Whatever Your Thoughts - PLEASE tell the CRB NOW!
"Whatever Your Thoughts - PLEASE tell the CRB NOW!"
(Don't worry so much about me and my "long letters", just write your own of any length.)
TO: Terry Ozment-Director of Club Racing (tozment@scca.com)
Jeremy Thoennes-Club Racing Technical Manager (jthoennes@scca.com)
Board of Directors (bod@scca.com)
Formula Advisory Committee (crb@scca.com)
Fellow SCCA Members:
Dave Gomberg has presented the following:
"In the August Fastrack (out today), the CRB has published the following in the Member Advisories section (page 17, top)
Formula
FF - The CRB welcomes comments from the FF community about moving the class to a more inclusive environment of small displacement alternate engines (including 600 cc motorcycle and 1600 cc automotive engines) for inexpensive, entry level, wingless, open wheel competition, with mixed chassis and power plants.
Now is the time to make your views known on this subject.
Dave"
Therefore, as requested, I would like to offer my input to the CRB as follows:
The CRB and the SCCA at-large should NOT be in the business of destroying the FF class. Instead, they should be restoring it to its former healthy status.
How would "you" be destroying it? By having such a huge cultural change, that it effectively causes the class to cease to exist. FF has been a top class, and IF nurtured, can be in the upper rankings again. But including motorcycle engines, engines that are not similar to current type, multiple non-FF chassis, and a class structure that undercuts the traditional open-wheel racer is NOT the way. Expediency, just for the sake of artificially increasing a participation number, is NOT a viable solution for the health of ANY class. Improvements must come from within the guidelines of what the drivers in the class will support, and from among those variables that the “market” will bear. And “this” is NOT it.
Other countries have healthy FF classes, and so can we. It’s not a matter of Ford involvement. It’s a matter of INVOLVEMENT. Keeping things relevant, and that does include an engine – an engine (or engines) that fits into the spirit of the class. Other relevant items deemed appropriate by the drivers are holding costs down, and “season long” tires, and other cost-issue items. The common thread here being cost! Why has the ad-hoc committee not addressed the true important items already identified by the FF community? (I was on the ad-hoc committee, and this is not a “sour-grapes” attitude. I speak from a true concern for the future of the class.) I want an organization that will address these issues with a REAL solution.
So what should be done? I have been proposing a plan I call “Formula Ford in the 21st Century”. It addresses the valid concerns that have degraded the FF class over the years – concerns that the drivers have already been discussing for years. Among these are a new engine (actually an “engine formula”), “hard” slicks, weight adjustments for older cars, restricted shocks, and more restricted “prep” items. My theory is that the SCCA needs a “third leg” to the stool. There’s already the Miatas (“sedan” type), and SRF (“sportscar” type). What’s missing is a “formula” type to complete a well-rounded list of options. Formula Ford can and should be that third leg for the SCCA stool to stand on. (Sorry guys, FSCCA will never be it.) We are the best positioned to make a difference. And I do not believe the theory of “dilution by too many formula classes”. Make the class viable again by RESTORING those things that made it work in the first place. Here’s the template with SCCA items that “work”, and another group of which I am familiar that “works”:
TABLE: (Column separated by "/")
Issue/ “Miatas”/ SRF/ FF/ Other-SCCA/ Other-(Legends)
Cost/ OK still, concern of rising?/ Always good, controlled/ Not worth it, relatively/ Spotty/ Controlled, basic racing
Competitiveness/ Great!/ Great!/ “Splintered”/ Cars are quite equalized/ Great!
Ease of entry/ Very easy/ Consistently easy/ Poor (cars are sold as rollers, no new cars being built)/ Variable, but usually good market/ Easy
Parts/ Very easy/ Very easy/ “Where? Oh, the $8k to $10K ‘new’ Pinto motor…”/ Good, depends on class/ Very easy, online diagrams too
Fun Factor/ Definitely/ Yes/ Definitely/ Usually a good time/ Definitely
So this is my opinion - your opinions may vary. But, look at what’s working. Look at what’s NOT working. Legends are firing on all cylinders. Miatas and SRFs look awesome for a racing experience, and their “numbers” prove this out. The other SCCA classes fall somewhere in the middle. So now we get to FF…sad! No wonder it’s been the fasting falling participation class in the last six years. It’s a “no-brainer” – turn the red into green and you have a winner. And like I said, Formula Ford is best positioned to be RESTORED to a great class (Definitely a “Fun Factor” class!). And this will be done by addressing THESE concerns – TRUE concerns of the class. This WON’T be done by destroying the class with short-sighted, outlandish ideas to include motorcycle engines, other engines, other cars, and a class structure that will ultimately increase runaway costs, further splinter the group, make it even harder to get started though the confusing changes, create even more parts issues complications, and thus making it impossible to ever again achieve any enjoyment out if the pure racing fun that it still is and can continue to be.
Sincerely,
Ron Heffner
SCCA #123785
(510) 347-4629
“Formula Ford in the 21st Century” Thread...
write today and write often!!
I urge you to WRITE to the CRB and communicate where you stand on what's going on!!!! the data suggests to me there's an active well postioned effort under way to kill FF as we've known it for more than thiry years! I've written, the letters are appended at the bottom. it's my sense there is absolutely nothing wrong with FF that benign neglect and some timely constructive administration wouldn't fix. add the SCCA regional CF and SF numbers to the "unofficial" SCCA national participation numbers Stan posted and FFord is still the most popular SCCA amateur formula class. adding VARA and NASA FF non-SCCA participation to the numbers returns the metrics as a minimum to the their former dominate levels.
