FV Disc Brakes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

A lack of new front end parts, expensive brake shoes, and a brake system that is seen as antiquated.

Brian

---

Hi Brian:

Are there new ball joint beams easily available? I assumed by now we were all working off of refurbished stock. Are they not the same sources for refurbished balljoint and linkpin beams?

How will pad cost be contained? What is preventing the same arms race we have seen with shoe compounds? Are the carbotech/porterfield or equivalent pads that much cheaper than shoes? After how many sets of pads will the beam and wheel costs be offset?

I have a feeling that walking around the paddock of an SCCA race weekend that 1970 calipers will still be the oldest technology around. No one is going to look at a ball joint beam and think George Jetson has landed.

I wish the adhoc committee was working on controlling costs, getting new blood into FV and getting the parked FVs out of the barns. If changing over to ball joint beams, discs, and 4 lug wheels increases participation and lowers costs I am all for it, but I just can't see the correlation.

Craig

We have a supplier for new BJ front beams as well as spindle to spindle disc brake set ups.

Craig,

Last I checked all BJ beam parts are available new at reasonable pricing. We have lots of data provided by the FST guys regarding brakes. You can use high priced pads but they say it does not make any significant difference. Pads last about a season as I recall. When they are done slap in a new set of $20 pads.

It is supposed to be an OPTION, not required. You would not have to spend a single dime doing it if you do not want to go that route.

Will it increase FV participation? I have no idea. I cannot see how it hurts.

I have no understanding of why it should be left as is to die off as some are suggesting. Why not make small incremental changes that might make the class more appealing to a younger generation. It doesn't matter that the brake parts are 67 Vs 65 (or whatever years), it is drum brakes Vs disc brakes. My children don't even know what a drum brake is.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLS

I have no understanding of why it should be left as is to die off as some are suggesting.

---

I don't agree with that, but the 2 trains of thought seem to be:

(1) They have enough parts and don't want to invest in the BJ/Disc combo if it turns out to be an advantage.

and/or

(2) FST already solves every single problem with FV, changing FV slowly only hurts FST as people have less incentive to make the jump to FST.

Quote:

---

(2) FST already solves every single problem with FV, changing FV slowly only hurts FST as people have less incentive to make the jump to FST.

---

I agree with this to some extent. OTOH, if FST were a national class I suspect it would be the first choice of anyone entering the sport anyway. I take something away from the fact that the Aussies are running a FV1200 and 1600 class. Fewer 1200's but they are still there. Other than the engine I believe they are the same car. I really don't see a problem with updating, by way of options, the FV class. I would guess if you took a FST and put the FV tires on it and 1200 engine, it would run about the same speed as any other FV. I could be wrong, but I do not see the BJ beam being a significant performance advantage as long as we have the skinny tires. I do think with the wider tires the FST cars have that better camber control is more important.

Only one way to find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

(2) FST already solves every single problem with FV, changing FV slowly only hurts FST as people have less incentive to make the jump to FST.

---

Not only are some of the folks in FV against changing anything, the very vocal FST crowd will always be against it for that exact reason. Modernizing FV makes FST redundant. At the same time, it's unlikely that FV will change to accept some of their changes (1600cc motors, big tires) anytime soon. I understand they've fought hard for their class and followed their own path and it sucks that FV might come back and stall the momentum (..relatively speaking). But that is still not a compelling reason for FV to stagnate and die. Well, it is to them, but shouldn't be for anyone else.

The potential updating of FV does not nor will not stall our FST growth in the Midwest at all. This seasons permanent numbers list for Mid-Div, SW-Div,Rocky Mt Div show 2 FV's & 2 FST. I know that we have 2 additional FST running in Denver in NASA because the drivers are too young to run SCCA. We have 4 additional FST under conversion or being built now that will be on track in 2015. What happens in FV has no bearing on any of that. To be quite honest we don't give a rats a#*. In fact it can only help us by making our run groups large enough in small bore that we don't get grouped with CSR's, FE's etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rave motorsports

The potential updating of FV does not nor will not stall our FST growth in the Midwest at all.

<snip>

To be quite honest we don't give a rats a#.

---

True, because the FST numbers in the midwest have exceeded the tipping point. You have a good thing going and more are likely to join.

