Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 58
  1. #1
    Classifieds Super License
    Join Date
    09.26.12
    Location
    cranberry, pennsylvania
    Posts
    373
    Liked: 58

    Default little confused? FC-FX

    Just a question to clear something up please. I watch the Runoffs and really do not understand how a car competes in both FC and FX without any changes to the car or engine, if there are no changes then why have the two classes? Nothing against the driver he did a HELL of a drive and deserves both medals but should there be one class that the car legally belongs in?

  2. The following members LIKED this post:


  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    08.22.15
    Location
    Westfalia
    Posts
    1,724
    Liked: 1059

    Default

    Yes.

    SCCA solved the dwindling, highly-stressed Cosworth class of FC in the late ‘70s by combining it with Super Vee cars, and later, F2000 cars. It worked well for quite some time.

    I’ve long admired the efforts of a few here in promoting FC, very admirably. Indy was awesome last year, 34 FC cars!

    There has to be a fix that sees a future for several Formula classes. It seems reasonably clear that FE2 thrives from priority treatment, and for obvious business reasons.

    What the answers are is unclear; the result if continuing like this, not so unclear.
    Once we think we’ve mastered something, it’s over
    https://ericwunrow.photoshelter.com/index

  4. #3
    Contributing Member CheckeredFlag's Avatar
    Join Date
    05.30.19
    Location
    Ferdinand, Indiana
    Posts
    113
    Liked: 111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by E1pix View Post
    It seems reasonably clear that FE2 thrives from priority treatment, and for obvious business reasons.
    Why bring FE2 into this? If owners/drivers didn't like the FE2 then it wouldn't succeed regardless of this supposed favoritism.
    Dean Fehribach
    Car owner: SCCA Enterprises FE2 chassis #037.
    Car owner: 2017 Ford Mustang EcoBoost Autocross STU

  5. #4
    Senior Member rockbeau25's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.02.18
    Location
    Fitchburg, WI
    Posts
    124
    Liked: 135

    Default

    I think we are all confused.

    FX is a total mess. The FM drivers are disenfranchised by the USF cars and no longer show up. The USF drivers in the F/SR town hall were disenfranchised by perfectly legal FC cars running in FX. All of them are likely disenfranchised when the oddball FR3.5 shows up and wipes the floor with them.

    The USF cars being used to justify a class nobody asked for, instead of being integrated into FC like they are in FRP, and as the majority of USF and FC owners ask for, is beyond silly. A 16 car FC field would've been awesome, instead of the 13 and 4 car races we got. Hell, FC probably could've hit 40 entries at Indy last year too.
    Van Diemen RF99 FC


  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    08.22.15
    Location
    Westfalia
    Posts
    1,724
    Liked: 1059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag View Post
    Why bring FE2 into this? If owners/drivers didn't like the FE2 then it wouldn't succeed regardless of this supposed favoritism.
    I wasn’t at all slamming FE2, I love the class.

    I was merely pointing out that, from a business standpoint, there’s little financial incentive for the Club to care what happens to competing, small-bore formulae. And that’s not a slam on SCCA, either.
    Once we think we’ve mastered something, it’s over
    https://ericwunrow.photoshelter.com/index

  7. #6
    Classifieds Super License BeerBudgetRacing's Avatar
    Join Date
    09.04.13
    Location
    Goleta, California
    Posts
    4,140
    Liked: 1235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david oleary View Post
    Just a question to clear something up please. I watch the Runoffs and really do not understand how a car competes in both FC and FX without any changes to the car or engine, if there are no changes then why have the two classes? Nothing against the driver he did a HELL of a drive and deserves both medals but should there be one class that the car legally belongs in?
    Not sure if you followed what was said here in replies.....

    FX is a catch all class. Most of the cars are current fka FM and some fka F4. There are some USF2000 cars with MZR motors and sequential boxes. An FC car meets the specifications of the FX classes, but 'may' be at a disadvantage.

    So, maybe he changed tires, maybe not. Maybe he changed his mapping. Or maybe he ran it exactly as an FC.

    It's like many Spec Miata guys run in touring as well.

  8. #7
    Classifieds Super License
    Join Date
    09.26.12
    Location
    cranberry, pennsylvania
    Posts
    373
    Liked: 58

    Default FC

    So is there a HP advantage to being Running a FC in FX?? At one time i had a FM and i would think that the FC has a HP advantage so i understand why the FM guys would be upset, IMHO a FC is a FC not a FX.. i ran my DSR in CSR knowing that the HP advantage over the DSR, but we had 2 drivers so it was the answer to get both drivers in the car in a season without competing against each other. when the rules let you pick a class without do this i feel that screws up the both classes.