IF there's a problem, it's with SCCA National FF participation, NOT FF. it's extremely important to get the problem statement correct or you most likely will solve the WRONG problem. if SCCA National participation levels is the problem and we're not looking for an excuse to kill FF, that seems like a much easier problem to address. large numbers of SCCA members are currently competing in regional CF or SF classes; significant numbers of former SCCA members are electing to compete with VARA and NASA. the base (competitors and cars) is already in place to increase SCCA National participation. I therefore offer for consideration the following:
is: D.11 Weight
Minimum weight as qualified or raced, with driver:
1050 lbs. - Original Engine
1100 lbs. - Uprated Engine
perhaps: D.11 Weight
Minimum weight as qualified or raced, with driver:
1000 lbs. - Original Engine
1100 lbs. - Uprated Engine
1050 lbs. - Uprated Engine and non-DB-1/DB-6 car manufactured
prior to 1986 updated to current safety regulations
1000 lbs. - Uprated Engine and car manufactured prior to 1983
updated to current safety regulations
competitors in my part of the country tell me they're at VARA because the alternative is unacceptable. I don't have any suggestions if that's more than a local problem!
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
If it means more cars to race against
I've got all 3 era's of FF's in my shop.
Outboard suspended -Crossle 40/45
Inboard rocker-Swift Db-1
Pushrod- One of the fastest Db-6's in the country
I'll put wieght on the DB-6 (which currently already carries ballast) if it means more cars to race against
I'd Start with
outboard suspended at 1080
inboard rocker at 1100
pushrod at 1120
try it, see what happens. What are you scared of.
Resistance to change is killing the class
Jim Little
Drivers Services
Not scientific, but accurate
What is the problem with FF? We have discussed this many times, and I will make a simple assertion--not based upon science or statistics, but on hours of discussion with many racers and would-be racers. The reason for the decline of FF is cost; cost to purchase a new car, cost to buy an engine, cost to maintain, repair and overhaul.
The second problem is the lack of a major cost differential between FF and FC--and to a lesser extent, you can include FSCCA. A buyer has several choices in the same general price range, and FF has been coming up short in the decision-process. Evidence of this is the lack of new FF cars. With only 2 or 3 exceptions, the only new FF cars to enter the class in the past several years are regenerated FC cars...at a cost close to the cost of a new car. It is obvious that when no new cars are being produced, the class will dwindle.
For you existing FF drivers, frankly you aren't the guys we need to target. We need to pull NEW people into the fold. Yes, we certainly want to keep you, and to keep your car as the class leader, but we need to reach out farther adn bring new blood into the class.
If cost is the major issue, then what are the major cost drivers? The engine and gearbox account for nearly half the price of a bill of materials for a would-be, freshly produced FF. If you con't touch those, you can't make a significant change in the cost. The engine is the real concern, because it requires frequent maintenance (when compared to a more modern engine--let's say something build in the past 20 years). Price a "new" Kent 1600 from one of the major builders and you'll get numbers north of $10K. (BTW, ask where he got the "new" block.)
Benigh neglect will yield no change. It will just continue the slow, agonizing death of FF. We need to embrace change! Change is good!
Larry Oliver
What's Good for the Goose...
From a post just above...
"Equivalent performance from a different engine will not be possible.",
and from the same post,
"Fool with the rules until you get equivalent performance from the bike powered cars to FF.
Question: How can one type of engine somehow be configured to "work", and yet another engine type mysteriously can't?
Ron
Powertrain is the biggest Cost Factor/issue
[FONT=Tms Rmn]I was typing a post, got distracted for a little while and lost it. Came back an hour later and saw that Steve Lathrop said exactly what I was going to say, but much clearer in fewer words.
I have a friend who built a FF. his Engine (A "NEW" QS or Elite if I recall), and transmission was the most expensive part of that package. Big money for low tech, low reliability (Speaking in terms of engine mileage potential) 30 year old technology. He has $13-16K invested before even starting work on the car. When you add everything else, car is no longer priced at a Starter level and it is no longer priced at level equal to it's performance.
If however, you start of with a powertrain that costs less, the overall package price comes down, the value/performance ratio increases, the potential for profit for builders and dealers becomes more appealing. For them it's all about ROI (Return on Investment).
One of the other factors that I think makes Cycle power more appealing is that it may be a more compact package, maybe making construction easier and even opening up the possibility of retro-fits. Even if retrofits are not possible, I think the costs of an automotive engine may be prohibitive.
IMHO all reasonable efforts should be made to keep the Kent going and support FF. Keep the better parts comming. However. we new a new entry level racer, priced at least $15K less (or 35%) down from the next level up, while still allowing for suppliers to make a reasonable profit. This racer, should be able to co-exist in FF, in order to bring up class participation and pull some of these closeted cars out. I race for the competition. If if see 4 cars registered, I stay in bed. Give me 14 cars to race, I don't care if they are FF of F600 (as long as performance is similar), I'll be there more weekends then not.
Larger fields yeild more media coverage (At least within SCCA), which in turn drives more interest (In particular those moving up from Karts), which in turn drives demand for cars, which drives car sales (New and Old) , which in turn puts more cars in the hands of drivers, which in turn yields higher participation.
[/FONT]
For the reasons above, I supprt the F600 and F1000 Efforts (as long as they are compariable wiht FF & FC today). I also think it is important to note that price & performace ration for ff/f600 and fc/f1000 be kept reasonably far apart. F600/FF needs to target, lowest cost, starter, hi value segment. FC/F1000 needs to be slotted above that, for more performance, aero aid, higher intial cost sector.
