizations
   • Maximize volume for tire manufacturer.
   
   
2. Cost Effective:
   
   • Lower initial cost and high heat cycle capacity
   
   
3. Performance Equalizer

• Try to equalize performance between older and new cars

North American Formula Ford Tire Specification:

• Life: 24 heat cycles, the tire loses <1% of lap time
• Cost: < $800
• Hardness: > 60A (Performance Equalizer)

I doubt that we can have a true North American Formula Ford Tire because both Canada and Mexico have strong participation and are using the Toyo R888, which seemingly are detested many vocal US FF drivers. Whether they represent the majority or not, I don't know.

Larry