What about the other 4231 regions in the SCCA where FST isn't exactly booming? Do you think evolving FV rules towards FST in small, calculated increments will help FST grow? Do you think if FV remained the same and died on the vine in 10 years FST would grow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiago Santos

Not only are some of the folks in FV against changing anything, the very vocal FST crowd will always be against it for that exact reason. Modernizing FV makes FST redundant. At the same time, it's unlikely that FV will change to accept some of their changes (1600cc motors, big tires) anytime soon. I understand they've fought hard for their class and followed their own path and it sucks that FV might come back and stall the momentum (..relatively speaking). But that is still not a compelling reason for FV to stagnate and die. Well, it is to them, but shouldn't be for anyone else.

---

You gotta be kidding. At the rate that FV will evolve, considering the SCCA process, and the overwhelming status quo commitment of the community, it would take many decades before the evolved FV package would be comparable to the FST package. The evolution attempts will only put the final nails in the coffin, probably within a decade.

I could give a rats a## about FST or the people in it. The fact is that it is a fully developed package that works because, as a package, it is far better than a sum of its parts. FVs, evolving one part at a time, can never be more than the sum of the parts, and at massive risk, especially as some frustrated people seem intent on forcing this through without a test and development process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rave motorsports

To be quite honest we don't give a rats a#*. In fact it can only help us by making our run groups large enough in small bore that we don't get grouped with CSR's, FE's etc.

---

If the first part were true, half the posts on this thread would disappear. The second sentence is the true heart of the matter. What can we do to get cars on the track? If the only reason to switch to disc brakes is to bring people back to the track, I'd say don't do it. If they are not parting with the few hundred dollars to get to the track in the first place, adding the additional cost of new disc brakes won't help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by problemchild

I could give a rats a## about FST or the people in it.

---

ENOUGH!! I'm tired of this "I don't give a rats ass" attitude. If you don't give a rats ass, then go find somewhere else to play. We want people who care about what's happening in their racing community. While I may not agree with everything that gets posted here or on the FST forum, I still do give a rats ass.. because I care about my fellow racer.

Saying that you "don't give a rats ass" is no different then the person who said he would shun anyone who showed up at the track with disc brakes.

Enough already :redflag:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhenn4716

ENOUGH!! I'm tired of this "I don't give a rats ass" attitude. If you don't give a rats ass, then go find somewhere else to play. We want people who care about what's happening in their racing community. While I may not agree with everything that gets posted here or on the FST forum, I still do give a rats ass.. because I care about my fellow racer.

Saying that you "don't give a rats ass" is no different then the person who said he would shun anyone who showed up at the track with disc brakes.

Enough already :redflag:

---

If you choose to focus on the "rats a##" part of my comments in response to Tiago's complaints that there is a FST conspiracy to keep FV down, that is your problem. This discussion is about what is best for FV.

This is a disc brake option discussion for FV
I know it is easy to get off topic, but let's try to get it back onto the thread topic of disc brakes as an option for FV

Has anyone contacted someone on the CRB as Brian recommended a few dozen posts ago?

I think it is very important to understand just what "flexible" means

I'm hoping nobody wants to argue that point

Bill

Love them or hate them, the latest Fastrack shows a new and more "flexible" FV disc brake proposal recommended for 2015 that now goes to the BOD for voting.

Not saying it's good or bad, but highly recommend all FV competitors (and interested parties) review the content.

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...g%20finals.pdf

What you read is recommended by the CRB to the BOD for 2015 GCR approval.
Do nothing and it is likely to pass as you read it.
Support or not: www.clubracingboard.com is the place to sound your voice.

And not a single word about the back of the car.

I submitted a letter to the CRB reflecting my approval of DB but not the current proposal as written.

Barry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dd46637

And not a single word about the back of the car.

---

Also there very little about the 4x130 wheels.... Very incomplete as I see it.

G.

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...%20Minutes.pdf

2. #14580 (Club Racing Board) Retraction of FV Disc Brakes for 2015
Due to continued member input, the CRB has withdrawn the REC rule change (letter #13326) that would have allowed disc brakes in FV in 2015. Thank you all for your comments and input.

I guess unless there's a retraction of the retraction of the decision, the decision has been made. Or has it? I'm sooooooo confused!!!!!

I am confused by this, I do understand that people may write letters opposed to this new change but the CRB is only hearing from one side at this point. If the rule was put in place for 2015 being approved then those for it would have no reason to write letters for it once it had been approved.

Is it just me or does anyone else see an issue with this decision?

Apparently, not enough convincing letters in support of the proposal.

