New Club Racing Proposal

[John LaRue]

"Don't design a new kitchen while the house is on fire."

This IMHO sums up the problem with the formula classes and our participants. We obviously prefer designing kitchens over fighting fires! I too am guilty!

Rather than racing we all look for ways to improve the product and thus, here we are.

But, with regard to new engines...

• If the lack of crate engines is the problem, then why did FF struggle after the Honda was initially introduced?

• If the lack of crate engines is the problem, then why did FC struggle after the Zetec was introduced?

• If the lack of crate engines is the problem, then why did almost every new FIT/Zetec get "blueprinted"?

• And, why was there so much turmoil about the Balance of Performance as between the Kent/FIT and Pinto/Zetec?

• And, if we introduce new engines in FF & FC for 2026 or beyond will there be no BOP issue(s)?

• Will the Pinto/Zetec and Kent/FIT racers all lovingly embrace a new engine (possibly a motorcycle engine/gearbox) into their class or will the BOP issue be the "new" reason cars are not going to the track?

• Will the new crate engines require dry sump systems, and other aftermarket accessories to be installed or is that part of the initial price?

• Will current ECU's, Wiring Harnesses, Sensors, Exhausts, bellhousings, mounts, bodywork, match up or will new parts be required?

• Will the new engines remain in crate configuration or,
  
  • Will crate engines be "blueprinted" at some additional cost?
  • Will the cost of a new "blueprinted" XYZ engine be less than, equal to, or more than a Kent, Pinto, Zetec, or FIT?
  • Will there be requests that overbore pistons be permitted so that blocks aren't "wasted" only to find that the overbore piston provides a power advantage and thus all of the engines are automatically bored to use that piston?
  • When the new crate engines become scarce will there be requests for aftermarket parts?
  • If your response to any of these or a host of other similar questions is YES then how does that make things any better?
  • Would a new engine bring the cost of racing down by any significant amount such that the number of additional cars on track would increase?
  • Would a new engine truly improve the car counts or would it simply create more turmoil?
  • How many additional FF or FC cars would be on the grid each year if these changes are implemented?

It is clear that the BOP is quite close in FF and FC at this point. F600 made a massive effort in their petition of the FSRAC, CRB, and BOD to allow the bike engines into their class when it was healthy; they got what they asked for and participation has since plummeted (but the motorcycle engine(s) do sound awesome). Will it be different in FF & FC? Perhaps?

I have just spent my Sunday reading hundreds of letters, all very similar but with many different points of observation or unique concerns. I know that much passion, thought, and time goes into each one of these posts and the letters that make their way to the CRB and Advisory Committees. For that very reason I do my best to read each one even if they ultimately receive a carbon copy response. I am not king and even if I were I am not sure I could solve all of the problems.

I implore each of you to work on getting yourself and a friend to the race track in 2025. Participation solves problems. FF and FV remain Runoffs classes. I understand the issue with being disinvited to HST events. Majors races count the same and cost less; if budgets are truly an issue then this could be viewed as a positive versus a negative. Concentrate on the good not the bad. The classes, rules, GCR, SCCA, the Stewards, CRB, BoD, tracks, entry fees, etc... all have problems and are not what we would like them to be but these are the good old days and if we don't participate it may all be gone.

Regards,

John

[RideMore]

Amen John.

Let's put our visors down and focus on 2025. We're only about 40 days away from the green flag dropping on the season.

[teamfun]

F600 made a massive effort in their petition of the FSRAC, CRB, and BOD to allow the bike engines into their class when it was healthy; they got what they asked for and participation has since plummeted (but the motorcycle engine(s) do sound awesome).

With few exceptions everyone I know was against the 4 stroke motors in F500 including all but one of the car manufacturers and we wrote to the CRB as well. I would really like to know what the numbers really were.

And of course everything we predicted (costs skyrocketing, inability to equalize performance and the demise of 494 car participation) came true. We think we got screwed.

[John LaRue]

With few exceptions everyone I know was against the 4 stroke motors in F500 including all but one of the car manufacturers and we wrote to the CRB as well. I would really like to know what the numbers really were.

And of course everything we predicted (costs skyrocketing, inability to equalize performance and the demise of 494 car participation) came true. We think we got screwed.

It predated my term on the CRB, sorry. I recall that Ave and Keane were dead set against the proposal, I don't have a clue on what others thought. but there was a strong push to include those cars. I don't recall if Novak was on the FSRAC at the time; I think he may have been one of those who advocated for the engine to be included. It's not the time to look back, focus forward on building entries. It does look like the BOP is very close today.