  9. The following members LIKED this post:


  10. #8
    Contributing Member problemchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.22.02
    Location
    Ransomville, NY
    Posts
    5,714
    Liked: 4286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david oleary View Post
    So is there a HP advantage to being Running a FC in FX?? At one time i had a FM and i would think that the FC has a HP advantage so i understand why the FM guys would be upset, IMHO a FC is a FC not a FX.. i ran my DSR in CSR knowing that the HP advantage over the DSR, but we had 2 drivers so it was the answer to get both drivers in the car in a season without competing against each other. when the rules let you pick a class without do this i feel that screws up the both classes.
    Please contact John LaRue and other members of the CRB and BOD with your commentary. Thanks!
    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.

  11. The following 7 users liked this post:


  12. #9
    Classifieds Super License BeerBudgetRacing's Avatar
    Join Date
    09.04.13
    Location
    Goleta, California
    Posts
    4,140
    Liked: 1235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david oleary View Post
    So is there a HP advantage to being Running a FC in FX??
    I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Short answer is NO.

    The USF cars are essentially FCs but don't meet the formula (engine/gearbox).

    I think the result can be pinned on the driver rather than the car.

    I don't see a problem with running FC and FX.
    We typically can't because they are lumped together in Majors anyway.
    So that also means that driver had to run 3 majors as FC and 3 majors as FX to qualify.

  13. The following members LIKED this post:


  14. #10
    Classifieds Super License
    Join Date
    09.26.12
    Location
    cranberry, pennsylvania
    Posts
    373
    Liked: 58

    Default classes

    Quote Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing View Post
    I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Short answer is NO.

    The USF cars are essentially FCs but don't meet the formula (engine/gearbox).

    I think the result can be pinned on the driver rather than the car.

    I don't see a problem with running FC and FX.
    We typically can't because they are lumped together in Majors anyway.
    So that also means that driver had to run 3 majors as FC and 3 majors as FX to qualify.
    I understand that because I did that in 2017 for the Indy runoffs, 3 majors in FB and 3 Majors in P2 same car BUT I was underpowered in P2 because I was a stock motor in FB, and did not have a BUILT motor for P2 and had to do a complete body change over for P2, so that is my point if the car is the SAME for both classes what class should it be in? And if I am a FX formerly a FM I want a fair chance or park it.

  15. #11
    Contributing Member problemchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.22.02
    Location
    Ransomville, NY
    Posts
    5,714
    Liked: 4286

    Default

    Allowing FC cars, with "open" tires, to race in FX, is just a sneaky (and hypocritical) way for SCCA to try build their FX car counts. Other than some SCCA politicians, and some FC Pinto racers (who don't want any engines other than Pintos), there is an overwhelming majority of FC competitors who would welcome the specific USF2000 cars into FC. Hopefully the 2022 Runoff debacle will prompt those SCCA people to accept the will of their members (otherwise known as their customers).

    FWIW, Trevor did test on both the spec FC Hoosiers and non-Hoosiers, and was expecting to race on the faster option, had it been dry. He is not the bad guy here. He was just taking advantage of SCCA politics to pad his resume. as a 17 year old aspiring pro race driver would do.
    Last edited by problemchild; 10.04.22 at 9:14 AM.
    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.

  16. The following 2 users liked this post:


  17. #12
    Senior Member cliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.31.02
    Location
    kansas city, MO
    Posts
    357
    Liked: 71

    Default

    to the original question...had it been a dry race, could Trevor have run a different than spec tire in the FX race..? I assume that is the only difference but curious as well.

  18. #13
    Contributing Member problemchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.22.02
    Location
    Ransomville, NY
    Posts
    5,714
    Liked: 4286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cliff View Post
    to the original question...had it been a dry race, could Trevor have run a different than spec tire in the FX race..? I assume that is the only difference but curious as well.
    Yes. Dry or wet. Spec FC tires were not required.
    Last edited by problemchild; 10.04.22 at 9:39 AM.
    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.

  19. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    09.20.20
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    29
    Liked: 16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rockbeau25 View Post
    I think we are all confused.

    FX is a total mess. The FM drivers are disenfranchised by the USF cars and no longer show up. The USF drivers in the F/SR town hall were disenfranchised by perfectly legal FC cars running in FX. All of them are likely disenfranchised when the oddball FR3.5 shows up and wipes the floor with them.

