Printable View
I resorted and copied that table.. Doesn't mean much, but Vee is 8th of 28 on the overall class list for Majors participation across the nation for 2024. Just a curiosity...
SRF3 787 SM 725 SMX 298 STL 275 GT2 242 B-Spec 224 FE2 217 FV
178 FA 166 T3 156 FP 143 EP 141 T4 139 FF 138 GT1 117 FC 115 STU 109 HP 106 AS 97 GT3 91 T2 91 F6 87 GTL 84 T1 81 P2 80 P1 79 FX 59 GTX 41
That isn't the philosophy behind the Super Tour. It's been divided into two separate halves of the country since the beginning and was a response to sponsor requests to reduce the number of events they support.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Before you jump on that consider the original philosophy behind the shift from Nationals to Majors, which was also an effort to reduce the number of events in the top category. Behind it was the idea that there are fundamentally two kinds of racers in the SCCA: Those who have the desire and means to find the best competition and those who primarily run "local" events. Reducing events at the top level was designed to cluster competition to satisfy the former with the expectation that the various Regional programs would work for the latter. At the time, there were strong Regional programs in much of the country. There still are.
Looking even further back in SCCA history, the HST/Majors/Regionals configuration mirrors the Nationals/Divisionals/Regionals set up pre-Runoffs that determined national champions on the basis of points which favored those who could afford cross country travel. The elimination of Divisionals and creation of the Runoffs to determine national champions had a long run, but was beginning to strain not just the National office, but individual regions due to declining participation and too many events spreading entries out. Blame for that was a circular firing squad.
The current situation is not occurring in a vacuum. The rise of other organizations can't be ignored in identifying what needs to be done to maintain the SCCA Road Racing programs. Another external factor are the changes in auto manufacturer involvement most easily associated with the demise of British Leyland and rise of Mazda. To complete the list is the reduction in the number of people working on their own cars but still interested in racing. For good or ill, SRF is a response to that and is naturally viewed through the lens of your own situation.
From my personal perspective, two specific things have contributed to the decline of formula car racing in SCCA. The first was the acceptance of the ADF/Swift as legal FFs. The second was the legally disastrous creation of FE. That class is finally showing some strength, but it was birthed for the wrong reasons and struggled long enough that had it not been an Enterprises class, would have been axed or folded into an existing class over a decade ago. The former drove numerous FF constructors out of the sport and it was the plethora of constructors supporting the class that contributed to its vitality. The latter diluted class participation, further highlighting weakness in formula car classes. There was also the external factor of the CART/IRL split and subsequent curtailment of interest and participation in FA.
TL;DR over the past 40 years there have been both internal and external changes in/to formula car racing in the SCCA that have and are driving a reduction in formula car class participation and the club sees a need to respond. It's natural to decry that which threatens your self interest. There is also the uncanny parallel between this and national politics: Class over Club = Party over Country.
I mostly agree with you, except maybe for the "Class over Club" part.
SCCA cannot ask someone who has spent tens (or many tens) of thousands of dollars on their car simply to write it off in the interests of clustering competition (to borrow Kephart's infelicitous word). The HST announcement basically invites open wheel and sports racer owners, particularly small open wheel, to vote with their feet (and dollars).
Half - let's look at the map:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
https://www.scca.com/supertour
Where is the division? For Left coasters there are only 2 - and they are essentially 2 days apart. Anything else is 2+ days away.
That's why the 80% racers did 80%. They ignored the left coast. Kind of a theme....
There are 13 FC signed up for a November event at ButtonWillow. Normally good turnouts. but since ST and Majors are all that count for your stats....
Just announce this week we lost a Majors event because SCCA thought we had too many. This means y'all just drove UP the cost of participating in the runoffs for a large market - all classes. Watch those numbers fall.....
I really don't think management understands the separation the desert and rockies creates and the added cost to travel.
Refer back to the map. We might as well be a different country altogether.
How would you "fix" the problem you've identified? I spent ten years in the Rocky Mountain Division heavily involved in event planning and operations. There are Majors in RMDiv that are closer to SoCal than Seattle and we even tried creating a schedule that would get Majors participants on the road home by noon Sunday.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Nada
Zip
Zilch
It looked like then and sounds like now the West Coast wants to do its own thing. Understandable. The population center of SCCA Road Racers is somewhere in the vicinity of Kansas City so add in the Great Plains to the list of barriers.
Are any West Coast tracks even interested in hosting the Runoffs? That's been a draw for out of division entries in HST/Majors and even Regional events. Maybe on the appeal of producing better competition, like the premise stated about how competitors are divided.
