Say it ain't so

[Bob Ramberg]

I was just reading in July's Fast Track under "Member Advisories" were is states in FF, item 2, "Does not see the need for lightening the FF flywheel."

I thought this was a done deal and that it would be implemented next year. Can anyone shed some light on this situation.

[John Merriman]

The process is still in motion. The great majority of the respondents to the Comp. Board said they ARE in favor of the proposed 15.5 flywheel weight. The decision will be made in time to announce it in October.

[Rodney Kendall]

Anybody know how many letters the board has actually received on the lightened flywheel issue? I hope we don't let this slip through our fingers due to a 'low voter turnout'!
WRITE RIGHT NOW!!

Rod Kendall

[Chris Campbell]

Your not kidding... Even us non-SCCA vintage club guys are waiting for the powers that be to anoint this change.
WE didn't get to far with the pointless Ign. Because it was not like a part was becoming hard or imposable to find. But the flywheel does have the crankshaft longevity associated to it's weight. You-all need to make this happen...

Chris

[Dave Hopple]

Umm guys,That was not a CB decision, when you see a name (last name of a member) in parentheses ( ) that is a letter from a member stating his or hers position on a specific issue to the comp board and that is how it is reported in fastrack.

That is not a ruling, for or against a decision on the flywheel matter, it's just a member exercising their right within the rules of the club with rule proposals to the comp board.

BTW, I just installed an Electronic Ing on my car this weekend, the vintage guys should really take a look at it. It works pretty slick IMHO. (no more point gap!)
-Dave

P.S. I do have a couple of brand new Bosch points and condenser sets available for purchase

[John Merriman]

I believe there were approximately 22 letters or emails in favor of all three proposals (flywheel, head gasket and the increase in valve relief depth). There were two letters NOT in support - one negative and one a weak objection. Half the letters in support also mentioned an interest in having the FelPro head gasket approved as well as Payen. The CB will welcome further input through August. I encourage ALL FF and CF competitors to support these proposals and to email the comp board with a short, simple statement of support.
Thanks. John Merriman, Member of the Formula Car Advisory Committee

[Rodney Kendall]

22 replies..... 22 !!! GEEZ, that's pathetic. All the whining and moaning about crank life, engine longevity, and parts availability and the best we can do accross the whole country is 22 letters. C'mon guys, this is low hanging fruit, grab it!

Light flywheels save cranks. All we have to do is write an e-mail to the board telling them we want to adopt the light flywheel and we will probably get it. Dont leave it up to the other guy to write, the other guy is YOU.

Write right now, you are already logged on and sitting at the keyboard ...

[Bob Ramberg]

That is pathetic concidering that I replied twice. Who's sadbaggin' out there. The lightere flywheel will be a major help, especially to those still running OEM cranks. Everyone on this forum that is in favor of this should say so to the Comp Board.

[John Robinson]

Lets do an unofficial vote tally here. Who, besides myself, has sent an email to SCCA concerning the rules changes. Either for or against. I have a very hard time believing that only 22 people voiced an opinion.

John

[R John Lye]

I sent them an e-mail - never got an
acknowledgement or anything that it was
actually read by anyone, though.

John

[John Merriman]

Oops, I need to be more specific about those numbers! The 22 responses were received in this last go-round after the Comp. Board requested additional input. The previous round of communications - earlier in the year accounted for an additional 31 responses of which 29 were in favor of the proposed reduced flywheel weight. Based on these two sets of responses, I feel that we are on very solid ground here. Nevertheless, I would still add my voice to Rod's post above - if YOU have not emailed the Comp. Board on the three proposals, PLEASE do so. First, it will demonstrate support for these three particular rules adjustments. Secondly, it will show, yet again, that the Formula Ford Community is alive and well and paying attention to matters which are individually small but still significant to the future of the FF1600 Class. Send emails to compboard@scca.com

[Bob Lutz DB-1 #54]

I'm pretty sure mine was in the first batch, but I just E-Mailed the Comp Board again to make sure. Hope they don't disqualify your opinion if reply more than once.

[Dave Hopple]

I sent in a email to the CB about the three proposals printed in the June fastrack. Cut and paste it (see below) and send it in, yea or nay it's our class so voice your opinion. -Dave

compboard@scca.com
MEMBER ADVISORIES. The Competition Board has become aware of the following issues and publishes these advisories to alert the membership to the Competition Board's plans regarding these issues.

FORMULA
FORMULA FORD

Item 1. The Competition Board has received input from Formula Ford competitors and engine builders on the availability of legal weight flywheels. In order to continue our commitment to keep the Kent engine parts supply readily available we are requesting member input on whether we should recommend reducing the Formula Ford flywheel weight to 15.5 pounds and allowing an alternate flywheel (JAE #FF16fw).

Item 2. The Competition Board has received input from Formula Ford competitors and engine builders on the cost and availability of the current head gasket. In order to continue our commitment to keep the Kent engine parts supply readily available we are requesting member input on whether we should recommend allowing an alternative head gasket (Payen #AH750). The projected cost for the head gasket is around $30.

Item 3. The Competition Board has received input from Formula Ford competitors and engine builders on the need to allow a maximum of 1.5mm deep valve pockets to be cut into pistons in order to keep the CCs within specification. The purpose of this allowance is to extend the life of engine blocks. We are requesting member input on whether this modification should be allowed.

If there is sufficient member support for these items the Competition Board would consider recommending them effective 10/1/03.

[size="1"][ June 24, 2003, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Dave Hopple ][/size]

[Wayne Richter]

I sent a e-mail with my approval of all three changes about a month and half ago. The CB doesn't seem to want to go to the Fel-Pro.. why? How about we change the rule to any gasket brand as long it's the same dimension and material as the stock one?

[John Merriman]

We have a lot of support for the FelPro so let's see what happens over the next few months. Hey, let's face it, in Regional racing, a lotta FelPro gaskets are in use. I don't really see it as a big issue.

[Roux]

I sent a note a few days back and got a nice reply from SCCA essentially saying that my voice had been heard and that my input would be noted in the next fastrack. Strange that others are not getting confirmations. I use Dave Hopple's text above and added some strong words in favor of all three items. E-mailed to the link above.

[trout roberts]

My experience was similar to that of Roux. Yesterday I sent in an email message to the address listed above and received a reply from one Jeremy Thoennes at SCCA within an hour! I was impressed.

Please take a couple of minutes to help make an impact that will affect the future of our sport. The health of the class is directly related to our input to the process. We are experiencing an unprecedented atmosphere of responsiveness from our representatives at the Contest Board. Now is the time to express to them, in large numbers, our concern for our future and also our gratitude to them for helping to ensure that future.

If we want to continue to enjoy the benefits of sanctioned racing, we need to respond to opportunities to have influence in, at least, a minimal fashion. Several of the participants at this forum devote an incredible amount of personal energy to the betterment of the class. We all have an obligation to do what we feel we can.

Thanks for letting me jump up on the soap box. I'll try not to do it too often.

Trout ><{{{º>

[James Olson]

Count me in. I just sent in an e-mail in favor of the lightened flywheel, alternative head gaskets, and valve reliefs. I'm on a very tight budget and anything that will save me money is good.

I'm looking at buying a new/used flywheel after this season because my current flywheel is at minimum weight right now (as long as you weigh it BEFORE you clean the dust off ). Obviously, it can't be surfaced even one more time.

I also spent $800.00 on a used crank from Dave Bean just prior to the approval of the steel crank. Anything that will save the life of that crank and help it last is good.