NARRC Rule Changes

[Sweeper]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]The proposed rules shall be changed to:[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][FONT=Arial]NARRC Club Ford (Class Designation = CF)[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Note: Only Formula F’s (FF) and NARRC Club Fords (CF) are eligible for NARRC points and NARRC trophies.[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Compliance is the responsibility of the class competitors. [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Cars must conform to all specifications and rules applicable to regular Formula F’s per the current SCCA GCR. Also, the Northeast Division Club Ford rules apply - with these exceptions. [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]While there is no model year cutoff, CF is restricted to those older makes and/or models of Formula F that were originally offered with outboard shocks and springs on at least one end of the vehicle. (Referred to as the 50% Rule.)[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]An ineligible Formula F model may not be updated or backdated to conform to CF rules Participants are responsible for proving the eligibility of their car.[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]A CF chassis may be updated or backdated within eligible models. (i.e. Crossle 40F to 45F or PRS RH01 to RH02, etc.)[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]CFs shall adhere to all Formula F class rules (engine, driveline, etc.) as well as all safety regulations within the current SCCA GCR for Formula F.[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Bodywork and heat exchanger location is free, provided it complies with all applicable GCR specifications for Formula F cars[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial][[FONT=Arial]CF cars shall display the "CF" class designation, as well as display the appropriate NARRC series decals.[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Racing slick options are: Goodyear 600; Hoosier R60, R60A. Dunlop treaded tires may also be used. [Front - 135/545-13, Rear - 165/580-13, both CR tread, 434 Compound]. Rain tires are free; there are no spec rain tires. [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Car Eligibility (three minimum weight categories)[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]][FONT=Arial]1100-pound minimum weight:[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]A. A CF may be any Formula F which does NOT have BOTH front and rear inboard suspension.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]][FONT=Arial]B. No car which was originally designed and built in such a way as to be ineligible for NEDIV CF competition may be modified in an attempt to satisfy the class rules. A car which was built with both front and rear inboard suspension may not be modified to have outboard suspension.[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]C. No car designed or manufactured after January 1, 1984 shall be eligible for competition under the 1100-pound minimum weight regardless of suspension layout. (This rule prevents the design and construction of a new and purpose-built car using recently developed suspension and aerodynamic developments.)[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]1150-pound minimum weight:[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]A. Formula F’s built prior to the end of 1992 except as noted below.[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]1200-pound minimum weight:[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]A. DB-1, DB-6 built prior to the end of 1992 and derivations of these Formula F’s.[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]][FONT=Arial]Note: for NARRC points purposes, CFs without spec tires shall not receive points. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Note: Only Formula Fords (FF) and NARRC Club Fords (NCF) are eligible for NARRC points and NARRC trophies.[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Compliance is the responsibility of the class competitors.[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Cars must conform to all specifications and rules applicable to regular Formula Fords per the current SCCA GCR. Also, the Northeast Division Club Ford rules apply - with these exceptions.[/FONT][/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]While there is no model year cutoff, Club Ford is restricted to those older makes and/or models of Formula Ford that were originally offered with outboard shocks and springs on at least one end of the vehicle. (Referred to as the 50% Rule.) [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial] An ineligible Formula Ford model may not be updated or backdated to conform to Club Ford rules (i.e. Swift with outboard shocks and springs.) Participants are responsible for proving the eligibility of their car. [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial] A Club Ford chassis may be updated or backdated within eligible models. (i.e. Crossle 40F to 45F or PRS RH01 to RH02, etc.) [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial][[FONT=Arial]ClubFords shall adhere to all Formula Ford class rules (engine, driveline, etc.) as well as all safety regulations within the current SCCA GCR for Formula Ford. [/FONT][/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial]][FONT=Arial]Bodywork and heat exchanger location is free, provided it complies with all applicable GCR specifications for Formula Ford cars[/FONT][/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Club Ford cars shall display the "NCF" class designation, as well as display the appropriate NERRC and/or NARRC series decals.[/FONT][/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Racing slick options are: Goodyear 600; Hoosier 60. Dunlop treaded tires may also be used. [Front - 135/545-13, Rear - 165/580-13, both CR tread, 434 Compound]. Rain tires are free; there are no spec rain tires. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Note: for NARRC points purposes, Club Fords without spec tires should be classed and scored as Formula Fords (FF)[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Am I the only one that see's this??? DB1&DB6's in club ford??????? w/200lbs weight penalty. This is a load of crap
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]These are currently competitive FF's. No way do they belong in CF.
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]My feeling is that CF shouldn't have FIT's in them. If so they should run as FF's, I hear the bitching now, we can't keep up with Pipers and Swift DB6's. Club fords are typically NON-areo, like a barn door on the straights. Swifts are very aero, and glide through the air like butter.[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Please: Lets have some discussion on these proposed changes.[/FONT][/FONT]



[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Three weight classes for a regional class. This will and does ruin CF/NCF.
[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial](sorry for terrible copy of changes) I didn't rcv the original proposal, somehow I've fallen off the NARRC list.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[stonebridge20]

What I see is CF stays the same as always and raced @1100 lbs
FF up to 1992 race @ 1150lbs
FF newer than 1992 race @ 1200lbs

I don't see anything newer than 1/1/84 being let in as a CF.

[Will Velkoff]

I just wrote into the board members with my proposed CF rules for 2012.

Note: Only Formula F (FF) and NARRC Club Formula F (NCF) are eligible for NARRC points and NARRC trophies.

Compliance is the responsibility of the class competitors.


Cars must conform to all specifications and rules applicable to regular Formula F per the current SCCA GCR. Also, the Northeast Division Club Formula F rules apply - with these exceptions.

While there is no model year cutoff, Club Formula F is restricted to those older makes and/or models of Formula F that were originally offered with outboard shocks and springs on at least one end of the vehicle. (Referred to as the 50% Rule.)

An ineligible Formula F model may not be updated or backdated to conform to Club Formula F rules (i.e. Swift with outboard shocks and springs.) Participants are responsible for proving the eligibility of their car.

A Club Formula F chassis may be updated or backdated within eligible models. (i.e. Crossle 40F to 45F or PRS RH01 to RH02, etc.)

Club Formula F shall adhere to all Formula F class rules (engine, driveline, etc.) as well as all safety regulations within the current SCCA GCR for Formula F.

Bodywork and heat exchanger location is free, provided it complies with all applicable GCR specifications for Formula F cars


Club Formula F cars shall display the "CF" class designation, as well as display the appropriate NARRC series decals.

Racing slick options are: Goodyear 600; Hoosier 60. Dunlop treaded tires may also be used. [Front - 135/545-13, Rear - 165/580-13, both CR tread, 434 Compound]. Rain tires are free; there are no spec rain tires.


Car Eligibility (Two minimum weight categories)

1100-pound minimum weight:

A. A CF may be any Formula F which does NOT have BOTH front and rear inboard
suspension.

B. No car which was originally designed and built in such a way as to be
ineligible for NEDIV CF competition may be modified in an attempt to satisfy
the class rules. A car which was built with both front and rear inboard
suspension may not be modified to have outboard suspension.

C. No car designed or manufactured after January 1, 1984 shall be eligible
for competition under the 1100-pound minimum weight regardless of suspension
layout. (This rule prevents the design and construction of a new and
purpose-built car using recently developed suspension and aerodynamic
developments.)



1150-pound minimum weight:


A. Formula F’s built prior to the end of 1992, except DB-1, DB-6, and derivations of these Formula F's.




Note: for NARRC points purposes, Club Formula F's without spec tires should be classed and scored as Formula F (FF).

[Sweeper]

What I see is CF stays the same as always and raced @1100 lbs
FF up to 1992 race @ 1150lbs
FF newer than 1992 race @ 1200lbs

I don't see anything newer than 1/1/84 being let in as a CF.

Hey Mike,

The way I see it is that they will allow Newer than 84 FF's in as CF's (not NCF) with new weight restrictions. 1150 for cars up to 1992 and Swifts (specifically) DB1's and DB6's @ 1200lbs. This rule change has nothing to do with FF class, only CF and NCF. Please, I hope I am misunderstand this.

The 3 weight classes aren't a handicap for a 50lbs for a 1992 VD and especially a DB6 (200lbs) (FIT or Kent), against a 1981 Crossle 45@1000lbs, I know which car I would expect to win here.

CF= 1992-older FF's, older 84's- are without spec tire are CF.
NCF=same except spec tire (as usual Pre 84)

If I'm wrong here, please enlighten me!

[Will Velkoff]

Hey Mike,

The way I see it is that they will allow Newer than 84 FF's in as CF's (not NCF) with new weight restrictions. 1150 for cars up to 1992 and Swifts (specifically) DB1's and DB6's @ 1200lbs. This rule change has nothing to do with FF class, only CF and NCF. Please, I hope I am misunderstand this.

The 3 weight classes aren't a handicap for a 50lbs for a 1992 VD and especially a DB6 (200lbs) (FIT or Kent), against a 1981 Crossle 45@1000lbs, I know which car I would expect to win here.

CF= 1992-older FF's, older 84's- are without spec tire are CF.
NCF=same except spec tire (as usual Pre 84)

If I'm wrong here, please enlighten me!

I think you're confusing terms of NCF and CF...they mean the same thing in reality (NCF means NARRC Club Ford).

The idea of the rules proposal is to align Club Ford rules so there is no longer NCF, just CF that is consistent among divisions.

The three weight classes are there to equalize all Club Fords by adding weight to the newer chassis. But all three weight classes will be scored and classed as Club Ford, a single class.

[stonebridge20]

[quote]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]The proposed rules shall be changed to:[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]NARRC Club Ford (Class Designation = CF)[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]C. No car designed or manufactured after January 1, 1984 shall be eligible for competition under the 1100-pound minimum weight regardless of suspension layout. (This rule prevents the design and construction of a new and purpose-built car using recently developed suspension and aerodynamic developments.)[/FONT][/FONT]

Rob, The way I read it is that someone is trying to "equalize" Formula F's in the NARRC series with weight. The above statement clearly says that nothing before Jan 1, 1984 can run in the 1100lb class. The 1100lb class is CF only.
If I were racing CF or FF this year, I would be on the phone to whoever proposed these rules and get a clarification.

If someone is trying to "equalize" a 78 VanDiemen with the Swift DB6 that I just sold by adding 100lbs, there smoking some REALLY good stuff!

BTW: Anybody know who wrote this proposal or where it came from?

Also, I have no dog in this one so I can't be accused of trying to protect my "program" anymore.

[Will Velkoff]

[quote=stonebridge20;337084]

Rob, The way I read it is that someone is trying to "equalize" Formula F's in the NARRC series with weight. The above statement clearly says that nothing before Jan 1, 1984 can run in the 1100lb class. The 1100lb class is CF only.
If I were racing CF or FF this year, I would be on the phone to whoever proposed these rules and get a clarification.

BTW: Anybody know who wrote this proposal or where it came from?

Also, I have no dog in this one so I can't be accused of trying to protect my "program" anymore.

Mike,

This really is just a CF rules proposal, doesn't affect FF rules in any way. Two major things are happening here in order to try and align the rules with MARRS-The rules committee wanted to adopt the MARRS CF rules which disallows the Fit from CF, and also allows in cars up to 1992 into CF (this is done by adding the 1150 and 1200 lb weight classes for CF to be run on the hard compound tire).

Personally, I don't see why the Fit should be banned from CF as the engine should be per the GCR for Formula F. I also disagree with allowing DB-1/DB-6 to run in CF with a 1200 lb weight. I'm not sure if that much ballast can even by strapped onto that car to make it 1200 lb. Plus it's so aerodynamically advanced it really doesnt belong in CF

-Will

[Sweeper]

I just wrote into the board members with my proposed CF rules for 2012.

Note: Only Formula F (FF) and NARRC Club Formula F (NCF) are eligible for NARRC points and NARRC trophies.

Compliance is the responsibility of the class competitors.


Cars must conform to all specifications and rules applicable to regular Formula F per the current SCCA GCR. Also, the Northeast Division Club Formula F rules apply - with these exceptions.

While there is no model year cutoff, Club Formula F is restricted to those older makes and/or models of Formula F that were originally offered with outboard shocks and springs on at least one end of the vehicle. (Referred to as the 50% Rule.)

An ineligible Formula F model may not be updated or backdated to conform to Club Formula F rules (i.e. Swift with outboard shocks and springs.) Participants are responsible for proving the eligibility of their car.

A Club Formula F chassis may be updated or backdated within eligible models. (i.e. Crossle 40F to 45F or PRS RH01 to RH02, etc.)

Club Formula F shall adhere to all Formula F class rules (engine, driveline, etc.) as well as all safety regulations within the current SCCA GCR for Formula F.

Bodywork and heat exchanger location is free, provided it complies with all applicable GCR specifications for Formula F cars


Club Formula F cars shall display the "CF" class designation, as well as display the appropriate NARRC series decals.

Racing slick options are: Goodyear 600; Hoosier 60. Dunlop treaded tires may also be used. [Front - 135/545-13, Rear - 165/580-13, both CR tread, 434 Compound]. Rain tires are free; there are no spec rain tires.


Car Eligibility (Two minimum weight categories)

1100-pound minimum weight:

A. A CF may be any Formula F which does NOT have BOTH front and rear inboard
suspension.

B. No car which was originally designed and built in such a way as to be
ineligible for NEDIV CF competition may be modified in an attempt to satisfy
the class rules. A car which was built with both front and rear inboard
suspension may not be modified to have outboard suspension.

C. No car designed or manufactured after January 1, 1984 shall be eligible
for competition under the 1100-pound minimum weight regardless of suspension
layout. (This rule prevents the design and construction of a new and
purpose-built car using recently developed suspension and aerodynamic
developments.)



1150-pound minimum weight:


A. Formula F’s built prior to the end of 1992, except DB-1, DB-6, and derivations of these Formula F's.




Note: for NARRC points purposes, Club Formula F's without spec tires should be classed and scored as Formula F (FF).

Hi Will,

I see that now you have rewritten the proposal, still a 50lb difference for a 8 year newer car. How does that jive with the outboard suspension, non of which are on 92's? I suspect the suspension rule will dictate which year car will be allowed.

What year, typically do chassis change to both front and rear inboard suspension?? Where is the cutoff to a single axle inboard system vs bot outboard.

BTW what is driving this change? To allow non competitive FF's into a regional only class? I'm afraid these newer cars have much better aero packages, then the ORIGINAL 84 and older model cars and by virtue have an unfair advantage in CF.

Happy to hear there are no DB6's allowed in CF

[stonebridge20]

I also disagree with allowing DB-1/DB-6 to run in CF with a 1200 lb weight. I'm not sure if that much ballast can even by strapped onto that car to make it 1200 lb. Plus it's so aerodynamically advanced it really doesnt belong in CF

-Will

Will, I ran over the scales at 1132 with my old DB6. I had plenty of room even with my fat A$$ to put 68lbs of lead in it. With the 68lbs of lead, I would have stomped every single CF on the planet into the ground and I'm old and fat now!

Whoever came up with a DB6 being allowed in as a CF @1200lbs needs a talking to!

[Will Velkoff]

Hi Will,

I see that now you have rewritten the proposal, still a 50lb difference for a 8 year newer car. How does that jive with the outboard suspension, non of which are on 92's? I suspect the suspension rule will dictate which year car will be allowed.

What year, typically do chassis change to both front and rear inboard suspension?? Where is the cutoff to a single axle inboard system vs bot outboard.

BTW what is driving this change? To allow non competitive FF's into a regional only class? I'm afraid these newer cars have much better aero packages, then the ORIGINAL 84 and older model cars and by virtue have an unfair advantage in CF.

Happy to hear there are no DB6's allowed in CF

Hi Rob,

I'm not sure how I feel about the 92 and newer cars (Non Swift) to be run with a 50 lb weight penalty, I just left it as it was developed by the MARRS series. My guess is that it's a way to get more competitors into CF with cars that are not as fully advanced as the new stuff but still a little more competitive than the 1984 and earlier cars.

[Sweeper]

[quote=Will Velkoff;337086]

Mike,

This really is just a CF rules proposal, doesn't affect FF rules in any way. Two major things are happening here in order to try and align the rules with MARRS-The rules committee wanted to adopt the MARRS CF rules which disallows the Fit from CF, and also allows in cars up to 1992 into CF (this is done by adding the 1150 and 1200 lb weight classes for CF to be run on the hard compound tire).

Personally, I don't see why the Fit should be banned from CF as the engine should be per the GCR for Formula F. I also disagree with allowing DB-1/DB-6 to run in CF with a 1200 lb weight. I'm not sure if that much ballast can even by strapped onto that car to make it 1200 lb. Plus it's so aerodynamically advanced it really doesnt belong in CF

-Will

Bravo---- Even newer VD's (92's) are much better through the air.

FIT's are spec'd in FF's, but if someone is willing to spend the equivalent to CF money on the change then all the power to them. What we don't want is a pissing contest within the group. A 92 VD on R60's, FIT powered, running around 1150lbs, can and will outrun similar 84 older Crossle's Zinks and VD's. This will always seem an unfair advantage even though we all know a good national Ford engine will run with these Honda's. The saving lies in the maintenance and durability.
Somehow I see everyone switching to FIT's, It'll take some time for sure, but the fords are doomed, including CF's/NCF's.

[Will Velkoff]

[quote=Sweeper;337097]

Bravo---- Even newer VD's (92's) are much better through the air.

FIT's are spec'd in FF's, but if someone is willing to spend the equivalent to CF money on the change then all the power to them. What we don't want is a pissing contest within the group. A 92 VD on R60's, FIT powered, running around 1150lbs, can and will outrun similar 84 older Crossle's Zinks and VD's. This will always seem an unfair advantage even though we all know a good national Ford engine will run with these Honda's. The saving lies in the maintenance and durability.
Somehow I see everyone switching to FIT's, It'll take some time for sure, but the fords are doomed, including CF's/NCF's.

Yeah, who knows what the future will bring. But for me, the more Fit's that are out there, the better the market is for the Kent guys who can get motors and parts from all the Fit guys. That will be a definite positive of guys going to Fit and it already shows.

For me, I'd just like bigger fields. So to turn away competitors by banning the fit seems wrong. Also, allowing in some of the late 80's cars with spec tires and a weight penalty will help grow Club Ford. If they come in and dominate, then the rules could always be rewritten to make it more equal, but we can cross that bridge when we get there.

Right now the most important thing is getting all CF drivers to voice their opinion, and make the best rules proposal to NARRC to help bring the car counts up this year!

-Will

[stephen wilson]

I believe the intent was to give the 80's "tweener" cars that aren't competitive in FF a place to race, and boost waning entries at Summit Point. At it's inception the Miata's were pushing hard for increased track time, at the expense of poorly subscribed classes ( ie. Wings & Things ).

I think the #1200 DB6 issue would have been adressed if any had actually showed up and cleaned house.

[EACIII]

Seeing as how a DB6 won the Pro series last year not sure how you can make a case that they are not competitive. I agree with Mike, someone is smoking something funny.

Ed

[Sweeper]

Hi Rob,

I'm not sure how I feel about the 92 and newer cars (Non Swift) to be run with a 50 lb weight penalty, I just left it as it was developed by the MARRS series. My guess is that it's a way to get more competitors into CF with cars that are not as fully advanced as the new stuff but still a little more competitive than the 1984 and earlier cars.

All I can say to this is, Bye bye to Crossle's as the premier NCF/CF. Nothing will compete newer cars will rule. It'll crush the values of our older cars. If this goes through then my car is for sale, and I'm looking for a 92 Wide Track VD, FIT powered. I was dusted by a Euroswift at NH, AJ Walker. He was on hard tires too, but I had the whole front striaght lead on him and by the time we reached turn 3 he was going by me like I was standing still. Sure there are other reasons too, but I see it as mainly aero. AJ and I have competed many times in NCF, now with his car in CF we're all doomed.
Yes, Swifts being removed from this formula is much better, only to raise another question of 92 and older cars.

How about CNCF, CCF this is going around and around, for us oldies.. Not really just kidding. But you know what I mean.

These guys with uncompetitive FF's, are in a tough spot. Not really CF's not really FF's..

My view is that it's wrong to dilute NCF with cars I can't expect to beat. I spend $$ on QS engines and the quick bits, but still can I expect to beat a Euroswift, or VD's on aero tracks like LR and WG, VIR and RA????

My biggest bitch about CF/NCF is that I'm running in the winged car group, with FF's. Most disappear in the 1st few laps, but I'm mixing it up with the slower FF's and FC's for that matter. This is dangerous, since I kill them in the corners and they wick by on the straights. Over and over again. There is a huge disparity, IMO, in the lap times within one group, never mind the overlaps that occur within multi class races. Most times this causes tempers to flair and red mist takes over for rational thought. This happens at both ends, slow FF's hate to be passed by fast CF's and I hate racing these overlaps. Plain dangerous. I 've wrecked racing against (back marker) vee's, only once, I've been wrecked by slow FF's and Slow CFC's in the fast group.
I've been more scared in the fast group racing overlaps than anything else.
This is a problem when you enter the fact of slightly off the pace 92 CF's against the fastest FF's. They'll be doing exactly what I'm talking about here, dusting some barn doors in the pre 84's and pulling up the rear in FF against the Pipers, Swifts and VD's.

It's a conundrum for these 84's-92's.
Lets not spoil our well established rules to comply to MARRS events.

Thanks

[Sweeper]

Seeing as how a DB6 won the Pro series last year not sure how you can make a case that they are not competitive. I agree with Mike, someone is smoking something funny.

Ed

You got that right Ed!! +++++

[Sweeper]

I believe the intent was to give the 80's "tweener" cars that aren't competitive in FF a place to race, and boost waning entries at Summit Point. At it's inception the Miata's were pushing hard for increased track time, at the expense of poorly subscribed classes ( ie. Wings & Things ).

I think the #1200 DB6 issue would have been adressed if any had actually showed up and cleaned house.

Hi Stephen,

These tweener cars are over competitive in CF. This isn't a rule, just an observation.
No easy answer...

This going to drive pre84's into vintage racing exclusively. Why give tweener cars the nod instead??? JUST MHO

[Will Velkoff]

Hi Stephen,

These tweener cars are over competitive in CF. This isn't a rule, just an observation.
No easy answer...

This going to drive pre84's into vintage racing exclusively. Why give tweener cars the nod instead??? JUST MHO

Is there another year cutoff that would be better suit that 1992? Like run the 1150 lb group from 1984-to something less than 1992?

[Sweeper]

come on NCF's, lets hear your opinions..

As far as a cutoff, there are bunch of people smarter than me that can add something here.

IMO- Keep CF/NCF the same formula, give the post 84 cars there own group as regional class only. I dunno

[stephen wilson]

Seeing as how a DB6 won the Pro series last year not sure how you can make a case that they are not competitive. I agree with Mike, someone is smoking something funny.

Ed

I wasn't clear, I didn't mean the DB1/6 wasn't competitive. I agree, at #1200 pounds, they would clean up.

BTW, it wasn't MY idea, I was just trying to explain how it came about. And again, if a Tweener started cleaning up, I'm sure the weight would have been adjusted. #50 isn't much, I think there are true CF's winning races at #1150.

[Will Velkoff]

come on NCF's, lets hear your opinions..

As far as a cutoff, there are bunch of people smarter than me that can add something here.

IMO- Keep CF/NCF the same formula, give the post 84 cars there own group as regional class only. I dunno

IMO, making more classes is a very bad idea.

So maybe the right answer is to keep CF to only 1984 and older cars then, and the "tweener" cars are still run as FF for now.

[stephen wilson]

It used to be that Club Fords not running the spec. tires were CF, and NARRC compliant cars were NCF, scored seperatley. The same could be done with tweeners, they run as CF.

[EACIII]

Steve - my comment wasn't directed at you, but whomever thought DB6's were uncompetitive and need to be able to run in CF.

Not sure the weight thing is meaning full as how many full size drives can get to 1100lb. I know I have never been close.

Disclaimer - I don't run in CF or have a car eligible for it now or the new rules but if all the DB1 & 6's move to CF there would be no cars left at regionals for me to race with so what would the point of going be?

[andyllc]

What do people think if the rules said 90 and older instead of 92? Also, take out the Swifts (as mentioned already). Last thing, I don't think 1150 is enough of a penalty since I bet the majority of people actually racing in CF weigh in over 1100 as it is. If their min weight was 1200 then that might be better.

[Will Velkoff]

What do people think if the rules said 90 and older instead of 92? Also, take out the Swifts (as mentioned already). Last thing, I don't think 1150 is enough of a penalty since I bet the majority of people actually racing in CF weigh in over 1100 as it is. If their min weight was 1200 then that might be better.

Full of fluids my Crossle 30F weighed in about 1180 with me in it (215 lb driver) I'll bet that if I crossed the line with minimum fuel the best I could do is 1140 as is, so maybe if the 84-90 (or 92) cars are allowed then more of a weight penalty should be added.

[AlanVDW]

This is a rules PROPOSAL.

Last summer at NJMP, I had brought up the subject of merging the MARRS and NARRC rules. [FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]The reasoning to merge both series' rules are because at NJMP there could be three club ford classes MARRS, NARRC, and an out of region club ford that does not run either series decal. Each car can win their class. I thought, run 'em all in one class. My speaking to Joe Marcinski and Darrell Anthony about the issue, we set up ourselves to come up with a new rules PROPOSAL for Darrell to submit to the NARRC committee. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

We are looking for input from NARRC Club Ford drivers. We are just trying to POSSIBLY merge the rules for MARRS and NARRC for one CF class.

Also, the NARRC rules need to be amended for clarification to match the current SCCA class of FF. The GCR now lists the class as Formula F, therefore the NARRC rules need to be changed. For example, the current rules for NARRC Club Ford state [FONT=Arial]"[FONT=Arial]Bodywork and heat exchanger location is free, provided it complies with all applicable GCR specifications for Formula Ford cars." [/FONT][/FONT]This needs to be changed to Formula F cars, in writing, to avoid confusion.

SCCA now runs at NJMP. Some of the MARRS cars run, some of the NARRC cars run. Some could run neither series. So why have three classes of CF? We don't need more classes within a group. If enough cars for the two CF groups show up at the Glen's MARRS NARRC event , and ALL met both groups rules shouldn't the CF class can be made into one? The stewards may even split the race group out, removing the winged cars.

The MARRS rules have been already set for 2012. They have had only one Swift run twice, two or three years ago. Also their rules were written mentioning Ford engines only, which now excludes the Honda. Mike Rand competed at the NARRC Runoffs in a Fit powered NCF because the rules don't mention a specific power plant. Nobody seemed to have a problem with it.

Again this is a rules proposal.

IF the tweener cars and Swifts were allowed in NARRC CF, and were to start taking all the top spots, true CF car drivers can begin lobbying for an immediate change in the rules for more weight.

[Sweeper]

This is a rules PROPOSAL.

Last summer at NJMP, I had brought up the subject of merging the MARRS and NARRC rules. [FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]The reasoning to merge both series' rules are because at NJMP there could be three club ford classes MARRS, NARRC, and an out of region club ford that does not run either series decal. Each car can win their class. I thought, run 'em all in one class. My speaking to Joe Marcinski and Darrell Anthony about the issue, we set up ourselves to come up with a new rules PROPOSAL for Darrell to submit to the NARRC committee. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

We are looking for input from NARRC Club Ford drivers. We are just trying to POSSIBLY merge the rules for MARRS and NARRC for one CF class.

Also, the NARRC rules need to be amended for clarification to match the current SCCA class of FF. The GCR now lists the class as Formula F, therefore the NARRC rules need to be changed. For example, the current rules for NARRC Club Ford state [FONT=Arial]"[FONT=Arial]Bodywork and heat exchanger location is free, provided it complies with all applicable GCR specifications for Formula Ford cars." [/FONT][/FONT]This needs to be changed to Formula F cars, in writing, to avoid confusion.

SCCA now runs at NJMP. Some of the MARRS cars run, some of the NARRC cars run. Some could run neither series. So why have three classes of CF? We don't need more classes within a group. If enough cars for the two CF groups show up at the Glen's MARRS NARRC event , and ALL met both groups rules shouldn't the CF class can be made into one? The stewards may even split the race group out, removing the winged cars.

The MARRS rules have been already set for 2012. They have had only one Swift run twice, two or three years ago. Also their rules were written mentioning Ford engines only, which now excludes the Honda. Mike Rand competed at the NARRC Runoffs in a Fit powered NCF because the rules don't mention a specific power plant. Nobody seemed to have a problem with it.

Again this is a rules proposal.

IF the tweener cars and Swifts were allowed in NARRC CF, and were to start taking all the top spots, true CF car drivers can begin lobbying for an immediate change in the rules for more weight.

Agreed to Orange:

Yellow: This needs to be addressed as well. Just by adding it to the local (regional.) rules to alow the FIT. With a provision to add weight, if needed for parity. I'd love to know what Mikes Crossle weighs. Are they inherently heavier? I suspect they are lighter, but taller.
You say that you have a swift (DB1 orDB6?) show up for a couple races, tells me if you want the trick set-up you're going to need an Aero car. By virtue of this it effectively renders all the old cars obsolete. Why change the rules to do this??? Who will want an old car when you can buy a modern car and clean up. THis isn't a matter of "IF" It's when 92 and older cars clean up. Why move forward with something that you'll inevitability have to change. If everyone insists, then lets make the rules effective. 50 Lbs is a joke.. Make them run on Dunlops:-)

This could be a boon for the vintage groups, but not for SCCA (unless they come up with a vintage group for all the old formula cars).

Purple: You mention this yourself, "true CF's" To me this is backwards thinking. No offense intended.

I like the idea, and I understand the waning car counts. The solution isn't to add faster aero cars to an already undersubscribed CF group. This is a way for the old cars to leave and never return.
There are many reasons that car counts are low, not just the lack of competition for the Tweeners. The overall costs for CF will blossom, with people buying tweeners as ringers. Fitting honda's and top national Fords, endless spending again. This will always happen, I'm one of them, i know.

If this goes through as written, then the "true CF's" car values are gone.

IMOH- No aerodynamic cars in CF.

Last thoguht: Just because the tweeners don't have a place to run, why change our formula to accommodate them, this adds value to their cars and devalues ours.
Sincerely,

Rob

[Will Velkoff]

I agree 100% with aligning the rules for MARRS and NARRC. It's ridiculous to have multiple rules of Club Ford. I say let's work with MARRS to allow the Fit into CF, and remove the 1150 lb and 1200 lb weight classes for now. How can we as a group get this accomplished for 2012?

[cdona]

[FONT=Calibri]Could someone please post the 2012 MARRS Club Ford rules as have been approved?[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]I suspect what they are so I’ll start with my suggestions based on that, some tweaks might be needed depending on the final details as I believe close alignment with MARRS is worth some compromise.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Currently legal:[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri] CF/NCF’s (rules unchanged) run at 1,100# and allow the Fit motor with the current 2011 rules only, no engine rules changes allow without NARRC/MARRS approval. This will limit the Fit performance creep that has occurred with all engines, Zetec in FC and Toyota in FA. Must run the original Hewland MK8/9 gearbox only, preventing a gearbox upgrade in parallel with the Fit update.[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]Added chassis:[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri] Allow any 1990 and older current FF chassis to run in CF with a 1,150 min weight and same spec tire rules. Also I would suggest at least initially allow Ford motor only in these chassis to see how the balance works. I am really on the fence here as I know the RF90’s were a significant advantage over the 89 and older chassis, they can also easily be upgraded to RF92/4 specs. Anyone with more info on the RF90 chassis ability to update to RF92+ specs[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]Chassis not allowed:[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri] Any manufactured by Swift (Euro or US spec), RF90? as well as any chassis built in 1991 and newer.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri]It’s been a while but in the late 90’s I raced frequently with this group of cars including DB1’s as FF/CF was its own run group. Most of these races were at high speed tracks, LRP, WGI, Mosport etc. With the 50# added weight I think there will be close to parity and a well handling CF can beat these “middle” FF’s even up. I would suggest giving it a try and at the NARRC-offs call a CF meeting and determine if the results show balance and increase weight as need for 2013 based on average results, let the "original" CF owners be the ones who decide - afterall it's their class first.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]Chris Dona - SCCA# 246485[/FONT]

[Joe Marcinski]

Hi,

Perhaps I can put some context and perspective to all of this discussion regarding the recent NARRC Club Ford rules proposals. Steve Wilson (thanks Steve!) did accurately sum up one of the primary reasons that the drivers in the MARRS series made an attempt to draw extra cars to our series. There was in fact a very damaging effort made by some of the larger race groups in MARRS to penalize the smaller groups. The imposition of the unfortunately named "Flower's Rule" was one of the tactics. If the published race distance was 18 laps and your race group only had 8 entrants; you were "awarded" an 8 lap race! As you can imagine, this was very damaging to the image of the Washington DC Region and is the primary reason that many people view DC Region as the "Miata Region" to this day.

A number of people within the DC Region have worked hard to overturn this twisted thought process and today every race group, regardless of size, gets the same 20 lap race. But, I digress. So, the Wings & Things race group was facing that kind of pressure to get its numbers up. The Formula Ford and Club Ford drivers in the series shared a view that is common to most of us in the class; that there are lots of cars just sitting in garages and that there must be some way to get them out to the track. So we began a discussion as to why people are staying away and what we might try to do to interest them in coming back.

As always; we talked about the costs of racing and when we do that, almost always the subject of tires comes to the front of the queue. We discussed the possibility of declaring a "tire rule" for MARRS Formula Ford by incorporating the Club Ford tire rule into the FF championship. This was not adopted because there was concern that FF drivers who do not regularly compete in MARRS would not come because this would force them to purchase "hard" tires that they would not use elsewhere.

It is important to note that the rule would not have excluded them from racing and would not have excluded them from getting a first place trophy for winning a MARRS race on "soft" tires. The rule would simply excluded their finishing position from any accumulation of points toward the MARRS FF championship. The possibility of losing entries (that we were not getting anyhow) from drivers who would not be supporting the MARRS series on a regular basis (the "I haven't been to Summit Point in a while and I have a free weekend" driver) was enough of a concern that the proposal was dropped.

But, during these discussions I had mentioned that I had done several East West FF/CF Challenge races and had enjoyed them enormously. This is the series initiated by Steve Beeler and very successfully run in the Central Division for several years. I do not know how many current NARRC/MARRS/NERRC drivers did any of the EWC events; but I did and was very impressed. In my opinion the series was most successful during the years when it ran with a tire rule (using the Hoosier R-60) that required ALL cars running in the EWC to use the spec tire. A driver could run with soft tires in any of the races, but was only eligible for EWC points if they complied with the tire rule. All cars ran with the 1100# minimum weight requirement and yet guys like Mark Blanc (Crossle' 35F), Phil Kingham (Zink Z10), Dave Harmison (Royale RP21), Steve Beeler (Lola T540) and even me; were regularly running with and beating some of the newer "all inboard" cars.

So, a MARRS experiment was suggested; what if we raised the mininmum weight on the "all-inboard" cars, required "hard" tires and accepted them as Club Fords? If someone in a DB-1 or DB-6 came along and just rolled over us; we would live with it for a year and then change the rules for the following year. Some of the drivers were still very concerned about the potential of the Swift, so a further weight penalty was proposed. That seemed to allay (not remove) some of the concerns and the rules were voted upon by the drivers, accepted and subsequently adopted by the DC Region.

The experiment is entering its fourth year and at this point I consider it to be a failure. We have had only one driver/car combination (an 87 VanDieman, if my memory serves me correctly) show up and do two MARRS races with us two years ago. The driver said he really enjoyed it, liked the hard tires and has not shown up since. I have decided that I will propose that we drop the "all inboard" provisions of the MARRS Club Ford rules when we consider the package for 2013.

The experiment has not drawn idle cars to the series, so we will take another look at these provisions. This proposal and one to remove the language excluding the Honda FIT engine from gathering MARRS CF points will be put before the MARRS drivers for a vote this summer. We (the MARRS drivers) had written in the exclusion from the MARRS Club Ford points championship, any FIT powered Club Ford eligible chassis; primarily because we wanted to avoid the inlet restrictor/throttle body size debate issues that are still going on now. We did not do it because we were or are anti-Honda; we just didn't want the kind of issues that come from trying to equalize two different engines within the same class. That brings us pretty much to today.

You have already read all of the commentary regarding the attempt by Alan and Darrell to draft, propose and adopt a common set of Club Ford rules in NARRC & MARRS. In my opinion some of the comment has been very, very helpful; some not so. As for the "what were they smoking" commentary; all of the things that have been written regarding not having any place to put that much weight in a Swift, a 1200# DB-6 on hard tires is still going to be a killer CF, etc. is not new to the MARRS drivers. We hoped that no one would try to fill up the lower frame rails of the "DB" chassis with molten lead and thereby capture the highly presitigious MARRS Club Ford championship. We had those debates more than three years ago and we questioned our own sanity at that time.

The difference was that we (the MARRS drivers) saw a situation that was not favorable to us; made an attempt to try and change the conditions so that we could get a more favorable result for the group (at perhaps the expense of the individiuals). The decision was made by those who had the most at risk; the drivers who were showing up at every race and were running for the championship. It has not worked out as we had hoped and perhaps that is a good thing as the lesson was not learned too painfully. And, as is often the case with those that actually try and effect a change; we are the targets of somewhat derisive and dismissive comments from those who were not being affected by the conditions at the time and did not participate in the original discourse or voting process.

In any case, I am proud of having participated in the process and proud of the MARRS drivers who were willing to participate this approach to try and get our numbers up. I hope that we continue to try to find ways, even if they are somewhat unconventional; to get larger fields back to the tracks.

If the drivers being polled by Darrell do not think that the "all inboard" provisions of the MARRS Club Ford rules should be part of the NARRC CF rules; then I think that Darrell should consider removing them from the submittal to the NARRC committee. I believe that our experience in MARRS will demonstrate that incorporation of those provisions will not help get the numbers up.

Joe Marcinski
DC Region Wings & Things Driver Rep
#04 Tiga FFA78 Club Ford

[GeoffRain]

As much as I would love the opportunity to "double-dip" on the occasional weekend, you do not want my RF 90 in CF, even at 1200 lbs. I don't believe there is any way you can equalize for aero by adding weight.

At most, if you want to include tweeners, set the cutoff at '89, no DB1 or DB6. Were there any other aero cars around in 89?

[RussMcB]

I'm not a player in this arena, and may have missed these points, but I don't quite understand:

1. Why would the current CF participants want to add Swifts into the class (even weighted down). Is it because the class is hurting for numbers?
2. Why would Swift owners rather run (heavy) in CF than in Formula F (where they are still clearly competitive at regionals)?

Seems like the proposal doesn't have a real pressing problem to solve.

[Sweeper]

As much as I would love the opportunity to "double-dip" on the occasional weekend, you do not want my RF 90 in CF, even at 1200 lbs. I don't believe there is any way you can equalize for aero by adding weight.

At most, if you want to include tweeners, set the cutoff at '89, no DB1 or DB6. Were there any other aero cars around in 89?

Hi,

Perhaps I can put some context and perspective to all of this discussion regarding the recent NARRC Club Ford rules proposals. Steve Wilson (thanks Steve!) did accurately sum up one of the primary reasons that the drivers in the MARRS series made an attempt to draw extra cars to our series. There was in fact a very damaging effort made by some of the larger race groups in MARRS to penalize the smaller groups. The imposition of the unfortunately named "Flower's Rule" was one of the tactics. If the published race distance was 18 laps and your race group only had 8 entrants; you were "awarded" an 8 lap race! As you can imagine, this was very damaging to the image of the Washington DC Region and is the primary reason that many people view DC Region as the "Miata Region" to this day.

A number of people within the DC Region have worked hard to overturn this twisted thought process and today every race group, regardless of size, gets the same 20 lap race. But, I digress. So, the Wings & Things race group was facing that kind of pressure to get its numbers up. The Formula Ford and Club Ford drivers in the series shared a view that is common to most of us in the class; that there are lots of cars just sitting in garages and that there must be some way to get them out to the track. So we began a discussion as to why people are staying away and what we might try to do to interest them in coming back.

As always; we talked about the costs of racing and when we do that, almost always the subject of tires comes to the front of the queue. We discussed the possibility of declaring a "tire rule" for MARRS Formula Ford by incorporating the Club Ford tire rule into the FF championship. This was not adopted because there was concern that FF drivers who do not regularly compete in MARRS would not come because this would force them to purchase "hard" tires that they would not use elsewhere.

It is important to note that the rule would not have excluded them from racing and would not have excluded them from getting a first place trophy for winning a MARRS race on "soft" tires. The rule would simply excluded their finishing position from any accumulation of points toward the MARRS FF championship. The possibility of losing entries (that we were not getting anyhow) from drivers who would not be supporting the MARRS series on a regular basis (the "I haven't been to Summit Point in a while and I have a free weekend" driver) was enough of a concern that the proposal was dropped.

But, during these discussions I had mentioned that I had done several East West FF/CF Challenge races and had enjoyed them enormously. This is the series initiated by Steve Beeler and very successfully run in the Central Division for several years. I do not know how many current NARRC/MARRS/NERRC drivers did any of the EWC events; but I did and was very impressed. In my opinion the series was most successful during the years when it ran with a tire rule (using the Hoosier R-60) that required ALL cars running in the EWC to use the spec tire. A driver could run with soft tires in any of the races, but was only eligible for EWC points if they complied with the tire rule. All cars ran with the 1100# minimum weight requirement and yet guys like Mark Blanc (Crossle' 35F), Phil Kingham (Zink Z10), Dave Harmison (Royale RP21), Steve Beeler (Lola T540) and even me; were regularly running with and beating some of the newer "all inboard" cars.

So, a MARRS experiment was suggested; what if we raised the mininmum weight on the "all-inboard" cars, required "hard" tires and accepted them as Club Fords? If someone in a DB-1 or DB-6 came along and just rolled over us; we would live with it for a year and then change the rules for the following year. Some of the drivers were still very concerned about the potential of the Swift, so a further weight penalty was proposed. That seemed to allay (not remove) some of the concerns and the rules were voted upon by the drivers, accepted and subsequently adopted by the DC Region.

The experiment is entering its fourth year and at this point I consider it to be a failure. We have had only one driver/car combination (an 87 VanDieman, if my memory serves me correctly) show up and do two MARRS races with us two years ago. The driver said he really enjoyed it, liked the hard tires and has not shown up since. I have decided that I will propose that we drop the "all inboard" provisions of the MARRS Club Ford rules when we consider the package for 2013.

The experiment has not drawn idle cars to the series, so we will take another look at these provisions. This proposal and one to remove the language excluding the Honda FIT engine from gathering MARRS CF points will be put before the MARRS drivers for a vote this summer. We (the MARRS drivers) had written in the exclusion from the MARRS Club Ford points championship, any FIT powered Club Ford eligible chassis; primarily because we wanted to avoid the inlet restrictor/throttle body size debate issues that are still going on now. We did not do it because we were or are anti-Honda; we just didn't want the kind of issues that come from trying to equalize two different engines within the same class. That brings us pretty much to today.

You have already read all of the commentary regarding the attempt by Alan and Darrell to draft, propose and adopt a common set of Club Ford rules in NARRC & MARRS. In my opinion some of the comment has been very, very helpful; some not so. As for the "what were they smoking" commentary; all of the things that have been written regarding not having any place to put that much weight in a Swift, a 1200# DB-6 on hard tires is still going to be a killer CF, etc. is not new to the MARRS drivers. We hoped that no one would try to fill up the lower frame rails of the "DB" chassis with molten lead and thereby capture the highly presitigious MARRS Club Ford championship. We had those debates more than three years ago and we questioned our own sanity at that time.

The difference was that we (the MARRS drivers) saw a situation that was not favorable to us; made an attempt to try and change the conditions so that we could get a more favorable result for the group (at perhaps the expense of the individiuals). The decision was made by those who had the most at risk; the drivers who were showing up at every race and were running for the championship. It has not worked out as we had hoped and perhaps that is a good thing as the lesson was not learned too painfully. And, as is often the case with those that actually try and effect a change; we are the targets of somewhat derisive and dismissive comments from those who were not being affected by the conditions at the time and did not participate in the original discourse or voting process.

In any case, I am proud of having participated in the process and proud of the MARRS drivers who were willing to participate this approach to try and get our numbers up. I hope that we continue to try to find ways, even if they are somewhat unconventional; to get larger fields back to the tracks.

If the drivers being polled by Darrell do not think that the "all inboard" provisions of the MARRS Club Ford rules should be part of the NARRC CF rules; then I think that Darrell should consider removing them from the submittal to the NARRC committee. I believe that our experience in MARRS will demonstrate that incorporation of those provisions will not help get the numbers up.

Joe Marcinski
DC Region Wings & Things Driver Rep
#04 Tiga FFA78 Club Ford

[FONT=Calibri]Could someone please post the 2012 MARRS Club Ford rules as have been approved?[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]I suspect what they are so I’ll start with my suggestions based on that, some tweaks might be needed depending on the final details as I believe close alignment with MARRS is worth some compromise.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]Currently legal:[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri] CF/NCF’s (rules unchanged) run at 1,100# and allow the Fit motor with the current 2011 rules only, no engine rules changes allow without NARRC/MARRS approval. This will limit the Fit performance creep that has occurred with all engines, Zetec in FC and Toyota in FA. Must run the original Hewland MK8/9 gearbox only, preventing a gearbox upgrade in parallel with the Fit update.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]Added chassis:[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri] Allow any 1990 and older current FF chassis to run in CF with a 1,150 min weight and same spec tire rules. Also I would suggest at least initially allow Ford motor only in these chassis to see how the balance works. I am really on the fence here as I know the RF90’s were a significant advantage over the 89 and older chassis, they can also easily be upgraded to RF92/4 specs. Anyone with more info on the RF90 chassis ability to update to RF92+ specs[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]Chassis not allowed:[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri] Any manufactured by Swift (Euro or US spec), RF90? as well as any chassis built in 1991 and newer.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]It’s been a while but in the late 90’s I raced frequently with this group of cars including DB1’s as FF/CF was its own run group. Most of these races were at high speed tracks, LRP, WGI, Mosport etc. With the 50# added weight I think there will be close to parity and a well handling CF can beat these “middle” FF’s even up. I would suggest giving it a try and at the NARRC-offs call a CF meeting and determine if the results show balance and increase weight as need for 2013 based on average results, let the "original" CF owners be the ones who decide - afterall it's their class first.[/FONT]

[FONT=Calibri]Chris Dona - SCCA# 246485[/FONT]

Terrific ideas! Joe has the proven results and a handle on the true nature of the problem, Inboard or not inboard, championship points or not for points.
On the other hand, I'm not running for a championship or even traveling to tracks for the last few years. But if we can find other cars I'm willing to try again.
It would be great to have a forum to discuss at years end as Chris suggested.

Geoff, do you think you would come race the series in NCF on R60's in your 1990? If so, than maybe others? Or are you too busy having fun on stickys?
Chris told me that the new chassis started as the RF90. Maybe the 89 cutoff would be right.

[R. Pare]

While there is no model year cutoff, Club Formula F is restricted to those older makes and/or models of Formula F that were originally offered with outboard shocks and springs on at least one end of the vehicle. (Referred to as the 50% Rule.)

Hmmm - seems then that any car that was offered equipped with one end outboard would still be eligible even if it was not actually equipped that way?

Citation offered and actually built 2 of the '87-'93 design with outboard rear (they went originally up to Vancouver), so now the rest of the '87-'93 production run is eligible?

Strange rules you wrote there, guys.........

[Will Velkoff]

Terrific ideas! Joe has the proven results and a handle on the true nature of the problem, Inboard or not inboard, championship points or not for points.
On the other hand, I'm not running for a championship or even traveling to tracks for the last few years. But if we can find other cars I'm willing to try again.
It would be great to have a forum to discuss at years end as Chris suggested.

Geoff, do you think you would come race the series in NCF on R60's in your 1990? If so, than maybe others? Or are you too busy having fun on stickys?
Chris told me that the new chassis started as the RF90. Maybe the 89 cutoff would be right.

Absolutely! Would be great to get some 84-89 cars out of the garage on some hard tires and add to the fields! Maybe that can be the new cutoff for Club Ford at 1100 lbs. That would eliminate the multi weight in the class too, and keep our older cars competitive. Allow Fit or Kent too.

What about MK8/9 vs LD200 like was mentioned earlier? Are there advantages of running an LD or Staffs vs a MK8/9?

[GeoffRain]

Rob, I'd love to come out and race against you again, especially with such a ridiculous advantage.

I would double-dip on weekends where CF and FF were in separate run groups but FF is my priority for now.

But trust me, you really don't want the 90s included. You will go crazy trying to set the penalty weight from track to track and it will never be right. Stick with the cars with frames that were designed for outboard suspension.

[RobLav]

Why do we have CF AND NCF? How many NCF's participated last year? (I know of at least one NCF guy who will not be participating next year.) Seems to me you guys ought to align MARRS and NAARC into one CF class and consolidate NCF into it.

Jerry R asked my input a while back on NCF and CFC, and I proposed elimination or consolidation of both because of the terribly low counts. As many of you guys know, I've been running my "antique" RF93, which is eligible for CFC, in FC and getting around fairly well. With a stronger modern FC engine, I'd be back up at the top in FC. When I ran Liz's DB1, the weaker engine became obvious again when I'd easily catch a CF into and around the corners only to have the CF walk away coming out. My point is that the driver and the engine power are really the more significant variables. So I'd re-consolidate CFC back into FC and consolidate NCF back into CF, aligned with both MARRS and NARRC. Keep the chassis rules simple - 50% outboard suspension for CF. And you aren't going to save any real money by going to harder compound slicks, so why do it? If you want to make it cheaper and interesting, then run those Dunlops like the Canadians. Unfortunately, I doubt many people will want to do that.

And Richard makes a good point again... 50% suspension rule as driven on the track and not "as offered".

Clearly, the decision is up to you guys and is not mine. Not consolidating makes us weaker in run groups vs the tin tops. In a bad economy, businesses consolidate. That thinking applies to us too.

[AlanVDW]

[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman]2011 Club Ford Rules[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman]Washington, D.C. Region[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman]Northeast Division, SCCA, Inc.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Purpose[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]The Club Ford class is intended to provide competitive racing for older Formula Fords[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]which do not have the advantages of recently developed technological advances. These[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]rules provide a basis for standardization for the MARRS. The rules have been kept as[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]simple as possible to enhance and promote the growth of the class. As of 2007 the class[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]has been opened up to Formula Fords built in 1992 or earlier.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Requirements and Procedures[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]A. Club Fords shall adhere to all rules and requirements, including all safety rules and[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]requirements, as stated in the current General Competition Rules (GCR), Formula[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Class Specification Book (FF Section), and all other requirements stated herein. Club[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Fords shall display the markings "CF" in lieu of "FF". Club Fords may compete and[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]be recognized in Club Ford and/or Formula Ford (but not simultaneously, as in[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]combined fields.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]B. Tire choice is restricted to four (4) tires, Goodyear 600, Hoosier 60, American[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Racers, and Dunlop treaded racing tires. Competitors may mount rain tires at their[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]discretion. Rain tires must be manufactured, purpose-built, treaded tires. Handcut/[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]grooved or otherwise modified tires are not permitted unless based on one of the[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]approved slick tires.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]C. In order to be eligible for Club Ford points, the car must be equipped with the Ford[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Kent or Cortina series engine. No other engines will be eligible for Club Ford points.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Car Eligibility (three minimum weight categories)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1100-pound minimum weight:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]A. A Club Ford may be any Formula Ford which does NOT have BOTH front and rear[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]inboard suspension.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]B. No car which was originally designed and built in such a way as to be ineligible for[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]NEDIV Club Ford competition may be modified in an attempt to satisfy the class[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]rules. A car which was built with both front and rear inboard suspension may not be[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]modified to have outboard suspension.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]C. No car designed or manufactured after January 1, 1984 shall be eligible for[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]competition under the 1100-pound minimum weight regardless of suspension layout.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman](This rule prevents the design and construction of a new and purpose-built car using[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]recently developed suspension and aerodynamic developments.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1150-pound minimum weight:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Formula Fords built prior to the end of 1992 except as noted below.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]1200-pound minimum weight:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]DB-1, DB-6 built prior to the end of 1992 and derivations of these Formula Fords. For[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]more information concerning Washington, D.C. Region Club Ford rules, contact Joe[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Marcinski ([/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman]marcinskij@midwescofilter.com[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman]), the Wings & Things Race Group Driver Representative[/FONT]

Also, NCF is CF with a NARRC series sticker.

An RF 81 has outboard rear shocks only. 50%.

[RobLav]

I don't understand this. You have me on board for some of it. I thought the entire premise of CF was to bring older less-competitive Fords to the track? If so, then why add RF90 and newer and DB1/DB6 when those are still competitive in FF? There is a logic mis-match. If you are trying to create an incentive to drain FF fields in favor of CF, then it looks like "voodoo economics" to me. Are you looking for double dippers if CF runs with the Vees and FF with Wings and Things? If that is the case, how many additional entries (at the reduced rate) are you expecting with how much additional revenue? Who'd want to run around in a DB1/DB6 at 1200 lbs (more than FC) to beat up on a bunch of CF's when the Kent engine costs aren't exactly cheap? This proposal is non-sensical, and I hope the NARRC guys resist.

[Will Velkoff]

I don't understand this. You have me on board for some of it. I thought the entire premise of CF was to bring older less-competitive Fords to the track? If so, then why add RF90 and newer and DB1/DB6 when those are still competitive in FF? There is a logic mis-match. If you are trying to create an incentive to drain FF fields in favor of CF, then it looks like "voodoo economics" to me. Are you looking for double dippers if CF runs with the Vees and FF with Wings and Things? If that is the case, how many additional entries (at the reduced rate) are you expecting with how much additional revenue? Who'd want to run around in a DB1/DB6 at 1200 lbs (more than FC) to beat up on a bunch of CF's when the Kent engine costs aren't exactly cheap? This proposal is non-sensical, and I hope the NARRC guys resist.

Yeah, I agree with your logic. I think the additional weight classes are a bad idea for CF. Maybe extend the 1984 til a year in the late 80's that keeps any real dominant chassis out of it if possible. If not, then leave it at 84 as the cutoff with the 50% rule.