So add geography over club to class over club.
Interesting. Did RMDiv ever consider running events on back-to-back weekends similar to Homestead/Sebring?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
If I can get 2 race weekends from a long tow, I'm more likely to show up than just a one off. Not sure how many others feel this way.
-Jeff Jorgenson
IIRC best we could do was two in three weekends. I'm no longer in RMDiv and my point was about geographic limitations.Quote:
Originally Posted by teamfun
Peter, I am not sure how the ADF and Swift brought down SCCA FF. If anything the Swift brought the need for a "new car of the year" to a halt for years. I can make a good case for unlimited tires, SFI time limits on all safety equipment, high dollar rain lights etc and Honda engines just might keep a few cars in storage though.
Thank you Peter. I understood your point. I was wondering if scheduling two races on back to back weekends was thought of as a way to mitigate the travel issues caused by the geographic concerns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
I did what I was told to do and sent a letter in June. It's been tabled every month. Supposedly there will be an answer in the next Fastrak. But the recent removal of a Majors from CalClub indicate to me they are going a different direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
I have always claimed there to be a geographic problem. This country has very expansive unpopulated areas.
I addressed that in my proposal/letter. I think I posted it earlier in this thread.
Yeah. West coast has had to do whatever we can. There is no FRP, etc. so we have to work within the SCCA framework.
Pacific F2000 used to go to Vara events. They did a TransAm event in 22.
I have no inside info on what track wants to host the runoffs. But my proposal/letter addressed the problem of host 1000 entries. Hint: The answer is you don't. Geographically located championship events with the winners going to a smaller but more prestigious National Championship.
With that you could host the event at almost any track.
Easy to explain, I think. FF was sustained originally by a combination of chassis builders/importers/prep shops, engine builders and the irrational belief that any of us could be the next Grand Prix Champion of the World. One of those was substantially curtailed by a significant, de facto rules change made to admit the ADF/Swift which resulted in a very rapid decline in other constructors and related prep shops. The decline in FF entries substantially predates your list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland V. Johnson
How is that any different than the east/west division in HST?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
So SMX (now its own group now in the HSTs) had 298 entries.
FV and FF together were 316.
Maybe the BoD is using new math, bit I'm pretty sure 316 is still more than 298.
The events in each area are winner takes all - like the runoffs. The podium gets invited to the runoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
It gives an "accessible" end of season event to all racers, not just those that can tow for 10 days and be away from work for 2 weeks and foot all that cost.
If there is an event that is doable by more people, you'll get more people running the majors/ST - because there will be a point to it.
One of the things that is twisted about Majors/ST is there is no point in running them unless you plan to go to the runoffs.
For many people that is simply not in the cards.
Give them a reachable event and you may see an increase in Majors participation.
It's curious that SCCA is the only game in town that decides its national championship on the basis of a single race.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
I would think creating a West Coast Championship, much like SARRC, MARS, etc., would satisfy that same need without having to involve the rest of the country in your geographic angst.
I am writing a history of the issues with FF and up to six pages I think. The Swift was not the only factor but it was instrumental in the increase in expense due to the unique use of castings. The original car was in our shop as it was bought at the Runoffs for Jeff Andretti to run, so I had a really good look at it next to the Crossles and Mondiales we were selling. One of these days I will finish it. But think about when the Sports Renault came on the scene…..Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
ChrisZ
Insignificant and off-topic Chris, but I did some minor lettering on the Andretti Swift at the ‘84 Runoffs.
What mostly springs to memory is “Thanks Mom & Dad” on the tail, along with some crew names. I got a kick out of that after watching “Dad” run for nearly twenty years, including at Montreal and the Glen after Ronnie died.
I don't think the west coast is the only place that people have difficulty with travel distances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
I don't exclude Enterprises from contributing to the decline, but would Sports Renault have been able to garner support from competitors if the sudden increase in FF cost to run at the front hadn't occurred?Quote:
Originally Posted by FVRacer21
IMHO, no. Suddenly you had to have a Swift, and there was no indication at the time that the "car of the year" aspect wouldn't continue - it took a few years for the other manufacturers to NOT produce really competitive designs - we had the somewhat ungainly 84 VD which was immediately dropped in favor of a side-radiator swift-ish design, the 85 Reynard disaster where they just reverted to an updated 84 design for 86, etc. Steve produced the Citation Centurion, beautiful and fast but it didn't seem to sell a lot. Crossle produced a Swift design that wasn't as good as well. Lolas 640 series weren't bad but that was the end for them in FF. It seemed the customer base wasn't interested in developing any other chassis when you could just buy a Swift that worked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
So owners looked at the SR, which was guaranteed stability and cost less than a FF to boot. So yes, the Swift played a role but the SR was the nail in the coffin - a bunch of guys jumped there.
