Mark,
Maybe I am reading too much into it, but your post #280 reeks just a bit of sarcasm and #268 seems aimed at me.
If you don't agree with my opinion on the issue, argue your point, tear mine down. But you don't need to make it personal just because our opinions differ.
If I misinterpreted your posts, sorry. It wouldn't be the first, nor will it be the last time I've been wrong.
Daryl,
You're incorrect on both posts you mentioned. Regarding my previous post, I've heard that the number of vee's (not vintage) running in S. Calif. is low and I was
sorry to hear that you had very few vee's to race against. Believe me, you'll know
when I'm being sarcastic etc, but today wasn't one of those days! Have a great
weekend!
Mark
Mark, please accept my apologies. If you ever have an issue with me better make it plain as day. Might want to do it in a PM so you don't get banned.
Last edited by Daryl DeArman; 04.06.12 at 10:46 PM.
i forgot the original question but................
does anyone think it was ever possible to put a 600# dry weight illegal FV on a grid ?
Where did all the "regular Joes" go?Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
It seems that the class is stretching the resources of "regular Joes" but not fast and sexy enough for the "Josephs". Wrong market! FV lost its identity (in most of North America) and needs to regain it.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
Retirement Sale NOW, Everything must go!
Okay, how? Attracting you can do....retaining them is a bit harder.
I'd be interested to know what percentage of National FV competitors have been racing FV less than 3 years or more than 20? How does that percentage compare to the rest of the SCCA National classes?
FYI,
From the registry .. of those that entered a valid number for "first year involved in FV"
Total 216
> 20 years = 182 (84%)
<= 3 years = 34 (the rest ~16%)
I wish we had more accurate and complete data, but this is what we got!
FWIW,
Steve, FV80
edit: I have no idea how that reflects against the overall SCCA membership.
Last edited by Steve Davis; 04.08.12 at 9:29 AM. Reason: add comment
Assuming illegal because of weight, I do not think so. That is about the weight of all the required components: engine, trans, front end, wheels, etc.
Brian
Uh, wow? The veteran number is nothing short of amazing.
FV Lynx/B #8
Umm... I screwed up.. the numbers were about right, but something was missing
The total with valid entries is 423 instead of 216. So .. the percentages are about
183/423 = 43% > 20 years
34/423 = 8% <= 3 years
"THE REST" (49%) are in between somewhere.
Sorry for the confusion .. but it's still a LOT 'up there'.
Steve, FV80
A simple majority of the SCCA National FV racers have more than 20 or less than 3 years of FV experience, with the "veterans" outnumbering the "new-blood" by more than 5:1.
If we don't replace those veterans on a one for one basis as they retire the fields could be cut in half. Falling into FA territory participation-wise.
With FB on the upswing, FV will likely be the lowest participation open wheel class if we don't do something to address that churn.
How do we convince the new blood that racing some 65 year old overweight dude who needs a walker to get from his RV to his FV is not a lose-lose situation? Likely, he's going to whip your butt and if he doesn't, how rewarding was that?
Daryl:
Maybe if we stay on our current course regarding tires and weight, then we'll
magically add new members who are my sons age (20) to the list of drivers
interested in carbs, skinny tires ($600+ set), and $350 entry fee's etc..
Mark
Can we assume that you know of one?
I know HOW to do it... but the effort & cost would far out-weigh the gain (is there a gain?)
And the current course is....? Where the rules currently are, or where they are headed?Daryl:
Maybe if we stay on our current course regarding tires and weight, then we'll
magically add new members who are my sons age (20) to the list of drivers
interested in carbs, skinny tires ($600+ set), and $350 entry fee's etc..
Mark
Does keeping the minimum weight low expedite the vets retiring? We don't want them to leave without replacements, yet how do we attract more replacements?
Daryl,
I was just joking by using several topics that had raised the ire of many drivers!