    The USF cars being used to justify a class nobody asked for, instead of being integrated into FC like they are in FRP, and as the majority of USF and FC owners ask for, is beyond silly. A 16 car FC field would've been awesome, instead of the 13 and 4 car races we got. Hell, FC probably could've hit 40 entries at Indy last year too.
    Agree. Sums it up about right.

    After Indy last year, we and the FM owners I talked with all said they would not again make the 10-day commitment to Runoffs to race against USF/FC cars. So, most of the FM cars are lost for Runoffs.

    USF4 cars fit into FX, and I assume that SCCA's relationship to USF4 they want a home for those cars outside of the USF4 Championship. Those cars are likely to become plentiful at the club level, as a new Ligier engine is required next season in USF4, so many of the current Honda powered cars are likely to be sold off. However, those are not close to USF/FC performance in the hands of club-level drivers. I don't think you will see a lot of F4s at Runoffs in the current FX class (haven't been any in the three years FX has existed). However, F4s and FMs are competitive against each other with club level drivers.

    There are 3 SCCA members who own last-gen Formula Renault 2.0s, and we petitioned to have the car reclassed into FA, which was denied by the CRB in August because the car is "uncompetitive in FA" (but was top five qualifier against FA cars at both COTA and June Sprints this year). Instead, we are supposed to have a 25% restrictor fabricated and an ECU reprogram. None of us are going to do that exercise to become the lowest HP and second highest weight on the grid to stay in FX, so that's 3 FX or FA cars lost.

    My 2 cents for solution to improve car count:

    USF/FC all into FC (I have read enough here to see y'all know how to work that BOP out).
    FR2.0 into Atlantic (2-3 additional cars on grids with the stroke of a pen, for drivers who have said they don't care if they are podium competitive, they just want to pay their money and race their cars. There would have been two FR2.0s in FA at Runoffs this year if allowed).
    FX becomes FMs, F4s, and oddballs. This draws back your FM crowd and the upcoming Honda F4 sell off buyers.

  20. The following 7 users liked this post:


  21. #15
    Senior Member rockbeau25's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.02.18
    Location
    Fitchburg, WI
    Posts
    124
    Liked: 135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasDad View Post

    My 2 cents for solution to improve car count:

    USF/FC all into FC (I have read enough here to see y'all know how to work that BOP out).
    FR2.0 into Atlantic (2-3 additional cars on grids with the stroke of a pen, for drivers who have said they don't care if they are podium competitive, they just want to pay their money and race their cars. There would have been two FR2.0s in FA at Runoffs this year if allowed).
    FX becomes FMs, F4s, and oddballs. This draws back your FM crowd and the upcoming Honda F4 sell off buyers.
    This seems like an adequate compromise if FX must continue to exist. I'm sure it will so F4 has somewhere to race, and with national status nonetheless, despite the car counts. If F4 cars start to show up next year like you predict, then great.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't USF cars part of FA prior to FX being created? To say the FR car, which is considerably quicker than the USF, is too slow for FA is a bit of a headscratcher.

    I'd bet the damage has already been done for the FM crowd. They got arguably the shortest end of the stick in the FX alphabet soup mess. Hopefully they can rebuild their class somehow like S2000 did.

    As a pinto owner, I wouldn't even mind the MZR being included in the FC engine table in addition to the USF cars. It should be significantly easier to balance two modern, DOHC, fuel injected engines of the same displacement than it ever will be to balance a SOHC, carbureted engine against the two.
    Van Diemen RF99 FC

  22. The following 2 users liked this post:


  23. #16
    Contributing Member
    Join Date
    12.03.00
    Location
    Chatham Center, New York
    Posts
    2,184
    Liked: 856

    Default

    There is a big thread talking about this on the FC facebook page. (20+) FC Racing Group | Facebook

    There are solutions to this if people want there to be solutions. The VD MZR should be in FC. See some lap times from 2018 Road Atlanta with a good car mix and some recognized drivers:

    Steve Jenks / 1:25.914 Elan/Mazda
    Brandon Dixon / 1:25.991 Citation/Zetec
    Davis Durrett / 1:25.981 VanDiemen/Mazda
    Simon Sikes / 1:26.164 Elan/Mazda
    Reece Everard / 1:26.169 Van Diemen/Zetec
    James Roe / 1:27.252 Van Diemen /Mazda

    We have data on these cars all through the FRP website that shows virtual parity. Are they exact? No. Is a VD exactly the same as a Citation or a Firmen? No. But they can all race together.

    Move the MZR and the FMs will come back to FX along with all the soon to be orphaned F4 cars

    ----------
    In memory of Joe Stimola and Glenn Phillips


  24. #17
    Contributing Member iamuwere's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.26.05
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    1,387
    Liked: 106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by E1pix View Post
    I wasn’t at all slamming FE2, I love the class.