[teamfun]

It's not the time to look back, focus forward on building entries. It does look like the BOP is very close today.

100% agree. It means coming to grips with the fact that the 494s are not going to be competitive, so we need to find other ways to get them on the track.

[RideMore]

100% agree. It means coming to grips with the fact that the 494s are not going to be competitive, so we need to find other ways to get them on the track.

Isn't just possible for the 494 guys to decide to show up and race each other? Are the plastic trophies the SCCA passes out at the end really that important? Maybe the 494 guys can chip in a few dollars and get their own trophies to pass out??

I'm not trying to be belligerent, its just that the best part of the weekend is simply having someone to race with, even when its not for the overall win.

F600 isn't dead, and the SCCA is not saying its dead. The club is just waiting for the average entries to get back over 5.0 per Major for a two year average. Then it will be automatically a Runoffs class again. In the meantime, its just not a runoffs or certain HSTs race.

[J Weida]

A simple question why would the 494 guys want to come back when there are other places to race?
Why would the pinto FC guys come do HST races when they can race VSCDA, Midwest council, or just SCCA regionals? This is what needs to be figured out to bring the cars back. These are cars that are racing now, just not in majors or HST events
I hope this can happen, but telling people to come race for fun when there are other options just won't happen

[BrianT1]

A simple question why would the 494 guys want to come back when there are other places to race?
Why would the pinto FC guys come do HST races when they can race VSCDA, Midwest council, or just SCCA regionals? This is what needs to be figured out to bring the cars back. These are cars that are racing now, just not in majors or HST events
I hope this can happen, but telling people to come race for fun when there are other options just won't happen

Looking at this from a different view point, don't think of the reason they are asking cars to come out and race because they want to just build numbers. Yes that is the ulitimate goal, but in reality the reason you want cars to come out is, more cars to race against means more fun. Why do you think Miata and SRF are so highly subscribed? Those cars are ****, but its because whether your in 1st or 50th, you have someone to race against. It's the fun factor.

Brian

[BeerBudgetRacing]

"Don't design a new kitchen while the house is on fire."

This IMHO sums up the problem with the formula classes and our participants. We obviously prefer designing kitchens over fighting fires! I too am guilty!

Rather than racing we all look for ways to improve the product and thus, here we are.

But, with regard to new engines...

In my previous post ( https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...l=1#post670555 ) I called the new engine 'need' a BS problem. A new engine right now will park more cars than it will bring out.

I also mentioned the "ask" for all of us to run Majors when we aren't even considering the runoffs. Pacific F2000 is running 6 weekends in 2025 and not one is a Majors or Supertour event. And before anyone criticizes, I'll just say "FRP".

Both are taking cars away from Majors, but other than the fear of losing runoffs status, what is the incentive?
SCCA tried to address this with the 'roaming runoffs' - which gave some people chances to go. And people that wanted to go, ran the Majors.

As a west coaster, there is no runoffs in my future, therefore there is no incentive to run Majors - we're kinda out of the equation. Pacific is running regionals and 6 weekends is more than I'll run.
With Pacific there is an entry fee but that with the regional fee is less than a Majors - and they give away tires, parts, etc.

I've made my suggestions to the CRB. Thanks for your letter.

How can SCCA create incentive for me and others who are fine with regionals?
The regionals will always welcome us - even if SCCA doesn't. There are 14 non-Majors weekends within 4 hours for me to race next year. What is the incentive to choose one of the other 3-4?

The subject of this thread is wrong. It's not "Club" racing we're talking about.
They want us to spend "Pro-Am" or "Semi-Pro" money.

[RideMore]

Team, In hopes of capturing the best ideas I've been reading about here, and the work B-Spec and FC did a few years ago:

Attached is a first draft of a FF growth plan for 2025. Please comment with suggested changes and improvements. And most importantly, what else do we need to be doing? Lastly, what's the best use for this document? This is OUR document, not mine. Let's create something useful we can use to guide our efforts. Mostly, we just need to write down the best ideas so we all have something we can refer back to so we know how to help each day or week.

Like racing, the results will be a direct result of our efforts.

Formula F Growth Plan.pdf

[douglap1]

In my previous post ( https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...l=1#post670555 ) I called the new engine 'need' a BS problem. A new engine right now will park more cars than it will bring out.

I also mentioned the "ask" for all of us to run Majors when we aren't even considering the runoffs. Pacific F2000 is running 6 weekends in 2025 and not one is a Majors or Supertour event. And before anyone criticizes, I'll just say "FRP".