And to Roland's point, at one time the budget racer could get take-offs from Firestone and Goodyear, The big manufacturers underwrote race tires as part of advertising as I've heard the story. And then along came Hoosier, who didn't have a "win on Sunday sell on Monday" philosophy - more of a "fastest tire regardless of cost" philosophy - and produced 3 heat cycle tires. The overall cost of tires went up dramatically. Funny how we all love them now without considering how detrimental they were long term to the sport. The spec FC tire is pretty good - not as fast as an Avon, but lasts a long time - but they could have made that compound and reduced the price more than a decade ago - cheaper and lasts longer maybe draws some competitors back, perhaps too late by the time the deal was done. And then there was an unnecessary switch to radials and associated costs......I'll assume that was driven by manufacturer desire for a "modern tire" matching their road car stuff that didn't draw any other manufacturers back, we still just have Hoosier.
What was the de-facto rules change that allowed the ADF/Swift? I've often heard of it but not the specifics.
Even then there were beginning to be "tire of the week/month/year" issues with manufacturers other than Hoosier making softer/faster compounds. So, as said above, there would had to have been a spec tire, or, more unlikely, an agreement between tire manufacturers to limit that competition. THAT would have been REALLY hard to enforce because tire compounds are such a complex chemistry that even the manufacturers have trouble specifying the components to produce a consistent tire. Look at when GY shifted their production to Chile - the 160 compound was never as good after that, even when they brought production back to the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
So that's really no different from someone making a faster car. The controls have to be REALLY tight - leading to spec cars (or spec tires).
I was teching back then, so I didn't see the details the way you did. I remember that's when we started marking tires for the one set per weekend rule as a back door way of controlling that creep.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
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 –
- When will the SCCA put out a five-year plan for the class structures?
- When will the SCCA put out a ten-year vision for the class structures?
- Can the SCCA commit to updating these each year?
A few opinions from us:
- We typically run 9 SCCA weekends (16 races) per year and only one of those is an HST.
- Not being included in one race per year is not a big deal
- But, having the class evaporate is a huge deal!
- Taking a reasonably close look a the HST points standings for 2024
- Not a single driver did every HST
- Two or three attended about 80% of the events
- A couple dozen more reached 50 - 60 percent
- The fields were mostly made up of people like us (1 or 2 events)
- We simply can’t afford the cost and vacation time to travel those distances
- 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.
- 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 –
- Each group would be invited to 6 HST events.
- 2/3 of the race groups at each event, 1/3 sits that event out.
- The next year, you go to three tracks you did not go to the year before, and three you did.
- Advantage to this:
- No one can commit to ten’ish events per year, but maybe six. This may increase total entries.
- Way more interesting to touch new tracks or seldom attended tracks
- More time for turnover/clean-up between groups
- Trains competitors that not everyone has to be at every race
- Few attend every race anyway, including their local events
- We believe that the SCCA needs to make a much bigger deal out of the Divisional and Conference championships.
- These are more financially and vacation time feasible for the majority of people
- People have work and family obligations
- The clubs need much bigger fields at these less prestigious events
- So, make them more prestigious
- We believe the current rules package for FF is reasonable and strong
- The spec tire is a big help to our budget
- We did 22 races this year on a $22K budget (some not SCCA)
- That is typical, and not ridiculous
- Entry fees and tires are 70% of our budget
- More event entries would lower this for us
- We sleep in our converted van at the track
- We have an absolute blast!
- 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?
- Kent engines crossed the line first at the last two runoffs.
- 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.
- Some complain about the cost of upgrading to the Honda engine
- 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.
- 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)
- But I also hear it’s $15K for a decent Miata or B-Spec motor
- And it’s about the same for the SRF3 engine package
- The SCCA needs to inform people about this.
- SRF and Spec Miata/SMX are of not interest whatsoever to us
- The thread the needle driving experience is completely different
- 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.
- 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??
- 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.
- We hate doing bodywork. And those classes cause a lot of that.
- 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
My letter finally received a 'Thanks for your letter but we know better' response.....
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...l=1#post665547
And a later discussion above.
Making any real changes has to come with an admission that the Majors/ST thing didn't really work.
What I really do not get about the SCCA is the absolute unwillingness to ask the members and act on it.