    I was merely pointing out that, from a business standpoint, there’s little financial incentive for the Club to care what happens to competing, small-bore formulae. And that’s not a slam on SCCA, either.

    Not sure why you think the club has a financial incentive to run more FE2.

    I raced FE/FC (SCCA/FRP/Indy) /FE/FE2 now

    I'm back to FE2 because it is easier for me run and cheaper for me to run.

  25. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    06.02.02
    Location
    St Charles, Mo
    Posts
    546
    Liked: 159

    Default exactly what needs to happen

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Wright View Post
    There is a big thread talking about this on the FC facebook page. (20+) FC Racing Group | Facebook

    There are solutions to this if people want there to be solutions. The VD MZR should be in FC. See some lap times from 2018 Road Atlanta with a good car mix and some recognized drivers:

    Steve Jenks / 1:25.914 Elan/Mazda
    Brandon Dixon / 1:25.991 Citation/Zetec
    Davis Durrett / 1:25.981 VanDiemen/Mazda
    Simon Sikes / 1:26.164 Elan/Mazda
    Reece Everard / 1:26.169 Van Diemen/Zetec
    James Roe / 1:27.252 Van Diemen /Mazda

    We have data on these cars all through the FRP website that shows virtual parity. Are they exact? No. Is a VD exactly the same as a Citation or a Firmen? No. But they can all race together.

    Move the MZR and the FMs will come back to FX along with all the soon to be orphaned F4 cars


    This solves a lot of issues. well said Bob. Both FC and FX benefit.

    Jerry Hodges
    JDR Race Cars

  26. The following members LIKED this post:


  27. #19
    Classifieds Super License BeerBudgetRacing's Avatar
    Join Date
    09.04.13
    Location
    Goleta, California
    Posts
    4,140
    Liked: 1235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iamuwere View Post
    Not sure why you think the club has a financial incentive to run more FE2.

    I raced FE/FC (SCCA/FRP/Indy) /FE/FE2 now

    I'm back to FE2 because it is easier for me run and cheaper for me to run.
    The common thinking is because FE2 (like SRF) are club spec classes. Not sure they make money at it, but do they lose any (and all the members share that cost) ?

    I do have an issue with how the FE/FE2 upgrade worked. Basically a $20k 'call' to stay in.

    When I was looking for a class, there were 2 FEs in California - so I went to where the cars were in FC.
    FE has grown here, so it's a toss up.

    FE2 is a good class/car. I might have chosen it in it's current form. But for as little as I've been able to race lately, having $25k sitting in the garage is less painful than have $50k. I don't know how FE2 is cheaper (FC spec tire helped) to run but I'll take your word for it.

  28. #20
    Classifieds Super License
    Join Date
    09.26.12
    Location
    cranberry, pennsylvania
    Posts
    373
    Liked: 58

    Default Fm-fc

    My Question was because of being a former FM owner in the pass when FM was strong and we had 30-35 FM at the Mid-Ohio Runoffs and was lucky enough to win the Northeast Division Champion and took 2 twin FM cars to the runoffs that year, I think if I had to compete in FX today and run with the FC i would just park it. FM are heavy at 1350lbs and i think the motors were 173 HP for a fresh one, and OLD aero. I just think a FC is a FC not a FM IMHO. Now i Am a FB or F1000 that SCCA made us FA which is SCCA way of trying to keep FA alive as a class because a Swift is over $125k so you don't see many of them, but that is a whole different issue.

  29. #21
    Contributing Member iamuwere's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.26.05
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    1,387
    Liked: 106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing View Post
    The common thinking is because FE2 (like SRF) are club spec classes. Not sure they make money at it, but do they lose any (and all the members share that cost) ?

    I do have an issue with how the FE/FE2 upgrade worked. Basically a $20k 'call' to stay in.

    When I was looking for a class, there were 2 FEs in California - so I went to where the cars were in FC.
    FE has grown here, so it's a toss up.

    FE2 is a good class/car. I might have chosen it in its current form. But for as little as I've been able to race lately, having $25k sitting in the garage is less painful than have $50k. I don't know how FE2 is cheaper (FC spec tire helped) to run but I'll take your word for it.