Both are taking cars away from Majors, but other than the fear of losing runoffs status, what is the incentive?
SCCA tried to address this with the 'roaming runoffs' - which gave some people chances to go. And people that wanted to go, ran the Majors.

As a west coaster, there is no runoffs in my future, therefore there is no incentive to run Majors - we're kinda out of the equation. Pacific is running regionals and 6 weekends is more than I'll run.
With Pacific there is an entry fee but that with the regional fee is less than a Majors - and they give away tires, parts, etc.

I've made my suggestions to the CRB. Thanks for your letter.

How can SCCA create incentive for me and others who are fine with regionals?
The regionals will always welcome us - even if SCCA doesn't. There are 14 non-Majors weekends within 4 hours for me to race next year. What is the incentive to choose one of the other 3-4?

The subject of this thread is wrong. It's not "Club" racing we're talking about.
They want us to spend "Pro-Am" or "Semi-Pro" money.

Extrapolating on this line of reasoning, I advocate eliminating multiple tiers of racing; no Majors or Super Tours. Every SCCA sanctioned race would have the same status and award the same points for a Division Champion in whatever Division the race is held in. Each Division would then have their own champions in each class, and the top 3 in each Division could then be invited to a Runoff Race to be held somewhere in the vicinity of the middle of the country.

This should strengthen the regional race program, as that will be the only path for anyone wanting to become a National Champion, and the "Runoffs" then becomes just what the name says, rather than qualification as a participation award the way it is today.

We can still have "halo" events like the June Sprints, but at the end of the day they should be just the same as any other race, with the same points on offer for their Division Championship.

[Steve Davis]

... I advocate eliminating multiple tiers of racing; no Majors or Super Tours. Every SCCA sanctioned race would have the same status and award the same points for a Division Champion in whatever Division the race is held in. Each Division would then have their own champions in each class, and the top 3 in each Division could then be invited to a Runoff Race to be held somewhere in the vicinity of the middle of the country...

Paul,
I have to disagree with you. Your plan for the future is simply a 'retrograde' step BACK to the way it was back in the late 70's and 80's. You can't POSSIBLY believe that THAT would be better than SCCA's current plan.. That would be LUDICROUS!
Steve, FV80

[BeerBudgetRacing]

We can still have "halo" events like the June Sprints, but at the end of the day they should be just the same as any other race, with the same points on offer for their Division Championship.

This is much like my letter to the CRB....
I didn't want to suggest eliminating their pet series project.

My suggestion to the CRB was for 4 runoffs events throughout the country. The podiums of each runoffs would then go to the National Championship.

This:

1. Makes the Majors more relevant to everyone because a 'big race' is reachable, attainable and more affordable.
2. The makes each event (4 runoffs and 1 Nat Champ) more manageable in size, easing the burden, shortening the event time and making more venues doable.
3. The gives you a true national champion, not a champion of those that can afford to go. We fund the appearance of the participants.
4. This makes it so more people can race and more people can watch bigger races near them.

The 4 runoffs would be like Supertours, 3 days, 2 races, event podium on points from both races.

I believe there would be DOUBLE the number of entries in those 4 races than any single past runoffs event.

What wrong with a plan like this?

Side note: While I understand the 'participation' v 'points' qualifications for the runoffs issue, hasn't participation at Majors declined since we removed the 'participation path' ?

[teamfun]

A simple question why would the 494 guys want to come back when there are other places to race?
Why would the pinto FC guys come do HST races when they can race VSCDA, Midwest council, or just SCCA regionals?

Yes, this is exactly what we need to answer.

And since I have an active 494 car and have run VSCDA, Midwest Council and SCCA regionals (plus Brian Redman) I will answer for me: Competition. I am more likely to attend if I know another 494 is showing up.

I am thinking we can find a few Major events that can draw 5-6 494s. Gingerman comes to mind as there are a good number of 494s in the state. Make it an event and I think people will show up. We'll even bring more than one 494 car if people want to arrive and drive.

[douglap1]

Paul,
I have to disagree with you. Your plan for the future is simply a 'retrograde' step BACK to the way it was back in the late 70's and 80's. You can't POSSIBLY believe that THAT would be better than SCCA's current plan.. That would be LUDICROUS!
Steve, FV80

Sorry to be LUDICROUS Steve, but I only started racing in the early '90's, so all I have ever seen in the SCCA was a multi-tiered racing scheme. Back then it was Nationals and Regionals, and you had to run a certain number of Regionals (6 in a year, as I recall) to get a National License to run in the upper tier of racing. At least now it is all one level of competition licensing.