Exactly what I’ve tried to say on similar threads… to defensive replies suggesting “I’ll let my record speak for itself” and other self-serving crap that ignored nearly every comment many have made on all the vigorous threads over recent years.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
The only honest replies should have been “Who Cares?”
That’s the obvious sentiment, and this is not new. The hierarchy has long been Royalty over Minions, and Minions get the honor of financing it all.
Anyone here that doesn't believe open-wheelers are being singled-out should go read the last, most recent posts on the 19-page thread about the expensive rain lights...it's illuminating...
Glenn
Team, per encouragement here -
Set up a Zoom call where we can all meet to discuss how to improve small formula participation. At he moment its an open brainstorming. We'll figure it out as we go. Starts tomorrow night and weekly for 20 weeks. We can extend it to our hearts content.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us05web.zoom.us/j/82013141123?pwd=6fYy6kZCrpFsUTp9IyE2YweV8a3HBw.1
Meeting ID: 820 1314 1123
Passcode: G5G7wm
Team, per the encouragement here -
I just created a Facebook group called "Formula F USA" in hopes of finding drivers/car owners that are not on Apex Speed.
I am not a Facebook person, or a social media guy, but I feel compelled to do what I can even if its clumsy. Any advice and or help would be very appreciated.
I have no idea if Facebook is "the" place, but its "A" place to find and connect people. Please tell me what more I can do, and how to do it if you know.
I created two different views of the 2025 Majors schedule for small formula - attached here. One by conference the other by date. There are 31 events total. To get the 5.0 we need to stay Runoffs eligible it means 155 total entries per year, per class. I think that not enough to stay HST relevant, bit its the Runoffs rules.
2025 SCCA Majors - by date.pdf2025 SCCA Majors - by Conferance.pdf
Team,
I will post meeting notes tomorrow. It was well attended and very productive. We all learned a lot. One of my action items is to publish the following email address. For those not on the call, you'll learn the importance of the email address tomorrow when we publish the meeting notes here.
formulafusa.gmail.com Note: all lower case
First Zoom meeting notes – please at least read the short action item list at the bottom
Big picture notes:
- 22 participated
- From the start all agreed that increasing participation in 2025 was THE topic of the meeting
- The meeting stayed very focused, productive, and friendly the entire 2 hours
- An amazingly knowledgeable and helpful group of people
- We made serious progress and agreed on a short-term plan to increase participation in 2025
A few details:
- CRB member John LaRue shared the details of the SCCA’s decision of why to not have small formula participate in most Hoosier Super Tour (HST) events.
- There is strong support and fans of FF and FV throughout the SCCA personnel and decision makers. We should not worry about the classes being eliminated. He noted that the SCCA could have done a better job communicating this point.
- There are only so many hot track hours available over a weekend, so that limits the number of possible race groups.
- The decision was made simply due to the SM/SMX class being too many cars for one race group, so they had to split it into two (SM and SMX).
- And since the resulting SMX only group was going to be larger than the average small formula group, they decided to go with the group that averages more entries.
- The SCCA wants to keep small formula healthy. Their best guess on how to make up for the HST decision was to make some of the regional events extra special for small formula groupings by giving them Majors points and importance.
- In the last days, the SCCA has changed the target Major’s participation number for automatic qualification in the runoffs:
- If a class is over the Major’s participation target average, the class is automatically invited to the Runoffs
- If the class is under the target, there is an internal SCCA discussion on whether to include the class or not to include the class.
- This is too subjective and risky in the opinion of all who participated in the Zoom meeting. Hence everyone fervently agreed our mission is to drive more Majors participation in 2025.
- The rule update is – the two year participation rate for all Majors and Runoffs combined needs to average over 5.0 cars per race.
- It was 4.0, now is 5.0
- It’s evaluated January 1 each year. If over 5.0, the class is automatically included in the runoffs.
- For 2024, FF average was 4.3. 151 total entries
- To meet the new target, in 2025 we need over 200 total entries in all majors and the runoffs combined. A 30% increase (50 more entries).
- There are 32 events (weekends) that count. Each event is typically two races. The events are listed in the “files” tab of the Formula F USA Facebook group.
- The first three events are 43 days from now (January 18, 2025)
- The Zoom participants were optimistic that we can make this happen.
The action items for all of us:
- Focus on reaching 200+ total entries at Majors and the Runoffs
- We’re going to keep track of the counts relative to the target
- Each of us is committed to running more Majors in ’25 than ’24. Many are doing a couple more, some three more.
- Hopefully those who could not attend the Zoom will join us at the track to do one or two more Majors.