    SCCA Club does not pay for SRF or FE. They are separate companies.


    the people I run with like the simplicity of a single gear stack. Single set of springs. No need to carry spares.



    if you don’t like owning a 25-50-75,000 or whatever car, the beauty of you can rent a car that has won national championships.

    srf3 winner this was a straight rental out of the Comprent tent. You can rent for a long time at a reasonable cost

  30. #22
    Contributing Member CheckeredFlag's Avatar
    Join Date
    05.30.19
    Location
    Ferdinand, Indiana
    Posts
    113
    Liked: 111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by problemchild View Post
    Please contact John LaRue and other members of the CRB and BOD with your commentary. Thanks!
    Curious: What class of car does Mr. LaRue run?

  31. #23
    Classifieds Super License hdsporty1988's Avatar
    Join Date
    06.01.16
    Location
    Paddock Lake WI
    Posts
    482
    Liked: 191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag View Post
    Curious: What class of car does Mr. LaRue run?
    FC in a Citation with Zetec power
    Last edited by hdsporty1988; 10.07.22 at 6:22 AM.

  32. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    05.20.15
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    101
    Liked: 89

    Default

    Why or who decided it's the SCCA's responsibility to take possession of all these orphan cars anyway?

    I don't see this as a very easy problem to fix and as time goes on there will just be more of these cars to try to classify and balance to fit in with this group or that group. You have 3 levels of FIA cars, 3 levels of the Road to Indy car which will show up sooner or later.

    If a pro team buys a car and rents it to some kid to tear up for a few years, why do they think the regional club-level guy should buy it? I cant fix a carbon tub, can't be cheap. Most of these cars are 'spec' cars, who is going to see that they stay in-spec? I don't think we need to accept all these orphan cars, its too much for the club to deal with, especially at the regional level.

    That being said, if they want to bring them into FX/FA that's cool, too, its no skin off my back. Me and My son race FC and have fun doing it, I don't see that changing any time soon.

    I see there is an Indy car for sale on BAT right now, if I win the lottery, can I run that in FX? HaHa.

  33. The following 3 users liked this post:


  34. #25
    Contributing Member iamuwere's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.26.05
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    1,387
    Liked: 106

    Default

    No, that wouldn’t be an FX legal car. That you’d want to go to BOSS (if they are still around, I don’t follow vintage much)

  35. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    07.22.19
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    31
    Liked: 20

    Default

    Bingo. This is your solution to the mess.

    And after Indy last year, we reviewed the rules and realized we could run the FC in both classes, and it was simply an economical way to accomplish that goal. The only change to the car was tires, which are unrestricted in FX as an F2000 car. After testing and qualifying in the dry, we wound up on Hoosier wets, because that's what we brought.

    Trevor has driven both cars (USF and VD Continental) extensively, and believes them to have parity, other than the need to allow gear ratio changes in the USF. Move it to FC, allow the Renault in FA, and get the FM's back to FX to run with the F4's that are going to be coming to club racing over the next few years.

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasDad View Post
    Agree. Sums it up about right.

    After Indy last year, we and the FM owners I talked with all said they would not again make the 10-day commitment to Runoffs to race against USF/FC cars. So, most of the FM cars are lost for Runoffs.

    USF4 cars fit into FX, and I assume that SCCA's relationship to USF4 they want a home for those cars outside of the USF4 Championship. Those cars are likely to become plentiful at the club level, as a new Ligier engine is required next season in USF4, so many of the current Honda powered cars are likely to be sold off. However, those are not close to USF/FC performance in the hands of club-level drivers. I don't think you will see a lot of F4s at Runoffs in the current FX class (haven't been any in the three years FX has existed). However, F4s and FMs are competitive against each other with club level drivers.

    There are 3 SCCA members who own last-gen Formula Renault 2.0s, and we petitioned to have the car reclassed into FA, which was denied by the CRB in August because the car is "uncompetitive in FA" (but was top five qualifier against FA cars at both COTA and June Sprints this year). Instead, we are supposed to have a 25% restrictor fabricated and an ECU reprogram. None of us are going to do that exercise to become the lowest HP and second highest weight on the grid to stay in FX, so that's 3 FX or FA cars lost.

    My 2 cents for solution to improve car count:

    USF/FC all into FC (I have read enough here to see y'all know how to work that BOP out).
    FR2.0 into Atlantic (2-3 additional cars on grids with the stroke of a pen, for drivers who have said they don't care if they are podium competitive, they just want to pay their money and race their cars. There would have been two FR2.0s in FA at Runoffs this year if allowed).
    FX becomes FMs, F4s, and oddballs. This draws back your FM crowd and the upcoming Honda F4 sell off buyers.

  36. #27
    Contributing Member CGOffroad's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.18.14
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    588
    Liked: 318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by problemchild View Post
    Please contact John LaRue and other members of the CRB and BOD with your commentary. Thanks!