Hopefully we can all learn from past mistakes. What was the problem with the system in the '70's and '80's?

[Steve Davis]

Sorry to be LUDICROUS Steve, but I only started racing in the early '90's, so all I have ever seen in the SCCA was a multi-tiered racing scheme. Back then it was Nationals and Regionals, and you had to run a certain number of Regionals (6 in a year, as I recall) to get a National License to run in the upper tier of racing. At least now it is all one level of competition licensing.

Hopefully we can all learn from past mistakes. What was the problem with the system in the '70's and '80's?

Paul.. my comment was 'tongue in cheek'... LUDICROUS means that you are proposing that we (SCCA) go back to EXACTLY where we were BEFORE "Majors" were invented ...
Steve, FV80
ps (missed your question last time)
As far as I'm concerned, there were NO PROBLEMS back then.. or at least we didn't realize that there were. Of course the Runoffs only had 24 years at Road Atlanta and everyone always looked forward to that event. We had a 'good run' at MidO in the 12 years it was there, THEN, it seems that things began to spiral downward each year.

[RideMore]

December 5th Zoom meeting: A link the the video files with audio is attached. The short story is that were successful getting volunteers to be the Points of Contact for the first seven Majors of 2025. Thank you very much to them and see attached image of the list of people and the task list we agreed to.

We discussed many ideas and it was fun and fruitful. Ideas we definitely want to do are:
1. A T-shirt noting our 2025 efforts. Is anyone in the group a graphic artist?
2. Create a website that non-Facebook and Apex Speed users to find us at, and learn about FF. There are thousands of Formula Ford IRacing participants who may be able to find us through the website for example. We want to tell the exciting story of FF.
3. We want to create fliers for each race that notes where to park, where the Saturday night cocktail hour will be, etc. Graphics help would be appreciated.
4. We need to make more progress on the Registry in the next two weeks. More complete contact information in particular. More posts on that topic to come.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-bW...usp=drive_link



Note: its a two hour meeting - I hope there is a way to run the speed faster:

[stonebridge20]

When the Atlantic series went to the Yokohama spec tire from Goodyears like everyone was running at the time, they virtually eliminated any "local" guys from jumping into any Pro races when that circus came to town.
It's kind of the same deal going on right now. Vintage FF absolutely dwarfs SCCA FF in numbers across the country.
Make the Hoosier VFF tire the spec SCCA tire and I'm sure you'll get cross over from vintage to SCCA.

[DanW]

When the Atlantic series went to the Yokohama spec tire from Goodyears like everyone was running at the time, they virtually eliminated any "local" guys from jumping into any Pro races when that circus came to town.
It's kind of the same deal going on right now. Vintage FF absolutely dwarfs SCCA FF in numbers across the country.
Make the Hoosier VFF tire the spec SCCA tire and I'm sure you'll get cross over from vintage to SCCA.

SF Region SCCA plans to run Crossflow Cup vintage FF run group this season, under a separate "vintage" sanction for the weekend, both 72 and earlier FF and 73 to 81 CF cars running FF Monoposto rules. The Crossflow Cup will present 5 events total this season, one with SF Region SCCA and the rest with CSRG.

We did it a year and a half ago and it worked out really well with over 25 Fords. Those cars that are current GCR compliant "double dipped" to run the region's Group 4 of FF, CF, FV and FC. We had a "Papal Dispensation" from the Region Exec to allow open tire rule of treads or hard compound slicks in Group 4. Everyone played well and a great time was had by all.

The Crossflow cup and the PNW vintage organizations have joined up to allow participants to run in each other's events and win appearance points for their respective championships.

[Jonathan Lee]

Since FC has switched to the R60 bias ply nothing has really changed. All that has happened, is that it cost teams more money to set up their cars who were already running radials. It certainly didn't bring any older FC's out to the majors, in fact the Homestead and Sebring event has the lowest amount of entries I've seen in a while.

Myself and many others who drive modern FF are very happy with the radials. If the vintage crowd loves threaded tires that is fine, they are allowed to use non-radials in Club Ford. Why should I be required to switch my setup to threaded tires after being invested in the radial which all modern race cars run on, just to please the Vintage owners?

If the VFF tire supposedly last 6 weekends, that means it must be very hard. I certainly don't want to go slower. Being realistic the vintage crowd could run in CF at the SCCA but they don't. Instead they choose to run at many other clubs and speak poorly about the SCCA.

Realistically, you might attract a few vintage FF to run at a specific major if we switch to VFF, and the rest of the modern FF crowd will not be happy to have to change setup and go slower.

Part of the appeal to FF to me, is that it somewhat keeps up to modern technology. I'm able to run on a tire similar to F1 and Indycar, a tire construction that the entire modern racing world uses. I don't want to be forced to drive something from a past generation. If the vintage crowd wants it fine, but don't make the modern FF crowd switch to threaded tires.

[FVRacer21]

Since FC has switched to the R60 bias ply nothing has really changed. All that has happened, is that it cost teams more money to set up their cars who were already running radials. It certainly didn't bring any older FC's out to the majors, in fact the Homestead and Sebring event has the lowest amount of entries I've seen in a while.

Myself and many others who drive modern FF are very happy with the radials. If the vintage crowd loves threaded tires that is fine, they are allowed to use non-radials in Club Ford. Why should I be required to switch my setup to threaded tires after being invested in the radial which all modern race cars run on, just to please the Vintage owners?

If the VFF tire supposedly last 6 weekends, that means it must be very hard. I certainly don't want to go slower. Being realistic the vintage crowd could run in CF at the SCCA but they don't. Instead they choose to run at many other clubs and speak poorly about the SCCA.

Realistically, you might attract a few vintage FF to run at a specific major if we switch to VFF, and the rest of the modern FF crowd will not be happy to have to change setup and go slower.

Part of the appeal to FF to me, is that it somewhat keeps up to modern technology. I'm able to run on a tire similar to F1 and Indycar, a tire construction that the entire modern racing world uses. I don't want to be forced to drive something from a past generation. If the vintage crowd wants it fine, but don't make the modern FF crowd switch to threaded tires.

I learned some things from trying to start a "Club Vee" class in the 1990's.

1. The cost, not necessarily longevity, of a tire is the most important thing.

2. Most racers who want to win Majors, will not care about the cost of their "Race tires" - assuming the have a path to sell off older tires. The pass down force was strong from then Nationals to Regionals.

3. A driver who races one to 3 times a year for fun, most likely will not be buying a new set. He will be searching for good takoffs.

4. Allowing a "slower tire" to run, where it is not too far off the pace, will increase entries. Often good cars and drivers with slower tires will still be faster that average cars and drivers with the "best" tire.

The one thing I would think hard about is "I certainly don't want to go slower." To get the cost of tires lower, you will have to most likely go "slower". That might be a few 10ths or a few seconds. The question is, will a new tire package increase entries overall?

If not, then consider #4 above. If enough drivers show up, then they can run their own unofficial series in a series.

I hear a rumor that Spec Miata is going to a fixed number of tires per weekend in Majors. As a mix and match guy, who used to run 3 sets of slicks per weekend - practice, qualifying and race, this seems wrong, but if it results in more tires passed down to regional drivers - waiting to see the result.

PS - One of the complaints I saw from Hoosier is that people are not breaking in tires properly. With today's race schedules it is hard to break in multiple sets of tires. One of the requirements for a spec tire is a minimal break in, if any at all.

ChrisZ

[Hardingfv32]

PS - One of the complaints I saw from Hoosier is that people are not breaking in tires properly.

That is interesting considering that they have absolutely no science that tire break in does anything physically to the tire. They only actual scientific test data that I have ever seen is from FSAE tire test results. It indicated only a very small change of spring rate during the first tire usage/run. These are tests done on a Calspan tire tester. Hoosier FSAE tires are included in these tests.

Brian

[DaveW]

PS - One of the complaints I saw from Hoosier is that people are not breaking in tires properly. With today's race schedules it is hard to break in multiple sets of tires. One of the requirements for a spec tire is a minimal break in, if any at all.

ChrisZ

IMO, the main benefit of a gentle break-in is to stabilize the tread compound. By that I mean a bit of gentle stressing and heating of the tread compound increases its cure slightly and in the process, slightly decreases its surface coefficient of friction and increases its tensile strength such that the probability of graining on the 1st hard use is minimized.

If you work a fresh tire too hard immediately, graining is much more likely, and that can cause a new tire to never grip properly again.

Of course, any usage will also reduce the sidewall stiffness slightly by flexing it, and that will also increase the tread life and with the reduction in rate and damping, increase grip.

All of this depends on the compound properties and other parameters to determine how necessary it is to break in a particular tire.

Some tires I've used benefit from break-in, others not at all. YMMV

[Roland V. Johnson]

Much of the world runs Formula Ford on treads, I do believe.

[Lotus7]

Part of the appeal to FF to me, is that it somewhat keeps up to modern technology. I'm able to run on a tire similar to F1 and Indycar, a tire construction that the entire modern racing world uses. I don't want to be forced to drive something from a past generation. If the vintage crowd wants it fine, but don't make the modern FF crowd switch to threaded tires.

While I agree philosophically, if more FFords don't start showing up and buying tires, Hoosier might just make the "spec treaded tire" decision unilaterally....

[JoshuaJustice]

This is much like my letter to the CRB....
I didn't want to suggest eliminating their pet series project.

My suggestion to the CRB was for 4 runoffs events throughout the country. The podiums of each runoffs would then go to the National Championship.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you've just reinvented the Super Tour and hung a qualifier onto it. That's already got issues with the number of run groups per weekend. The Runoffs "solves" that problem by renting a track for a full week; having to do that 4 times (or 9 times if you use the actual divisions) doesn't seem like the greatest of ideas, even if you turn around and reduce the time for the final championship's rental.

[RideMore]

This upcoming Thursday will be the fourth Formula F Zoom meeting relative to this topic. 9pm eastern.

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us05web.zoom.us/j/82013141123?pwd=6fYy6kZCrpFsUTp9IyE2YweV8a3HBw.1


Meeting ID: 820 1314 1123
Passcode: G5G7wm

Please attend. Especially if you own a FF.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Don't take this the wrong way, but you've just reinvented the Super Tour and hung a qualifier onto it. That's already got issues with the number of run groups per weekend. The Runoffs "solves" that problem by renting a track for a full week; having to do that 4 times (or 9 times if you use the actual divisions) doesn't seem like the greatest of ideas, even if you turn around and reduce the time for the final championship's rental.

This wouldn't duplicate the runoffs 4 times. It would be a ST type race as a final quali for the runoffs.
And it's multi-division.

There are several issues with the runoffs.
- Location
- Length (time commitment)
- Downtime, run 1 session per day for 3Qs and if you're unlucky and race Sunday you have Fri-Sat off.
- Cost (travel, etc.)

Many people don't even put the runoffs on their personal radar.
And if you aren't going to the runoffs, why run Majors and ST. They cost more.

The focus of my plan is to give people a reason to run Majors-ST.
Give them a consistent annual final within a day's tow.

Otherwise for many there is o reason to run Majors.

Look at the other thread on the just announced FC Challenge. Great idea, but my idea gives a championship race at the end and includes all classes.

What is your idea to increase participation?

[RideMore]

Not to be Mr. Obvious or anything but the difference in the two markets is because the two markets are different. It's not just about income. There is a much stronger tradition of formula car racing in the UK than the US.

To Peter's point, in the US drag, dirt, desert, and oval racing are huge. Not so much in the UK, They have more rally (which is super cool), and the same amount if not a touch more karting. But in the end, Americans have more to choose from.

Reminds me that I love this country. However I dearly wish there we're more people in small formula cars. If you folks elect me dictator for a six year term, I'll make it a law that every 16 year old gets a day in one as part of school. Or belter yet, you get a day in one f you get a a high school diploma. That'll keep kids in school and make formula car racing more popular in one chess move.

[RideMore]

Team, the driver registry is up to 159 drivers! Plus the first Majors of 2025 are only a month away. One of the action items from Zoom meeting #4 last Thursday was to ask this group for volunteers' to be the Lead person for each division. The nine divisions are listed just below.

Here's what you'd be asked to do: We are going to send an email to all the drivers who happen to have emails readily available in your division requesting them to contact you, their Division Lead. You would respond back to start a conversation about their plans for 2025 and encourage them to come race with us. In some cases it would be to do a race or two more than last year, in other cases to get back on track after a break. Part of that conversation would include uncovering the barriers and helping them overcome them, as well as helping all of us understand what barriers real people are facing. Plus it would be important to know what we can do to make racing more often fun for them.

We'd also want to encourage them to network with their friends in hopes of more participation in 2025 compared to recently. It's very likely their friends are not on our registry. I'd be surprised if as many as 25% of the drivers we know are actually on our registry. Please message me if you'd like to be a Division Lead for FF.

BTW - we chose this communication path to preserve the privacy of the individuals on the list, including you. Most probably would be fine with a "cold call" or email from you, but its possible some would not. So we're going to take a gentle approach.