Mark
Attracting new, young drivers isn't about weight. It needs to be a balance of speed, sexiness and cost. To attract young drivers, the cars need to be more appealing from their looks. There needs to be speed involved, yet to enable more accessibility costs need to be kept to a minimum.
Let's face it, driving a FV can be a lot of fun, but they're not the most attractive things in the world. It's hard to be a competitive young man and enjoy it when you race in groups of other classes and you're the slowest thing out there. No one likes to get passed all the time.
I don't know what the answer is in attracting new drivers to the class without increasing the cost. Single run groups is a start, but we all know unless you've got 20 or so cars, its not going to happen.
You can increase the weight, which will be appealing to many older drivers from a competitive stand point and it won't hurt the younger ones, so adding a few pounds isn't the end of the world. It's as simple as adding a little ballast.
FV's just don't resemble current formula cars anymore and this is what young drivers relate to. You could go down the wider street tire route to give them more look appeal and would be low in cost, I guess.
FV has an uphill battle attracting new young drivers, but I hope it succeeds. It's been around for a long time and I know those who are in it really enjoy it.
Well pick any two, can't have all three.
Rules stability/s-l-o-w evolution is what has kept the class healthy. Responding too slowly to change is what's going to kill it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I don't have the magic answer. I do know that if the racing is good, I can get over the ugly car. I can get over the slow car. I can even see past the drum brakes and soda straw carb. It's looking around the grid and wondering who in the heck am I going to be racing against in 5-10 years is what would scare me away.
IMO FF, FC, FB don't have those same concerns....
Daryl:
Great post, especially your thoughts on the class 5-10 yrs. from now!
Mark
Protoform P-1
I couldn't agree with you more. My point is that if you don't first attract new younger drivers by the sexiness factor, they'll never know if the racing is good. Only those who are doing it now know how good it really is.
You're both completely right. I guess the problem with our current demographic is - do we go for broke (no pun intended) and modernize the class, to hopefully attract new and younger drivers to sustain the future of the class? That MIGHT bring in some new drivers.. But it'll also quite possibly accelerate the retirement of a lot of older drivers. Some of the guys who might be racing for another 4 or 5 years, will think long and hard about spending a bunch of money and worrying about spares and figuring out new parts and new tricks, etc.
It's a compromise - new drivers MIGHT make the class more sustainable in the future, but losing current drivers might kill it just as fast. Who knows..
I'm starting to think that leaving it alone for the most part* might be a better idea, and let it be replaced gradually by whatever it is that picks up faster - my guess, it'll be F600.
*by this I mean major changes, like engines, brakes.. Still think there's room to improve tires and possibly weight. But we'll see how those pan out..
This simply is not true. Look at SRF. Do you consider those fields to be healthy? They made everyone do a $10,000+ engine swap in order to keep the class going. Not only did it not hurt them, it has dramatically helped them.
Yes.
That was 1994, 18 years ago. What most would consider a fairly stable ruleset.
If we rewound to 1990-ish and all those who had collected all the Renault bits refused to evolve, SR would not be where it is today. Rules stability is one component that has lead to such a healthy class. If they are all still Renault powered, wouldn't be near the numbers they have today.
If you feel like 1 drastic rule change in a class that is almost 30 years old isn't a "stable" ruleset I don't know what to say.
The latest FastTrack has been posted and member input is being requested regarding chaning minimum weight. Whether you are for or against it, please submit your input to the CRB. This is the only way SCCA will get an accurate picture of the will of the class.
FastTrack: http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...k-may-club.pdf
PAGE 26
Address to send member input:
http://www.crbscca.com or www.clubracingboard.com
Reference Letter 7689
Oh boy, here we go again.
Steve Bamford
This isn't meant to rehash the debate, just submit your opinion to the CRB.
Like a soap opera
I've been off the form for a good while, like Steve trying to make mucho $$$$$$ to buy the current light weight hot car...
I've changed my responses to questions about FV. About a month ago I was talking to a guy from Canada and one thing led to another and I mentioned tha I raced last year (very abreviated) in the Canadian F1200 series. He was very interested...so I showed him a photo on my iphone and he was more interested..when I told him 60 HP he said his street bike had 120 HP and the conversation ended... Now I mention that we have 120 HP and the cars weigh 1000 lbs with driver....it always keeps their interest.
A few years ago I got to ride in the two seat Dallara at Indy and the feeling on the straights at speed was no different than in a Vee. Acceleration and corners were another story, but if you could get a skeptic behind the wheel the issues of sexiness and HP would go away...
Hey , maybe we can get someone to build a two seat Vee.....
No question about that. But few are going to make the upfront investment of many thousands of dollars if they THINK it looks unsexy.
Make it sexy
Make it look sexy.. lie about weight and how fast she is.... sounds like an old girlfriend...
Dont forget to vote. Either side for or against, make sure you vote.
Steve Bamford
We have plenty of horsepower....almost as much as this Can Am ATV
If that don't work get one of these http://www.sracing.com/Store/Electrical/Electrical.htm (Shorai Lithium Ion battery) and save 12 lbs immediately.
Good batteries. We use them in our race motorcycles in the AMA XR1200 class.
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
I put one in my F1200 this year. Great weight savings. Would recommend their charger. So far so good.
Small package for same CCA
Well, fastrack is out, no weight increase. 2:1 letters to the CRB against the increase.. Moving on..
Tiago,
It's a shame the CRB decides which survey to accept or deny!
Mark
I wasn't going to say it, but yeah.
Don't forget the distinction between the two processes. One was a survey, outside the control of the CRB and club. The other was the formal response in the form of signed and confirmed letters written to the CRB. Regardless of the details, the CRB was unable to vet the survey but the letter process is well documented and controlled. Another effect: the weight change was a simple rule change and the spec tire represented a major undertaking.
The above post is for reference only and your results may vary. This post is not intended to reflect the views and opinions of SCCA and should not be considered an analysis or opinion of the rules written in the GCR. thanks, Brian McCarthy, BOD area 9.
Bryan,
Don't forget the EGO's invovlved in these surveys, and the "not my idea" or
"not invented here" principal. I agree the "spec tire" would have been a major
undertaking, but to dismiss it outright smells a little fishy etc....There were over
200 people who participated in the survey, and I bet the amount swamped the
amount of letters received by the CRB, but the opinions in the letters were construed
as "golden", while the survey was conducted by a uncontrolled mob whose opinion
we're labeled as "not serious"
Mark
Last edited by Amon; 06.12.12 at 2:41 PM.
I can think of only a few instances where the CRB initiated a rule change and those dealt with safety issues not car prep. Virtually all changes come from competitors.The CRB is quite reluctant to change rules. Not being able to vent the outside survey resulted in no way of knowing who the participants were and confirm the validity of the results. As any Californian can tell you, just becuase tens of thousands of people have signed a petition doesn't mean one can make any conclusions from the data. Could the CRB have handled the response to the spec tire proposal better? You bet, there's always room for improvement. I can not say if the outcome would have been different if there had been a request for member input via letters, but I didn't smell any fish and there were no special agendas. The CRB knows there will be dissent on every issue and works diligently to hear all sides.
I'd like to remind everyone that the CRB entertains resume's all year long for both the advisory committees and the CRB itself. Membership changes every year and new folks will be needed for 2013. It's tough work but very rewarding.
The above post is for reference only and your results may vary. This post is not intended to reflect the views and opinions of SCCA and should not be considered an analysis or opinion of the rules written in the GCR. thanks, Brian McCarthy, BOD area 9.
Brian,
I find it hard to believe, after quickly dismissing the survey results, that they
work diligently to hear all sides or they wouldn't have been so quick to dismiss.
Mark
92' Protoform P-1/004
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