    Did anyone notice this post further up the thread? Or paste this post into the commentary that is on FaceBook?

  37. #28
    Contributing Member
    Join Date
    12.03.00
    Location
    Chatham Center, New York
    Posts
    2,184
    Liked: 856

    Default

    The gear changing need in the USF car would be a bit of issue getting the car into FC quickly and easily. It's a 5 speed, the LD is 4. I've driven both extensively as well and the only time the USF car is at any disadvantage is at certain tracks with tight 1st gear corners- the JL gear stack 1st gear is a little too tall to make a perfect match.

    This should in no way stop the migration. One of the best parts of the MZR is the bulletproof JL box. The performance difference is minimal to non-existent; go look at the lap times above. Also, you do not want to have to buy multiple gears for that box; 1st gear is an integral lay shaft $1,000 gear, second is not much cheaper, but they don't wear out very often.
    ----------
    In memory of Joe Stimola and Glenn Phillips

  38. The following 2 users liked this post:


  39. #29
    Contributing Member problemchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.22.02
    Location
    Ransomville, NY
    Posts
    5,714
    Liked: 4286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasDad View Post

    My 2 cents for solution to improve car count:

    USF/FC all into FC (I have read enough here to see y'all know how to work that BOP out).
    FR2.0 into Atlantic (2-3 additional cars on grids with the stroke of a pen, for drivers who have said they don't care if they are podium competitive, they just want to pay their money and race their cars. There would have been two FR2.0s in FA at Runoffs this year if allowed).
    FX becomes FMs, F4s, and oddballs. This draws back your FM crowd and the upcoming Honda F4 sell off buyers.
    This seems to be a summary of what most people in these classes want.
    It is a very viable plan.

    So why has nothing happened? I have been ready to write a letter for the last 2 months. I have been hoping that John LaRue and David Locke would recognize the "will of our communities" and take on the job of getting this done. Instead, they are ignoring all this talk on Apexspeed and Facebook.

    If someone can put together a proposal to make this plan into SCCA talk, then we can all write letters to support that proposal. With my history with SCCA, I am not that person, but surely there are some respected racers that can lead this movement.

    Lets get on with it!
    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.

  40. The following 2 users liked this post:


  41. #30
    Global Moderator Mike B's Avatar
    Join Date
    12.03.00
    Location
    Green Bay, WI
    Posts
    3,774
    Liked: 690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by problemchild View Post

    If someone can put together a proposal to make this plan into SCCA talk, then we can all write letters to support that proposal. With my history with SCCA, I am not that person, but surely there are some respected racers that can lead this movement.
    I may be talking out of school but I believe Erik Oseth would be a great person to lay out the facts and provide some solid data so that we can all write letters with a consistent message. He or Bob Wright might also be able to provide some framework for the proposed rule changes. Apologies to both men if I'm off base.
    Mike Beauchamp
    RF95 Prototype 2

    www.gyrodynamics.net


  42. The following 2 users liked this post:


  43. #31
    Classifieds Super License BeerBudgetRacing's Avatar
    Join Date
    09.04.13
    Location
    Goleta, California
    Posts
    4,140
    Liked: 1235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike B View Post
    I may be talking out of school but I believe Erik Oseth would be a great person to lay out the facts and provide some solid data so that we can all write letters with a consistent message. He or Bob Wright might also be able to provide some framework for the proposed rule changes. Apologies to both men if I'm off base.
    The CRB always want's data. Whenever I proposed something for the Pinto I was told to provide data.
    It wasn't until someone spent money on a build and Eric organized the data that the Pinto got the long rod option.

    Maybe with customer approvals he can 'do it again'.

    I always thought the 'will of the people' prevailed, but since we all write individual letters they can be individually rejected.
    Somehow we need to get the CRB to allow a vote of the members to impose the 'will of the people'.

  44. #32
    Contributing Member
    Join Date
    12.03.00
    Location
    Chatham Center, New York
    Posts
    2,184
    Liked: 856

    Default

    The simple way to do it is point to the current FRP rules governing the MZR, but that dictates a spec line in the GCR, something the CRB is loath to do in the FC/FF rulebook.

    The more difficult, but maybe more correct way is to develop a set of rules for the MZR motor (I believe QS has quietly done this?), similar to the Zetec and Pinto, while keeping the rest of the FC rules the same. The VD chassis the MZR uses is already FC legal, and the gearbox would need a 5th gear lockout to comply (again, something I don't really like as the JL gears are really expensive and the existing spec gear stack is quite good).