SCCA Divisions are as follows:
NP Northern Pacific
SP Southern Pacific
RM Rocky Mountain
CD Central
MW Midwest
SW Southwest
GL Great Lakes
SE Southeast
NE Northeast

[RideMore]

Team, it's time to line up our Points of Contacts for the remaining 2025 Majors. Please comment or PM me if you would like to volunteer. And we really appreciate those who do!

Feb. 22-23: Eagles Canyon Raceway; Decatur, TX
April 5-6: Thunderhill, CA
April 19-20: Summit Point Motorsports Park; Summit Point, WV
May 3-4: Pittsburgh International Wampum, PA
May 3-4: Blackhawk Farms Raceway; S. Beloit, IL Tony Stefanelli
May 3-4: Virginia International Raceway; Alton, VA (Bonus Majors)
May 24-25: Carolina Motorsports Park; Kershaw, SC
May 24-25: MSR Houston; Angleton, TX
May 24-25: Pacific Raceways; Kent, WA
May 24-25: World Wide Technology Raceway; Madison, IL
May 24-25: Gingerman Raceway; South Haven, MI
May 31-June 1: Watkins Glen International; Watkins Glen, NY
May 31- Jun 1: Pueblo Motorsports Park; CO (Bonus Majors)
June 6-8: Road America June Sprints; Elkhart Lake, WI
July 5-6: Roebling Road; Bloomingdale, GA
July 5-6: High Plains Raceway; Deer Trail, CO
July 12-13: New Jersey Motorsports Park Millville, NJ
July 12-13: Ozarks International Raceway; Gravois Mills, MO
July 12-13: Road America Elkhart Lake, WI
July 19-20: Road Atlanta; Braselton, GA (Bonus Majors)
July 25-27: Brainerd International Raceway; Brainerd, MN
August 9-10: Motorsports Park Hastings; Hastings, NE
Aug. 9-10: Mid-Ohio; Lexington, OH (Bonus Majors)
August 16-17: Thompson Speedway Motorsports; Thompson, CT
August 23-24: High Plains Raceway; Deer Trail, CO
Aug. 23-24: Grattan Raceway; Belding, MI
Aug. 30-31: Eagles Canyon Raceway; Decatur, TX

[SteveG]

Hi,

The March 15,16 race at Sonoma is now a regional and the next race at Thunderhill on April 5,6 is the Major.

Steve

[RideMore]

Back for another fun filled evening - ZOOM meeting number 8! Tomorrow, Thursday at 9PM EST. Let us know what else we need to be doing to tell the FF story. And is there anything in particular we need to be doing as a class in regards to the SCCA Convention that starts next week? The fun has only just begun...

Join Zoom Meeting

[[https://us05web.zoom.us/j/82013141123](https://us05web.zoom.us/j/82013141123...)...]([https://us05web.zoom.us/j/82013141123...](https://us05web.zoom.us/j/82013141123...))

Meeting ID: 820 1314 1123

Passcode: G5G7wm

[RideMore]

The attached is a list of people who have contacted us and noted how happy they are to see the energy the team is putting into increasing FF participation. They are cheering us on and have asked how they can help.

The rate of people contacting us is going up. I doubt we are "in" all the right places to be seen, but at least they are finding out about the effort somehow.

[RideMore]

Sorry, just caught up to email, Mike Cobb, President of the SCCA, and Eric Prill, VP of Road Racing asked to be added to the Friends of Formula F list.

[E1pix]

Big respects to you and all involved.

This is how to get it done.

[Mike B]

Sorry, just caught up to email, Mike Cobb, President of the SCCA, and Eric Prill, VP of Road Racing asked to be added to the Friends of Formula F list.

Fantastic job, Tony! Keep up the momentum!

I know we want to keep this thread positive but it seems that a majority of the people on that list are the ones that created the situation we're in. As "Friends of FF" what can they do to help us?

[RideMore]

Fantastic job, Tony! Keep up the momentum!

I know we want to keep this thread positive but it seems that a majority of the people on that list are the ones that created the situation we're in. As "Friends of FF" what can they do to help us?

Mike, I like the question of "what can they do to help us?". I like it because that's the question they also have been asking me. They are willing to help, but at this exact moment I'm telling them that I don't have any specific things in mind they can do, but to please stay open to what we learn. I hope and expect that our efforts will uncover that answer.

The reality is, the SCCA does not own, prep, load the cars into trailers and show up at the race track - we do. The primary reason we are were we are today is the low entry count for the small formula cars. Analogy: If the majority of customers at Walmart started buying Dr. Pepper and almost stopped buying Coke, do you think they would put more Dr. Pepper on the shelves and less Coke? They are smart enough that, yes, they would do so.

In 2024, for FF, there were 11 of the 37 Majors (30%) where 1 or less cars showed up. There were zero entries at 8% of the Majors. For the HST, it was 30% with three or less. 10% with zero. The other small formula classes are similar. After a few years of that, wouldn't anyone put more Dr. Pepper on the shelves?

Quick interruption with positive news: so far in 2015 the entries at the first 3 events is up 75%! That's the first 10% of the season.

So, the reality is, we created the situation. The SCCA is simply reacting. I've been talking at length and often to our people at our SCCA. They all want FF to recover and grow. Every single one of them with passion. They are hoping and praying that we enter races. They note it's a temporary situation if we recover. They can't do it for us. So lets get into Walmart and buy Coke.

I know ahead of time that a few people are are going to complain about the rules and that's their excuse for not showing up. I just added it up and I have been lucky in my life to have competed in, or designed, race vehicles for over three dozen different race series across the planet. All will disappointed to know only once did a single series have a set of rules that even one of the competitors think is correct. That one entity was Graves Yamaha when the AMA let them build a 90% scale model of the production R1 Superbike (but still 1000CC). The R1 was not competitive at that moment in time due to its long chassis design creating a slow to transition bike. That R1 then won five or six straight championships with that Frankenstein bike. Naturally it pissed off everyone else and the AMA lost the series entirely. Frankly, the SCCA FF rules are really quite good in my experience and are very easy enough to live with. Lets get on with it.

[Messenger Racing]

As a pragmatist I like to look at the first problem - in this case small formula cars embarrassed ourselves and hurt SCCA Regions with our lack of participation at HST - see the stats below - that was the first problem. The decisions related to our HST participation in 2025 was not what put this into motion - it was a response. As Tony points out - criticizing the response to our poor participation does not change the poor participation. Yes, indeed it is time to be positive, show our love for Formula F and other small Formula racing. We control that!

Thanks for being passionate about Formula racing!

JM

Mike, I like the question of "what can they do to help us?". I like it because that's the question they also have been asking me. They are willing to help, but at this exact moment I'm telling them that I don't have any specific things in mind they can do, but to please stay open to what we learn. I hope and expect that our efforts will uncover that answer.

The reality is, the SCCA does not own, prep, load the cars into trailers and show up at the race track - we do. The primary reason we are were we are today is the low entry count for the small formula cars. Analogy: If the majority of customers at Walmart started buying Dr. Pepper and almost stopped buying Coke, do you think they would put more Dr. Pepper on the shelves and less Coke? They are smart enough that, yes, they would do so.

In 2024, for FF, there were 11 of the 37 Majors (30%) where 1 or less cars showed up. There were zero entries at 8% of the Majors. For the HST, it was 30% with three or less. 10% with zero. The other small formula classes are similar. After a few years of that, wouldn't anyone put more Dr. Pepper on the shelves?

Quick interruption with positive news: so far in 2015 the entries at the first 3 events is up 75%! That's the first 10% of the season.

So, the reality is, we created the situation. The SCCA is simply reacting. I've been talking at length and often to our people at our SCCA. They all want FF to recover and grow. Every single one of them with passion. They are hoping and praying that we enter races. They note it's a temporary situation if we recover. They can't do it for us. So lets get into Walmart and buy Coke.

I know ahead of time that a few people are are going to complain about the rules and that's their excuse for not showing up. I just added it up and I have been lucky in my life to have competed in, or designed, race vehicles for over three dozen different race series across the planet. All will disappointed to know only once did a single series have a set of rules that even one of the competitors think is correct. That one entity was Graves Yamaha when the AMA let them build a 90% scale model of the production R1 Superbike (but still 1000CC). The R1 was not competitive at that moment in time due to its long chassis design creating a slow to transition bike. That R1 then won five or six straight championships with that Frankenstein bike. Naturally it pissed off everyone else and the AMA lost the series entirely. Frankly, the SCCA FF rules are really quite good in my experience and are very easy enough to live with. Lets get on with it.

[Matt Clark]

I am a little confused by their replies now...
It now sounds like it -is- a matter of participation numbers?
But yet, in earlier press releases back when this first came out, they literally said it was because smallbore openwheel could not be combined with other classes & they were bumping us for SMX.

I see a lot of SCCA brass on that "Friends" list... why don't they simply tell us what needs to happen for us to be "reinstated"?

It's almost like the IRS. They know what we need to pay in taxes, yet it is up to us to figure out what we need to pay in taxes. And if we get that number wrong, they penalize us.