For or against, they want your input.

It makes sense when it is in the "what do you think" stage to write letters either way. But when it is a "this is our recommendation" stage why would the expectation be to write "thank you" letters...it would seem the default is we support it, while the letters would only be written by those opposed.

They have obviously decided that there is enough opposition to warrant withdrawing it. I have always had the sense that there are mysterious backroom forces within the SCCA that carry more weight than the rank and file membership, but maybe I'm just paranoid. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

Apparently, not enough convincing letters in support of the proposal.

For or against, they want your input.

It makes sense when it is in the "what do you think" stage to write letters either way. But when it is a "this is our recommendation" stage why would the expectation be to write "thank you" letters...it would seem the default is we support it, while the letters would only be written by those opposed.

---

ok, the way it originally came out I thought it was a done deal, I didn't realize it was a "what do you think" or "your input wanted"...how it was handled seems to be a mess if you go back to the very start of this thread. Not throwing stones, just the way it seems as it wasn't clear to me but then again I can get confused easily too.

Looks like there was a lot more people against it than they thought, at least in terms of how it was thrown together.

The CRB asked for your input and they got it. Of course I also read the statement and it clearly asked for input from the membership. To say that they are not listening is a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt King

I have always had the sense that there are mysterious backroom forces within the SCCA that carry more weight than the rank and file membership, but maybe I'm just paranoid. :D

---

You are not paranoid. You are correct. The CRB and above can override any input or desires from the membership. (and Rightfully so). Lisa and past presidents can or have dictated club rules/actions in spite of any member input.

For several reasons; 1. They get VERY little input from the membership, 2. It is not formal in any way and 3. Other than a membership number they do not validate the member. (ie. does he race?, what class?, how often?, etc. ) It is not a "democratic organization" nor should it be. (IMO)

Jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

The CRB asked for your input and they got it. Of course I also read the statement and it clearly asked for input from the membership. To say that they are not listening is a joke.

---

They've totally ignored and by-passed their own committee and it's recommendations on several occasions, just on this topic alone. They seemed determined to push this through with a minority of support while ignoring other topics with a majority of support. Clearly, they are picking and choosing when to listen to their committee and the membership. Questioning their erratic-ism in listening to their membership seems to be very valid.

They got it right in the end, but the same info and opinions were available from the beginning. Its not like 50% of the membership changed their minds. That all that energy and time was wasted, while nothing was done to reduce costs or attract/include more people, is a shame.

Quote:

---

SNIP all replies.

---

I look at it this way:

• The CRB received a suggestion from the membership (That is what racers are supposed to do)
• The CRB considered the suggestion, AND, as they are charted, also to considered ways to improve either the class or membership participation. (That is their job - and they did it)
• A lot of discussion ensued
  
  • some in favor
  • some not in favor
  • But much more input and data points were "considered"
  
  
• CRB made a motion to the board (that is what they are supposed to do ...even though some of us disagreed)
• Some of us sent letters directly to the CRB - again.
• Some of us sent letters directly to the board.
• Some of us talked to our area Directors.
• The Board held the meeting, considered the input from the members, the CRB and Directors.

The information I have received from my area Director is that proposal has been withdrawn based on the input the CRB received and that the subject will be addressed in the BOD minutes that will be in the Fastrack next week.

I think the process worked pretty well.
"Opinion On"
I am glad the decision went this way. I feel the CRB had good intentions, just not quite right - right now ...

John

[QUOTE=Bill Bonow;410124]http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...k-nov-club.pdf


What Do You Think

Bill as per your question above....Its way cheaper as any quote given on this forum. It's easier for the average racer to maintain en last a lot longer. It's making a huge difference on braking and stability. Here's a few photos of the disc brakes and how it's mounted. You would be able to see and test this Vee end of next year as I'm shipping it to Canada after the 50th anniversary race and 2hr endurance race in SA. Going to play with it in the Libre class at weekends when we race the 1200's. I still have to get use to the aircool vee and brakes.

what was that power plant in the first picture?

The South African Vees use the 1400 Golf engine. If you want to test it your welcome. Will be here late next year. I will run it parallel with my Canadian Vee in the Libre class(maybe my daughter)

Maintenance is way less and engine easily last three seasons. Carburation via two 40DCOE webers. Manifolds and cams supplied by association no modifications to carbs, cams or manifolds.

Twin 40DCOE, I'm guessing 50-60% more power than our little air cooled 1200.

