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.