    While I hear noise that a MZR motor in certain chassis would be a "class killer", 1) I don't believe it based on everything I've seen, 2) probably no one would be prone to swap out an existing motor. If someone really wanted a "class killer", they would put an uprated Pinto in one of those cars- oh, wait, that hasn't happened either.

    And, the MZR is still available as a crate motor, something the Zetec isn't anymore
    ----------
    In memory of Joe Stimola and Glenn Phillips


  45. #33
    Contributing Member Lotus7's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.10.05
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Posts
    2,162
    Liked: 763

    Default

    I’ve been involved in small bore Formula cars since 1984, and have been trying to make an actual living at it since 2010.
    I believe I’ve read every post in every thread on Apex, yet I still don’t understand why all road blocks seem to lead to a single individual named Larue.
    I don’t know the man or his background or his current responsibilities, so I’m not throwing stones, but in a membership-driven club with 50,000 members, how does one man wield such influence? Apologies if this question takes the thread off on a tangent.
    Ian Macpherson
    Savannah, GA
    Race prep, support, and engineering.

  46. The following members LIKED this post:


  47. #34
    Senior Member cliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    01.31.02
    Location
    kansas city, MO
    Posts
    357
    Liked: 71

    Default

    this should get good!

  48. The following 4 users liked this post:


  49. #35
    Contributing Member problemchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.22.02
    Location
    Ransomville, NY
    Posts
    5,714
    Liked: 4286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cliff View Post
    this should get good!
    Nahhh, it won't. The thread will fade away and nothing will change.
    Cliff, please send me an email if the time ever comes to write a letter. Thanks
    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.

  50. The following members LIKED this post:


  51. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    05.11.07
    Location
    Southeast MI
    Posts
    735
    Liked: 254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david oleary View Post
    Just a question to clear something up please. I watch the Runoffs and really do not understand how a car competes in both FC and FX without any changes to the car or engine, if there are no changes then why have the two classes? Nothing against the driver he did a HELL of a drive and deserves both medals but should there be one class that the car legally belongs in?

    There are lots of fendered cars that can double dip in multiple classes. Off the top of my head, I'm sure there are others;
    SM into STL
    AS into GT2 or GT1
    The difference is that there are enough proper cars to the ruleset that they're way out classed without making modifications to optimize to the rules. There simply weren't enough cars in FX for that to happen. Not sure I see it as a valid complaint against the MZR-Zetec debate.

  52. #37
    Senior Member rockbeau25's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.02.18
    Location
    Fitchburg, WI
    Posts
    124
    Liked: 135

    Default

    I think the first step is to make sure whatever effort we as an FC group is making is consistent. It seems some are advocating for the inclusion of just the existing Mazda-powered Elan USF cars as a spec-line addition to the FC rule book, while others want the MZR added to the FC engine table.

    The quick and easy way would definitely be a spec-line addition, but it seems the mere mention of the word "spec" as it pertains to FC is enough for some people to say no. I don't see why this is an issue for a car that is otherwise a legal late model Van Diemen/Elan, but I can see how "spec" anything goes against the ethos of the class.

    As Bob pointed out, the MZR is still available as a crate engine, and I think adding it to the engine table would be huge for the medium to long term health of the class. I don't think people are going to convert their cars to Mazda power immediately, but it would be an attractive option for people with worn out or blown up Pintos and Zetecs, especially as parts become increasingly harder to get for those. It may even be worth reaching out to Mazda to try to get them on board since their involvement in the SCCA is already huge.

    I would not be the least bit concerned about BOP. Between weight ballast and ECU mapping, two modern, fuel injected, DOHC engines of the same displacement could be 99.9% identical. Again, just a matter of getting data or dyno graphs from Quiksilver, Elite, etc, which I'm certain already exist.

    Of course, this will be a bigger sell to the CRB, but either way an effort needs to be made to get the Mazda powered Elans into FC. It is up to us as a group to decide how we want to accomplish that.
    Van Diemen RF99 FC

  53. The following 4 users liked this post:


  54. #38
    Classifieds Super License BeerBudgetRacing's Avatar
    Join Date
    09.04.13
    Location
    Goleta, California
    Posts
    4,140
    Liked: 1235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rockbeau25 View Post
    I think the first step is to make sure whatever effort we as an FC group is making is consistent. It seems some are advocating for the inclusion of just the existing Mazda-powered Elan USF cars as a spec-line addition to the FC rule book, while others want the MZR added to the FC engine table.
    Can someone share the details on how the MZR is equipped?
    Crate engine with specific model of car/internals.
    Intake, injection, restrictors? Flywheel? ECU?
    All the stuff they specify.