- The BIGGER opportunity is:
- Recruit regional runners, non-SCCA drivers, and idle cars to run a Major or three.
- To make recruiting possible:
- We need to make a list of all cars we know about, active and inactive, SCCA or not.
- EVERONE PLEASE Email us a list of all the cars your aware of to formulafusa@gmail.com
- Owner name, state, and phone number and/or email address
- We will not sell or share this list, it’ll stay private
- A subset of the Zoom group will contact everyone to find out how we can help get these cars to one or more Majors
- Some of these folks will need technical assistance to make it happen, we’ll help coordinate that.
- Once we learn what the barriers are, we’ll make plans to address them. We have no idea what that looks like until we learn more.
So in summary, please email us a list of drivers/cars that you are aware of so we can help those who are willing and able to get to a few races. Maybe they are just having a hard time finding crew to go with them and belt them into the car and jump start them on the grid– in that case they can paddock with another crew and get that help. Maybe they need help converting their car to running the radials – we can help with that. Maybe they need some take-off tires to help with budgeting – we can help with that. Maybe they just need to be asked…
formulafusa@gmail.com
Lets not forget the lack of any trickle down from the "Pro Support Series" . A club guy cant go run his Van Diemen when the pro series comes to town, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
Decades ago, I remember someone who was very familiar with the workings of SCCA reminding me that SCCA is the Sprots Car Club of America. Formula cars were not part of SCCA's founding. They were reluctantly accepted into SCCA to increase the viability of SCCA events because of the additional entries they brought.
A lot has changed over the decades. In the 1970's an new FF cost half or a little less than medium income. Today a new FF is significantly more than medium income. In short, the manufacturers have priced them selves right out of the market. A new FV is close to price level of a FF from the 1970's, relative to medium income. That is if you can find the VW parts to build a new FV.
Days of towing ones race car behind a mid sized sedan (a daily driver) are way gone. In short, the cost of racing has risen to the point where someone making medium income can not easily afford to play the game.
I also wonder if there are very many people today who have the skills or "want to" to work on their own cars.
In short, I think what we see today with the "arrive and drive" bunch is the future of racing, if there is a future.
The one bright spot I see is the interest in various vintage racing classes. But like the cars, those participants are approaching vintage them selves.
Let me answer that question for you with a couple of photos. This is an FE chassis that I purchased which had been in the middle of conversion to Sports Racer. I acquired basically 1/3 of a car and started figuring out how to get parts to make a complete car to support the class I run in by getting another car assembled and back on track !Quote:
Originally Posted by S Lathrop
Photo was taken the day I picked up the chassis from an FAA certified test facility where I had dye penetrant testing done to ensure there was no cracking in the chassis. Currently it is in my shop being built as quickly as I can get to it, while also supporting my car and attending events.
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...d=113407&stc=1https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...d=113406&stc=1
I have toyed with doing a chassis similar to what you have here but based on the Citation design.
That panel you have laid out can not be mounted with fasteners closer that 6 inches apart. Otherwise it will violate the rules covering stressed panels in the GCR.
I hear the reasons as to why there is a decline in FF in the US but from appearances FF seems to be very vibrant in the UK. They face same challenges on cost and income, in fact the UK average income is significantly less. Also, FF is sort of a dead end road to professional racing, so it's mostly amateur racing both UK and the US. So why the differences in the two markets?
This, I believe, is one of the primary reasons for the decline of SCCA open wheel racing. If you wanted to build a new FC (or crash or blow up), good luck finding a Zetec (and ECU!) or Pinto and LD200 to put in it. The MZR isn't legal for a new car. Your best bet is to hope to find a used one on this forum or to use a donor FC, but then you kill one car for another and have the same number of cars in the end. With scarcity comes increased cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by S Lathrop
At least FF has the relatively new Honda, and I think their healthier participation numbers reflect the value of this.
Probably a conversation for a different thread, but it is one I believe needs to be had.
Not to be Mr. Obvious or anything but the difference in the two markets is because the two markets are different. It's not just about income. There is a much stronger tradition of formula car racing in the UK than the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry H
Zetec motors are plenty. All the motors from the top engine builders are blocks and heads from the junk yard. Ecu’s are available. PE3 has replaced the T2. Also the MZR is legal for FC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmbeau
it’s vibrant in England because they made the cars relatively reasonably priced and cost effective to race. They run steel wheels, grooved tires, they don’t have center lock wheels, shocks are single adjustable, Kent motors. You can literally find a decent Vandiemen car or a used Ray for sale for 20k.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry H