Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 160

Thread: Letter to BOD

  1. #1
    Contributing Member Thomas Copeland's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.19.00
    Location
    Az
    Posts
    1,499
    Liked: 165

    Default Letter to BOD

    Just sent this email to the BOD:

    Suggest Allowing F1000 in FX with a rev limiter set at 11,000 RPM.

    FX is where F1000 belongs not in FA. Raising the engine spec to make F1000 go faster to compete head-to-head with purpose built FA cars pushes the original design envelope of what an F1000 car is (it is a Formula Continental car with a motorcycle engine, it is not a purpose built Formula Atlantic car with a car motor).

    Pushing an F1000 car beyond its original design makes it inherently dangerous. I also suggest the BOD take a serious look at the SCCA's current liability status and any potential issues in regard to this. A F1000 car is NOT DESIGNED to compete head-to-head with purpose built Formula Atlantic cars. It has neither the comparable weight or the mass of a purpose built Formula Atlantic car to make it survivable in the case of an accident with a purpose built Formula Atlantic car (at the very least it reduces the survivable odds) in case of an accident.

    Many Thanks,

    Thomas Copeland
    Member No. XXXXXX

    (removed membership number for this post)
    Firman F1000

  2. The following 2 users liked this post:


  3. #2
    Contributing Member Jnovak's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.08.07
    Location
    Dearborn, Michigan
    Posts
    3,787
    Liked: 896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland View Post
    Just sent this email to the BOD:

    Suggest Allowing F1000 in FX with a rev limiter set at 11,000 RPM.
    FA cars pushes the original design envelope of what an F1000 car is (it is a Formula Continental car with a motorcycle engine, it is not a purpose built Formula Atlantic car with a car motor).

    Pushing an F1000 car beyond its original design makes it inherently dangerous. I also suggest the BOD take a serious look at the SCCA's current liability status and any potential issues in regard to this. A F1000 car is NOT DESIGNED to compete head-to-head with purpose built Formula Atlantic cars. It has neither the comparable weight or the mass of a purpose built Formula Atlantic car to make it survivable in the case of an accident with a purpose built Formula Atlantic car (at the very least it reduces the survivable odds) in case of an accident.

    Many Thanks,
    Thomas Copeland
    The above letter by Tom Copeland is the only chance for the future of this great class. We will never get the required entry numbers racing as the slowpoke little Atlantics and they do not want us their class in any case.
    Tomorrow i am writing my own letter in support of this concept. Letters please! having been on the FSRAC for almost 3 years I know that Lots of letters get attention and now is the time!

    WRITE A LETTER
    Thanks ... Jay Novak
    313-445-4047
    On my 54th year as an SCCA member
    with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)

  4. The following 2 users liked this post:


  5. #3
    Contributing Member RussMcB's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.19.02
    Location
    Palm Coast, FL
    Posts
    6,680
    Liked: 553

    Default

    The only thing I might point out is, F1000 cars have been on track with FA since the beginning, so they might dismiss that argument quickly and easily.

    I do very much agree that The F1000 cars are plenty fast enough without changing the rules so they'll go even faster.

    I also think opening up the engine rules is another big step in the wrong direction. Keep the engines near-stock and keep the costs down as much as possible.

    disclaimer - I'm not an F1000 racer.
    Racer Russ
    Palm Coast, FL

  6. The following 3 users liked this post:


  7. #4
    Contributing Member Thomas Copeland's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.19.00
    Location
    Az
    Posts
    1,499
    Liked: 165

    Default

    The purpose of my letter was to get this logjam unstuck. To get them (SCCA) thinking. The current status quo just can't continue.

    I'm open to any safe and sane solutions to get F1000 back into SCCA club racing where it has a least a potential for growth, which it doesn't have under the current rules. Once we accomplish that (a viable rules structure) then let us (F1000 competitors) work on bringing the numbers back up. This is the only path forward. The rules have to change. Whether its dumbing down F1000 to compete in FX or slowing down FA so F1000 has a least some kind of chance something has to give. I'd feel a lot more comfortable mixing it up with an FA if we aren't stretching ourselves way out there by trying to match their speed. We need winnable solutions.
    Firman F1000

  8. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10.31.07
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,524
    Liked: 1426

    Default

    Good luck. I don't mean that sarcastically.

    When I was on the FSRAC, this was my number one concern (#2 being cost - raising the cost to play never brings out MORE people). The rebuttal was what a previous poster said - FA and FB have been on track together and it's been fine. Two comments - one, just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't or won't. Two, racing in the same group, and racing for position are two entirely different things. The reply to that was crickets.

    Just to let you know what you are up against.

  9. The following members LIKED this post:


  10. #6
    Contributing Member Thomas Copeland's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.19.00
    Location
    Az
    Posts
    1,499
    Liked: 165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reidhazelton View Post
    Good luck. I don't mean that sarcastically.

    When I was on the FSRAC, this was my number one concern (#2 being cost - raising the cost to play never brings out MORE people). The rebuttal was what a previous poster said - FA and FB have been on track together and it's been fine. Two comments - one, just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't or won't. Two, racing in the same group, and racing for position are two entirely different things. The reply to that was crickets.

    Just to let you know what you are up against.

    It's an uphill battle I know. Makes me wonder if these guys on the BOD or CRB ever actually really competed in or have any knowledge about anything other than single class racing. You would like to think they would know all about this disparity without having to make these lengthy explanations to them about it.
    Firman F1000

  11. #7
    Contributing Member lowside67's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.06.08
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts
    462
    Liked: 231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RussMcB View Post
    I do very much agree that The F1000 cars are plenty fast enough without changing the rules so they'll go even faster.

    I also think opening up the engine rules is another big step in the wrong direction. Keep the engines near-stock and keep the costs down as much as possible.

    disclaimer - I'm not an F1000 racer.
    If by "plenty fast enough" you mean "doesn't have a hope in heck against a Swift 016" then you are right... but I suspect most are not looking for participation trophies and there's no hope in an F1000 as currently allowed.

    -Mark
    Mark Uhlmann
    Vancouver, Canada
    '12 Stohr WF1

  12. #8
    Classifieds Super License BeerBudgetRacing's Avatar
    Join Date
    09.04.13
    Location
    Goleta, California
    Posts
    4,168
    Liked: 1261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RussMcB View Post
    The only thing I might point out is, F1000 cars have been on track with FA since the beginning, so they might dismiss that argument quickly and easily.
    Only because FX didn't previously exist. The only catch all was FA. Right?

    Move to FX.
    Tune down the motors (cheaper running and more compatible with other FX cars)

    Anyone know the F1000 counts in FA? Will that gut the FA numbers?

  13. #9
    Contributing Member RussMcB's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.19.02
    Location
    Palm Coast, FL
    Posts
    6,680
    Liked: 553

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowside67 View Post
    If by "plenty fast enough" you mean "doesn't have a hope in heck against a Swift 016" then you are right... but I suspect most are not looking for participation trophies and there's no hope in an F1000 as currently allowed.

    -Mark
    When I wrote that I was thinking, plenty fast enough for a tube frame car.

    Regarding moving to FX, I could be wrong, but I don't think FX is trying to equalize cars. It is more about creating a Runoffs class for (production?) cars that lost their classes. Very much like FS except not limited to regional racing. If that's true, no "dumbing down" would be needed.

    What are some of the cars currently running in FX? Thus far, I've only noticed Club FM's.
    Racer Russ
    Palm Coast, FL

  14. #10
    Senior Member Stan Clayton's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.14.03
    Location
    Mooresville NC area
    Posts
    4,157
    Liked: 309

    Default

    Food for thought.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FX results.jpg 
Views:	250 
Size:	103.7 KB 
ID:	95301   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FA results.jpg 
Views:	232 
Size:	98.0 KB 
ID:	95300  
    Stan Clayton
    Stohr Cars

  15. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    01.11.05
    Location
    Zionsville, Indiana
    Posts
    3,169
    Liked: 1397

    Default

    In my estimation the move of FB from FA to FX is highly unlikely. FX is a class for spec formula cars that are highly controlled and very strictly defined. FB is an open or development formula car class and completely incomparable with the FX concept.

    I think a better discussion would be how can we improve the engine rules in FB to make the class more attractive. The goal here would be to build the FB class to something like FC was in its early days but as a faster car and a really great alternative to FA.

    When F2000 was originally introduced into SCCA racing the cars were completely out classed in the old FC class just like FB in in today's FA.

    How do we change the engine rules so we can take advantage to the new 1000 bike engines that are currently available. When FB was just starting the engine costs were very low because we could replace an engine with a new or low mileage salvaged engine for a fraction of the cost of rebuilding and engine. We also might think of ways to hold the power output of the engines to improve reliability.

    Speaking as a car builder, I think that cars powered by motorcycle engines are the future of small bore formula car racing. The cost to build a competitive FF or FC is approaching $80,000 to $100,000. A top effort FC will cost more than $100,000 to build. Yes someone may be able to market something for less in those classes but that is not going to be a top line car. The engine, bell housing and transmission package for a FF or FC is going to be minimum $20,000 and more likely $25,000 to $30,000. Compare that to a complete FB power train. To build a FB today, you can have a drive train for half of the cost of a FF or FC, maybe even less than half.

    Of all the formula cars racing in SCCA today, FB has the best future prospect. It is probably the best performing formula car for the dollar spent. And FB is closer to what people can afford, given the disposable income of potential customers.

  16. #12
    Contributing Member Thomas Copeland's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.19.00
    Location
    Az
    Posts
    1,499
    Liked: 165

    Default

    So I just read this from the November Fastrak:

    FA
    1. #29642 (DAVID OLEARY) Request to re-think FB in FA
    Thank you for your letter. The Club Racing Board does not recommend these changes. The F1000 pole position time at the 2013 Runoffs (2:04.786) compares favorably with the FA pole position time at the 2020 Runoffs (2:04.274), and the current rules also permit modification of F1000 engines in FA. Please see the responses to letter #27319 in the January 2020 Fastrack Technical Bulletin and letter #28162 in the April 2020 Fastrack Technical Bulletin.


    Lathrop, are you suggesting we modify FA engines? Because I know of noone interesting in modifying motorcycle engines as suggested in the FA rules for F1000. Noone. And if there was one I would seriously question his motives.

    I agree with you on FB. Which is why I wonder why the SCCA has got this thing about torturing the class.



    (ok... I rewrote that last section 4 times, trying to make it more PC...it wasn't easy!! But I'm trying!!!)
    Last edited by Thomas Copeland; 12.08.20 at 12:12 PM.
    Firman F1000

  17. #13
    Contributing Member Thomas Copeland's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.19.00
    Location
    Az
    Posts
    1,499
    Liked: 165

    Default

    Isn't FA a spec car too?
    Firman F1000

  18. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    01.11.05
    Location
    Zionsville, Indiana
    Posts
    3,169
    Liked: 1397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland View Post
    So I just read this from the November Fastrak:
    Lathrop, are you suggesting we modify FA engines? Because I know of noone interesting in modifying motorcycle engines as suggested in the FA rules for F1000. Noone. And if there was one I would seriously question his motives.

    I agree with you on FB. Which is why I wonder why the SCCA has got this thing about torturing the class.
    I was not suggesting that anything change for FA.

    The idea was to make FB a better more appealing class.

  19. #15
    Contributing Member Jnovak's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.08.07
    Location
    Dearborn, Michigan
    Posts
    3,787
    Liked: 896

    Default

    The CRB has made their decision and that decision will not change imo.
    Thanks ... Jay Novak
    313-445-4047
    On my 54th year as an SCCA member
    with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)

  20. #16
    Senior Member Stan Clayton's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.14.03
    Location
    Mooresville NC area
    Posts
    4,157
    Liked: 309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jnovak View Post
    The CRB has made their decision and that decision will not change imo.
    That's the way it always is ... until it isn't.
    Stan Clayton
    Stohr Cars

  21. The following members LIKED this post:


  22. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    02.04.02
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,399
    Liked: 1116

    Default

    What it boils down to, IMO, is that FA owners aren't going to permit their cars to be devalued to the point that a FB car can compete with them for 1/2 the price.

    A "FB" car can compete with a "FA" car now with the current rules, it just doesn't make $en$e to do so. As soon as someone proves it can be done there will be competition adjustment(s) of sorts.

    FA doesn't want FB cars to go elsewhere as their (FA) numbers are poor and the class must be saved.

    I think where the FA, BOD/CRB has erred is that the personality type of racer that built and raced a FB car has zero desire to be grid-fodder so the cars are parked.

    Look around the typical SCCA grid, even at the RunOffs there is a large percentage of participants who are just happy to be participating and couldn't care less that they don't have a chance. I'd argue that's not the typical FB owner.

    So the stand-off. Who needs whom more? Does FA and SCCA need these FB car owners out there to save their premier class over the long haul, or do the FB guys need the SCCA as their place to race?

  23. The following 2 users liked this post:


  24. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10.31.07
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,524
    Liked: 1426

    Default

    As been said, and another concern I had at the time was we are now making an FF chassis go FA speeds, weighing 1000 lbs against a carbon tub, carbon nose battering ram, 1400lbs 016. To me, that is completely reckless for SCCA to do.

    If ya can't tell I'm still a little salty about the decision and the way it went down. I said it would S2000 the class right out of SCCA. How that was not obvious, I don't know.

  25. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    02.04.02
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,399
    Liked: 1116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reidhazelton View Post
    I said it would S2000 the class right out of SCCA. How that was not obvious, I don't know.
    I didn't really pay much attention to S2000 cars except for following a friend in the ACRL. How do the current S2000 fields at various premium vintage races compare to the S2000 cars in SCCA back in the day (class size-wise)?

  26. #20
    Senior Member tige00's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.12.10
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    156
    Liked: 49

    Default

    F1000 needs scca, come on scca doesn't need anybody haven't you figured that out, these classes could disappear and they would fill them in with tin tops without a worry in the world.

  27. The following members LIKED this post:


  28. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    02.04.02
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,399
    Liked: 1116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tige00 View Post
    F1000 needs scca, come on scca doesn't need anybody haven't you figured that out, these classes could disappear and they would fill them in with tin tops without a worry in the world.
    I'd argue the SCCA needs customers, they just don't care who they are. SM and SRF go away and there will be other classes to fill the void. 250 classes with 1 car each still keeps the lights on. A weekend with 125 SM and 125 SRF pays the bills too.

  29. #22
    Senior Member Stan Clayton's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.14.03
    Location
    Mooresville NC area
    Posts
    4,157
    Liked: 309

    Default

    Before the conversation goes too far sideways, do any FB owners here have an opinion on the merits of Thomas' suggestion?
    Stan Clayton
    Stohr Cars

  30. The following 3 users liked this post:


  31. #23
    Contributing Member Thomas Copeland's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.19.00
    Location
    Az
    Posts
    1,499
    Liked: 165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Clayton View Post
    Before the conversation goes too far sideways, do any FB owners here have an opinion on the merits of Thomas' suggestion?
    Stan, just to answer from what I know already. I haven't done a lot of reaching out yet, was about to. But all the guys I've emailed so far support putting F1000 in FX, and there is even one F1000 competitor already preparing to experiment with a Rev Limiter on his car. He's setting the limit higher at 12.5 or 12.8 but it's a start. I'm not sure how many supporters there are on the Rev Limiter yet, but we may need to do this anyway to keep an runaway engine war in check.

    Others can chime in.
    Firman F1000

  32. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    01.11.05
    Location
    Zionsville, Indiana
    Posts
    3,169
    Liked: 1397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reidhazelton View Post
    As been said, and another concern I had at the time was we are now making an FF chassis go FA speeds, weighing 1000 lbs against a carbon tub, carbon nose battering ram, 1400lbs 016. To me, that is completely reckless for SCCA to do.

    If ya can't tell I'm still a little salty about the decision and the way it went down. I said it would S2000 the class right out of SCCA. How that was not obvious, I don't know.
    Some years ago, VD mounted the nose come on the front of a FF chassis. The nose cone was from a car that had passed the FIA crash test. Then the YD chassis was subjected to the same crash test standards. The results of the test were a surprise to everyone.

    The tube frame saw more displacement during the test than was allowed for a composite tub. But the tube frame was intact and usable after the test which is something a composite tub is not.

    So the common assumption that tube frames are not as safe as composite tub cars is not true. Both chassis rely on the crush structure at the front of the frame and front crush structures are required. I have had my Citation chassis with a front crush structure impact guard rail posts. In both cases the posts had to be replaced. The foot box area of both cars were not compromised in any way and the repairs to the front of the chassis were minimal and mostly cosmetic.

    The worst injury to any driver that I ever worked with was in a FA with a tub that had passed the crash test. The first impact removed the crush structure and the second impact drove the steering rack back into his foot hard enough to cause very serious injuries..

    Bottom line, a composite car is not a guarantee of a safe car. A tube frame with a well secured front crush structure and good side penetration protection is every bit as safe.

    My last rant is this: SCCA stands for the Sports Car Club of America. Formula cars are not sports cars. You all can add the rest of this thought.

  33. The following members LIKED this post:


  34. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10.31.07
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,524
    Liked: 1426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S Lathrop View Post
    Some years ago, VD mounted the nose come on the front of a FF chassis. The nose cone was from a car that had passed the FIA crash test. Then the YD chassis was subjected to the same crash test standards. The results of the test were a surprise to everyone.

    The tube frame saw more displacement during the test than was allowed for a composite tub. But the tube frame was intact and usable after the test which is something a composite tub is not.

    So the common assumption that tube frames are not as safe as composite tub cars is not true. Both chassis rely on the crush structure at the front of the frame and front crush structures are required. I have had my Citation chassis with a front crush structure impact guard rail posts. In both cases the posts had to be replaced. The foot box area of both cars were not compromised in any way and the repairs to the front of the chassis were minimal and mostly cosmetic.

    The worst injury to any driver that I ever worked with was in a FA with a tub that had passed the crash test. The first impact removed the crush structure and the second impact drove the steering rack back into his foot hard enough to cause very serious injuries..

    Bottom line, a composite car is not a guarantee of a safe car. A tube frame with a well secured front crush structure and good side penetration protection is every bit as safe.

    My last rant is this: SCCA stands for the Sports Car Club of America. Formula cars are not sports cars. You all can add the rest of this thought.
    Thanks Steve - I know you've said that a lot and while true, and I agree a tube frame car can be "safe" - if I understand correctly that VD test was apple to apple. Meaning, the chassis were similar - one just had a different nose. I'm no engineer, but I'm sure all that changes when one car weighs nearly 50% more than the other. I've seen a few t-bone crashes in FC v FC and FF v FF where the nose or gearbox penetrates pretty far into the frame. A couple VDs and a DB1 come to mind. I don't want to imagine that same scenario where the same chassis is now going FA speeds and a 1400+ 016 is in the mix.

    Also, while your Citation is likely one of the safest tube frames out there (and I still wish I had a Citation) that is not the only car in the class. FBs are still commonly converted FFs or FCs, usually the 01+ VD, or some Pipers. Given how tight a Piper is and how close the driver's body is to the frame, there isn't much safety there when you have an 016 coming at ya. If the frame deforms and inch or two that's more room than there is in the cockpit. An 016 has massive sidepods and some pretty thick walls on the tub.

    If I could pick between getting t-boned by an 016 in a VD, or getting t-boned in a VD by an 016, it's a pretty easy call.

    In other words, what I am saying is that a sub compact car's "five-star crash rating" doesn't mean much when it's involved in a crash with a full size SUV.

    I know that if I converted my 92 VD to FB, and was now doing 160+ around RA that would be well beyond what the car was designed for not just in terms of performance, but also safety. I have a pretty high threshold for crazy, but that's not something that seems to come out on the sane side of the risk/reward analysis.
    Last edited by reidhazelton; 12.08.20 at 4:31 PM.

  35. #26
    Contributing Member problemchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.22.02
    Location
    Ransomville, NY
    Posts
    5,727
    Liked: 4340

    Default

    F1000 is dead to SCCA. Those vendors that proposed "saving" F1000 by merging into FA should be blackballed by the F1000 community. Never buy another part from them! Your only hope now is FRP, NASA, SVRA, or organizing your own race series/events.
    Any other action will be futile and a waste of your time. Hard to hear . but that is reality!
    Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
    F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
    2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
    2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.

  36. The following members LIKED this post:


  37. #27
    Classifieds Super License stonebridge20's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.13.06
    Location
    Danbury, CT.
    Posts
    3,693
    Liked: 1889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by problemchild View Post
    F1000 is dead to SCCA. Those vendors that proposed "saving" F1000 by merging into FA should be blackballed by the F1000 community. Never buy another part from them! Your only hope now is FRP, NASA, SVRA, or organizing your own race series/events.
    Any other action will be futile and a waste of your time. Hard to hear . but that is reality!

    As an active BOD member said to me a long while ago....." the only reason F1000 is a class is so that ___________ wouldn't sue us"

    You can fill in the blank.

    EDIT to post: it was a CRB member, not BOD member.
    Last edited by stonebridge20; 12.08.20 at 7:59 PM.
    Stonebridge Sports & Classics ltd
    15 Great Pasture Rd Danbury, CT. 06810 (203) 744-1120
    www.cryosciencetechnologies.com
    Cryogenic Processing · REM-ISF Processing · Race Prep & Driver Development

  38. #28
    Member Teuobk's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.04.18
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    97
    Liked: 94

    Default

    While I appreciate the goal of getting more cars involved, I *don't* support moving FB out of FA and into FX.

    Looking at my own data relative to FX, it would take a MUCH tighter restriction than an 11k rev limit to keep the F1000s from whipping the FMs in FX -- and almost all of the entries in FX are of course currently FMs. (I'm sure the FM drivers would take that lying down, right?) And if the rev limit would need to be more like 10k, then how much appeal would that have for the FB drivers? I know I wouldn't like it.

    If anything, it would make a lot more sense to move FB into FC, since that's at least in the same ballpark of performance. However, I don't think that the FC drivers would like that any more than the FM drivers.

    I'm fine with the idea of continuing to drive my F1000 in FA. I'm not expecting to beat a well-driven 016, but I'm having fun regardless.

    As the only person in this thread (so far as I can tell) who has actually entered a Majors race with an F1000 in either of the past two seasons, my only wish for a rules change would be to go back to a 1000 lb minimum weight instead of the 1025 lb change that was instituted a year ago.

    Jeff

  39. #29
    Classifieds Super License
    Join Date
    12.13.02
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    795
    Liked: 270

    Default F1000

    "As an active BOD member said to me a long while ago....." the only reason F1000 is a class is so that ___________ wouldn't sue us"

    As an active Board member at that time thats not true - it was more of CRB make everthing a class and let the numbers determine their future. Had nothing to do with lawsuit potential.
    Phil

  40. #30
    Global Moderator Mike B's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.03.00
    Location
    Green Bay, WI
    Posts
    3,784
    Liked: 701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stonebridge20 View Post
    As an active BOD member said to me a long while ago....." the only reason F1000 is a class is so that ___________ wouldn't sue us"

    You can fill in the blank.
    It's been 14 years since my committee proposed F1000 so my memory might be fuzzy but I don't recall this. The BOD didn't ask us to create F1000 and I doubt they were feeling threatened from anyone. They DID grant it national status from the start, but they did the same with FE in the same year. What did I forget?
    Mike Beauchamp
    RF95 Prototype 2

    www.gyrodynamics.net


  41. #31
    Senior Member Stan Clayton's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.14.03
    Location
    Mooresville NC area
    Posts
    4,157
    Liked: 309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike B View Post
    It's been 14 years since my committee proposed F1000 so my memory might be fuzzy but I don't recall this. The BOD didn't ask us to create F1000 and I doubt they were feeling threatened from anyone. They DID grant it national status from the start, but they did the same with FE in the same year. What did I forget?
    The BoD also approved the Super Touring Category that same day with the ST Light, ST Under, and ST classes (ST never met the participation numbers and was dropped after 5 years).

    In January 2006 I started this thread after spending the fall after the 2005 Runoffs talking with competitors interested in the new class. I was newly appointed to the CRB, and just kind of volunteered to help herd the cats interested in what became Formula 1000.

    Throughout the first half of 2006 there was a great deal of discussion, arguing and horse trading until IIRC near the end of the summer the class was proposed as a Regional class with 5 years to make National numbers. Then one fine day my wife and I were driving down Highway 1 between Santa Cruz and Monterey when BoD Member Mike Sauce of Texas called to ask if the CRB would be okay with the BoD making FB, FE, and ST all National classes on 1/1/2007, skipping the Regional qualification period. FE had already fulfilled the first year of its 2-year qualification and was headed for another strong year, and there was a great deal of interest in ST and FB. SportsCar magazine had even written a very favorable feature article about 'these exciting new formula cars that sound like F1 cars'. I said yes.

    The rest, as they say, is history.
    Stan Clayton
    Stohr Cars

  42. #32
    Contributing Member Jnovak's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.08.07
    Location
    Dearborn, Michigan
    Posts
    3,787
    Liked: 896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Clayton View Post
    That's the way it always is ... until it isn't.
    I would very much like to be wrong Stan Clayton.

    I HAVE FOUND THAT SENDING LETTERS TO THE FSRAC IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN WHEN YOU SEND YOUR LETTERS DIRECTLY TO THE CRB

    Here is a link. www.crbscca.com
    Last edited by Jnovak; 12.09.20 at 3:53 AM.
    Thanks ... Jay Novak
    313-445-4047
    On my 54th year as an SCCA member
    with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)

  43. #33
    Contributing Member Thomas Copeland's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.19.00
    Location
    Az
    Posts
    1,499
    Liked: 165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jnovak View Post
    I would very much like to be wrong Stan Clayton.

    I HAVE FOUND THAT SENDING LETTERS TO THE FSRAC IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN WHEN YOU SEND YOUR LETTERS DIRECTLY TO THE CRB

    Here is a link. www.crbscca.com

    I bounced right by all them Jay and went straight to the BOD:

    bod@scca.com
    Firman F1000

  44. #34
    Senior Member Stan Clayton's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.14.03
    Location
    Mooresville NC area
    Posts
    4,157
    Liked: 309

    Default

    For the last 3 Runoffs for which we had representative fields in both classes (2016/8), the average of the fastest race lap of the 3 fastest drivers in each class show FM is about 8% slower than FB, which implies a pretty hefty rev limiter/intake restrictor for FB in FX.

    The downside is the FBs won't sound nearly so F1-ish.

    The upside is the engines will go a loooooooooooooong time between overhauls.
    Stan Clayton
    Stohr Cars

  45. #35
    Contributing Member RussMcB's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.19.02
    Location
    Palm Coast, FL
    Posts
    6,680
    Liked: 553

    Default

    I wanted to remind myself if the FX class mentioned anything about trying to keep all of the different cars in FX equal so they all had a chance to win.

    Here's a GCR snippet:

    Purpose and Philosophy - The Formula X class is intended for winged, open-wheel formula cars of
    modest power and performance (sub FA/F3/F1000). The class is to include cars which a) are built in
    significant numbers, but not sufficient enough to populate their own class; and b) may not have been
    constructed to existing class formulas within the GCR. The class may also include cars which have
    been built to a recognized SCCA formula but are not running in sufficient numbers to warrant their
    own class. The class is not intended for unique one-off or prototype open wheel cars which are not
    widely available; those should be classed in FS. ... Cars classified
    in Formula X may, at the discretion of SCCA, be subjected to periodic adjustments in performance by
    and through various means including, but not limited to weight and intake restriction.
    Racer Russ
    Palm Coast, FL

  46. #36
    Contributing Member Jnovak's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.08.07
    Location
    Dearborn, Michigan
    Posts
    3,787
    Liked: 896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jnovak View Post
    I would very much like to be wrong Stan Clayton.

    I HAVE FOUND THAT SENDING LETTERS TO THE FSRAC IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN WHEN YOU SEND YOUR LETTERS DIRECTLY TO THE CRB

    Here is a link. www.crbscca.com
    Quote Originally Posted by RussMcB View Post
    I wanted to remind myself if the FX class mentioned anything about trying to keep all of the different cars in FX equal so they all had a chance to win.

    Here's a GCR snippet:

    Purpose and Philosophy - The Formula X class is intended for winged, open-wheel formula cars of
    modest power and performance (sub FA/F3/F1000). The class is to include cars which a) are built in
    significant numbers, but not sufficient enough to populate their own class; and b) may not have been
    constructed to existing class formulas within the GCR. The class may also include cars which have
    been built to a recognized SCCA formula but are not running in sufficient numbers to warrant their
    own class. The class is not intended for unique one-off or prototype open wheel cars which are not
    widely available; those should be classed in FS. ... Cars classified
    in Formula X may, at the discretion of SCCA, be subjected to periodic adjustments in performance by
    and through various means including, but not limited to weight and intake restriction.

    I am curious about the speed of the current FM cars, can thet get any faster?
    Thanks ... Jay Novak
    313-445-4047
    On my 54th year as an SCCA member
    with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)

  47. The following members LIKED this post:


  48. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    10.31.07
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,524
    Liked: 1426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jnovak View Post
    I am curious about the speed of the current FM cars, can thet get any faster?
    Ditching the 6850rpm rev limit will be a huge difference. 13Bs don't normally make peak torque until around there, so there is a lot left on the top end. I'm not familiar with the rules enough to know what the engine specs are (they are not listed in the GCR - just it has to be built by Drummond), but porting is an option if they are not already. I assume they are. Open up the 44mm carb chokes.

  49. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    02.04.02
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,399
    Liked: 1116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jnovak View Post
    I am curious about the speed of the current FM cars, can thet get any faster?
    Yes, much more so.

    An otherwise stock 13B with just a good header makes more HP than the current FM.

    It's a matter of desired longevity (isn't it always?).

    Go up beyond 8500 rpm and you have diminishing returns on engine internals' life without upgrading to lightened rotors and a 2-piece eccentric shaft. The Drummond motors already come with ceramic apex seals.

    I don't know how much you know about rotary engines but I know you know 2 strokes so here's some rough comparisons/analogies. Forgive me you know this stuff and the comparisons are too general/crude.

    Think of a rotary as similar to a piston port 2 stroke, except there are no transfer ports. You can change the timing of the intake and exhaust by lengthening the ports. You can change the width of the port to control how much volume without regards to port timing. There are various port shapes and size templates that result in various horsepower numbers and characteristics (in a typical 4cycle think akin to changing cam timing, cam duration, valve lift and port size and height all at once).

    The stock 13B had to pass emissions, had to have a decent idle and you couldn't go too large on ports or you lose much of the torque down low. So stock porting is very mild.

    A 13B is capable of 300HP with peripheral porting, but will be twisting north of 10K rpms,

    There are various bridge-ports, J-ports and street ports that all range in power available from 190-270 range but the larger numbers require spinning more than 8500 rpms and that seems to be where most agree lifespan is diminished significantly without a better shaft.

    A pretty aggressive street port with 8300rpm limit will likely result in more power in the FM than a FB, however more weight, fewer gears, poor aero, etc. . . I don't know if that gets a FM to FB speeds.---I'm thinking not. I don't have any idea what the transaxle is capable of handling either.

  50. #39
    Contributing Member problemchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.22.02
    Location
    Ransomville, NY
    Posts
    5,727
    Liked: 4340

    Default

    Better to leave any FX sub-class as it is, so no one has to spend money to chase some unobtainable parity. Again, it is a better racing experience to have the leaders of each sub-class racing with each other at a different pace to other sub-classes, than all the sub-classes running together at a targeted pace. Then give each sub-class winner a $2 medal to hang around their neck and a dollar store checkered flag.

    If any sub-class is in FX it is because the car counts have fallen ...... so making people spend money to chase parity at this point ..... is just plain stupid, assuming your goal is to provide a class to allow participation to continue.

    Of course, FX is a better place for existing FBs built to their traditional specs.
    Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
    F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
    2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
    2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.

  51. The following 3 users liked this post:


  52. #40
    Contributing Member Thomas Copeland's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.19.00
    Location
    Az
    Posts
    1,499
    Liked: 165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Clayton View Post
    Food for thought.

    Stan, you have to go back further back than that to find FB times. Those are FA times. I had to go back to 2015 to find a competitive FB time in a Majors race at Road America (the link to Majors results in 2018 on the SCCA site is broken, or I can't get to it. There was a Beauchamp time from 2017 at around 2:12)

    Tyler Theilman 2:11.205. With rev limiter we should be able to get right around there to Madza time no problem-oh.

    I've heard someone supposely did a 2:04 in a FB at Road America. Does anybody have when or who did that? Or Is it even possible? I have no idea where that came from and under what circumstances and what engine there were in. But a 2:04 time in an FB at Road America is too damn fast!!!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Road America Major Time.jpg 
Views:	141 
Size:	71.8 KB 
ID:	95329  
    Firman F1000

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




About Us
Since 2000, ApexSpeed.com has been the go-to place for amateur road racing enthusiasts, bringing together a friendly community of racers, fans, and industry professionals. We're all about creating a space where people can connect, share knowledge, and exchange parts and vehicles, with a focus on specific race cars, classes, series, and events. Our community includes all major purpose-built road racing classes, like the Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) and various pro series across North America and beyond. At ApexSpeed, we're passionate about amateur motorsports and are dedicated to helping our community have fun and grow while creating lasting memories on and off the track.
Social