    IIR the Zetec black top is okay but the silver is not. Different sources and slightly different internals.

    We can't just say 'MZR'.

  55. #39
    Senior Member John LaRue's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.29.01
    Location
    Muncie, Indiana
    Posts
    1,941
    Liked: 964

    Default

    The FSRAC/CRB are currently working on this topic. Requests for information necessary to accomplish this have been sent out previously and are again being solicited from proper suppliers and manufacturers. As noted, there has been a hesitation to create spec lines or to add engines to FC as it has again met the 4.0 requirement to maintain automatic Runoff's eligibility whereas 10 of the 26 classes have not. While there are certainly a number of voices in favor of bringing the MZR into the class, there are also those who are opposed. The FSRAC and CRB will consider both sides of the issue and the pros and cons of any such changes.

    Also of concern and under present consideration is what the SCCA Road Racing program will look like in the future. What classes will comprise the program? Will they be those which we presently have or otherwise configured? We also have to think about the technical side of the equation and how the rules should be written and enforced. As you know, we have an aging volunteer population and have lost much of the institutional knowledge that helped to write and enforce the rules which are currently in the book. As the cars become more and more complex (not all will) we need to have a rule set that maintains a level field of competition yet is readily enforceable by this organization.

    Regarding FX, it was created to have a class into which ex-pro cars could be placed without disrupting the existing formula classes and also to preserve a place for existing FM cars to race (parity was not provided for under the rules, rather it specifically includes anything under FA/F3/F1000 performance levels). Ex-pro cars and cars not otherwise built to SCCA 's rules are an issue not only in open-wheel, but also in the GT and Touring classes (i.e. FIA GT3/4) so the SCCA is dealing with this across a number of classes. The FC car got pulled into the FX table as it was also classed as an ex-pro car; its removal from FX is another topic of discussion that is underway. The fact that the FC car was permitted to run open tires at VIR was a leftover from the pro rules and wasn't noticed until less than 30 days prior to the event.

    I hope this gives you some sense of direction that is being taken.

    Regards,

    John

  56. The following 2 users liked this post:


  57. #40
    Classifieds Super License Matt Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    08.25.09
    Location
    Williamsport, PA
    Posts
    732
    Liked: 348

    Default

    I know I have no dog in this big fight right now (still just a FV guy), but I will leave my thoughts as a outsider that is considering F2000 here again, like I did in another thread. This time I can at least say I have driven one... after playing in a MZR USF2000 at the Glen recently.

    I think the MZR option should absolutely be allowed, and done so as an option on the engine table. The fact that there are no new engine options for people coming in is not a really comforting concept. If I am building a new car, or buying a used car that I want to convert, I simply can't just get a new engine... I have to buy a used/freshened unit. And FRP/QuickSilver already has it figured out. There is almost no work needed now to balance it with the Zetec.

    If you simply just allow the USF2000 car as a package, as I understand it, you are locked into no upgrades & cannot even match the other identical chassis with Pintos or Zetecs. How is that fair? Why would I want to be locked into always being out of date?
    And if you need parts, you have to find the "certified" USF2000-stickered parts & not just a Van Diemen piece, correct? When is the stickered parts supply going to dry up, since the Pro series no longer needs them?

    As far as the gearbox, I can't say I have a massive opinion on that yet. But why can't it be written that you can keep the 5 speed with the existing ratios only (like Bob said works well), or have the option to lock out 5th & then change gears as desired (like the normal sequential rule)?
    I know the sequential vs. H-pattern argument is also going on, but just reaching down & flicking the gear lever made me feel like a real pro. So being able to put together a car with a current engine & sequential box would absolutely be a perk to entice people into the class.

    John mentions above about the future of SCCA Road Racing & what classes will make that up... I can't imagine a future SCCA without at least F2000, and for that to happen, there has to be at least some adaptations & flexibility for stuff like this.
    Again, I have bare minimum experience in F2000, but the little bit I did have was an absolute blast. I know no decision will make everyone happy, but after reading all the stuff here & the Facebook group, and talking with Dustin at Arrive & Drive and Erik at QuickSilver, it seems pretty obvious what direction things should go in for the long term.
    The top teams & fast guys with money will be the top, no matter what combo of chassis & engine they use. Make it easier for mid-level people to get into the class... they are who will sustain things, not the in & out hotshoes that are always moving up.
    Last edited by Matt Clark; 11.03.22 at 7:32 AM.
    ~Matt Clark | RTJ-02 FV #92 | My YouTube Onboard Videos (helmet cam)

  58. The following 3 users liked this post:


Page 1 of 2 12 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