I believe we can take on the FF's with those engines;)

It's going to be interesting to see what times I do on Mossport with my aircool vs the watercool vee on the same tyres on the same day. I personally think the gap would be fairly small as the watercool vee would surely brake better and have more torque.

We changed while the FF's stagnate with their Kent engines that led to their demise. Vee took the initiative to change and survive having bigger grids. On the changeover some of the older Vees kept up with the middle pack. Everything is standard and policed to keep the cost down....

I completely agree. We already have Formula First if you want disc brakes. We won't attract more new members by starting off increasing the cost of a used vee by 70%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craigs

Hi Brian:

Are there new ball joint beams easily available? I assumed by now we were all working off of refurbished stock. Are they not the same sources for refurbished balljoint and linkpin beams?

How will pad cost be contained? What is preventing the same arms race we have seen with shoe compounds? Are the carbotech/porterfield or equivalent pads that much cheaper than shoes? After how many sets of pads will the beam and wheel costs be offset?

I have a feeling that walking around the paddock of an SCCA race weekend that 1970 calipers will still be the oldest technology around. No one is going to look at a ball joint beam and think George Jetson has landed.

I wish the adhoc committee was working on controlling costs, getting new blood into FV and getting the parked FVs out of the barns. If changing over to ball joint beams, discs, and 4 lug wheels increases participation and lowers costs I am all for it, but I just can't see the correlation.

Craig

---

I'm no longer a Vee guy and I have no plans to return but I will offer this perspective about the ball joint beam. It requires far fewer special parts and takes a fraction of the time to build and set up relative to the link pin beam. Newbies find it less confusing than getting the offset bushings installed right in the upright and all that stuff. Camber changes get done very quickly with the eccentric ball joint. We can change the camber and reset toe in 5 minutes. I don't care to mess with the stupid shims ever again.

Doug FST 5

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug FST 5

Camber changes get done very quickly with the eccentric ball joint. We can change the camber and reset toe in 5 minutes
Doug FST 5

---

Heck you can change the camber and toe setting on an FV in less than 3 mins. (1 Lap) or even less if you bump the curbing.... Now that's quick.. :D

These threads are kind of a joke, exercise in futility, psychological venting, etc. As pointed out in multiple threads Vee is what it is and will not change due to the SCCA process, those in charge and those stuck in their father's Buick.

Other classes that have gone through more significant changes (SR-SRF, FF, etc.) and have done quite well. 10 Years ago the US FST concept was born and solves all the issues that are now being debated that will NEVER happen in FV. (Cost, longevity, parts availability, size, weight and more. All have been debated to death and clearly FST wins.

It seems there are 2 primary issues 1. Not a "National/RunOffs" class and 2. the initial cost of conversion. (The petty debates over racks, discs, costs, etc. are non-issues. We have 10 years of positive tests. those opposed have nothing and refuse to look at our results.)

Number one could be fixed by the stroke of a pen if the SCCA had any desire or foresight. Number 2... Yep. But (IMO) if you can't spend $5000 to get a $5000 savings in less than 3 years, I would try Bowling or gardening as a hobby. Or even better, Vintage FV or corner working.

You may pretend the fst has won, but all your excuses or reasons can not change the fact that your numbers have not. That in a nut shell is the only number that counts. Blaming the failure of your class on another is just not reasonable. You started out trying to replace FV, failure. Then you went to, we want to be a stand alone class, failure. Now you have come full circle, trying something again and expecting a different result. What is the definition of that?
The FV class has been said to be dying since I have been involved, that was in 1983. Nationally it was the third highest participated group at this years Runoff. Now that is the number you need, rather than this silly blame game, of comparison. You lost that. When or if you ever achieve those same numbers, you can start your blame game anew.

It seems like the off season has officially begun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce

You may pretend the fst has won, but all your excuses or reasons can not change the fact that your numbers have not. That in a nut shell is the only number that counts. Blaming the failure of your class on another is just not reasonable. You started out trying to replace FV, failure. Then you went to, we want to be a stand alone class, failure. Now you have come full circle, trying something again and expecting a different result. What is the definition of that?
The FV class has been said to be dying since I have been involved, that was in 1983. Nationally it was the third highest participated group at this years Runoff. Now that is the number you need, rather than this silly blame game, of comparison. You lost that. When or if you ever achieve those same numbers, you can start your blame game anew.

---

:thumbsup: