February 2014 Prelims

[nulrich]

It is my belief that anything that is not 1.375x.080 is not part of the main hoop and may not be considered for the broom stick rule, so your nub would not be considered part of the main hoop. The main hoop that the rule you quoted requires to be contained is to be made from 1.375x.080. What are the important parts that I am leaving out?

The rule states that the main roll hoop must contain tubing of a minimum size. It does not limit the main roll hoop to only that piece of tubing (otherwise why say "contain" or have the rule at all?).

Many cars, including the Citations I've seen, the Van Diemens, and the Mygale, have main roll hoops containing materials other than tubing. I was just looking at a photo of Brandon's car, and, unless I'm mistaken, it seems to have steel sheet welded to the tubing part of the main hoop.

Those additional components are part of the main roll hoop and are included in the structural analysis considered in the "alternate" design rule. They are clearly also necessary to protect the driver and fulfill the function of a main roll hoop.

If they are part of the main roll hoop for one purpose (structure), they are part of the main roll hoop for another (the broomstick test). Very simple.

This method of argument is the same that you have been using on this forum for years. Every time that someone disagrees with you or posts something that you don't like, you start throwing other people/manufacturers under the bus without any explanation.
I am not familiar with the Mygale or late model VD hoop, but from being around the Citation chassis I know that you are wrong about it. I really cannot even imagine what you are talking about. Given how you try to deflect blame, I am going to guess that you are wrong about the other cars as well and intentionally misunderstanding the GCR and what I posted to try to bolster your argument.

As for the front roll hoop, I didn't say anything about it and I don't know why you are bringing it up.

You are certainly welcome to turn this into a personal attack on me, but I'll respond to the substance of your accusations rather than reciprocate.

Rules must be applied logically and consistently. When someone tortures the interpretation of a rule to try to make one car (usually the Radon) illegal, I often respond by pointing out that applying the same interpretation would make many other cars illegal. That is not throwing anyone "under the bus," rather it is pointing out the fallacy of the argument.

For example, using your interpretation that only the actual tubing used in a roll hoop can be used to measure for compliance just so happens to make all Van Diemens illegal. They rely on a separate "nub" welded to the center of the front roll hoop to meet the front roll hoop height requirement relative to the steering wheel, and many drivers also rely on the height of that nub to pass the broomstick test.

I don't think those Van Diemens are illegal since I don't accept your interpretation, so I'm not throwing anyone "under the bus." I also don't think the Citations, Mygales, and Van Diemens have main roll hoops that are illegal. But feel free to protest all of them if you like!

I'm out.

[Wren]

The rule states that the main roll hoop must contain tubing of a minimum size. It does not limit the main roll hoop to only that piece of tubing (otherwise why say "contain" or have the rule at all?).

The difference in our opinions seems to be "roll hoop design" vs. "main roll hoop." I doubt that we are going to come to an agreement. It is probably taking the thread too far off topic from the 2014 rules, but I will try to explain my position one more time.

If they are part of the main roll hoop for one purpose (structure), they are part of the main roll hoop for another (the broomstick test). Very simple.

That's a reasonable position and I sort of hope you are right as it will open up options for other people who struggle with clearance as well. I just think that those welded in steel parts are part of the "roll hoop design" and not the "main roll hoop" as my understanding of the rules is that only 1.375"x.080" tubing may be part of the main roll hoop.

You are certainly welcome to turn this into a personal attack on me, but I'll respond to the substance of your accusations rather than reciprocate.

Nothing I posted was a personal attack. I am addressing your argument.

[Jnovak]

Wren, I think that the "alternative roll hoop" specifications apply in this case.

It doesn't matter what it looks like as long as it meets the structural criteria defined in the GCR and I have no doubt that it does meet the criteria. Of course a structural analysis must be completed and signed off by a registered PE.

There are other open wheel cars with a somewhat similar solution for the roll hoop. I have seen several Ralt FA cars with something similar.

[alangbaker]

The rules seem pretty clear:

9.4.5.A
The main hoop shall not be less than 2 inches above the driver’s helmet, seated normally and restrained by seat belt/shoulder harness. A straight line drawn from the top of the main hoop to the top of the front hoop shall pass over the driver’s helmet.

Note "main hoop".

9.4.5.F
No alternate roll hoop will be considered unless it contains a main hoop having a minimum tubing size of 1.375” x .080” wall thickness.

So yes, a roll hoop may have other components than the main hoop, but those other components are not PART of the main hoop.

So if you had a knob on top of the main hoop, to me, it seems you must till make your measurements from the part that is defined as the main hoop.

[Jnovak]

Here is a link to pics of an RT 40-41 legal roll bar. This is an alternative design that is conceptually similar to the Van D roll hoop.

http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4358



Note that this roll hoop has a 1.375" front roll bar and a 1.25" rear roll bar. Also note that the front roll hoop is welded in the center joint at the top. There are lots of designs that do not meet the basic definition but do meet the alternative criteria.

[problemchild]

Attachment 44093

This extended roll hoop was scheduled for installation today. How timely.

When we talk about side panels, it seems safety is the over-riding focus, with compliance, and dinner invitations secondary. When it comes to roll bars, compliance seems to be the only concern.

When you are upside down in the grass, forward tabs and strategically located front hoops (that manipulate the broomstick rule) are no substitute for height. I have been a witness to a death in just that situation.

Attachment 44092

Jeremy's car and driver installation is what all formula car manufactures should be striving for. He has enough roll bar height that his camera is inside the hoop.

If we are selecting direction to pursue future safety rules, lets make roll bar height a priority.

[Purple Frog]

Ah... Thank you Greg... at least one thing we can agree on.
When I was the pro series tech director I sent out many notices to teams that I thought their rollhoop clearances were not adequate.

And we used sideview photo images taken at the same elevation as the driver to prove our concern. I still have a file of those photos. I'm glad to say the pros responded with positive changes, with many teams making major rollhoop modifications, many which were not inexpensive.

One of my most effective methods for change was to hand deliver a photo to a spouse in the paddock.

I also think allowing the fairing in of the rollhoop takes away some of the resistance some teams have about increasing drag and rear wing turbulence cause by higher hoops.

[S Lathrop]

Here is a link to pics of an RT 40-41 legal roll bar. This is an alternative design that is conceptually similar to the Van D roll hoop.

http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4358



Note that this roll hoop has a 1.375" front roll bar and a 1.25" rear roll bar. Also note that the front roll hoop is welded in the center joint at the top. There are lots of designs that do not meet the basic definition but do meet the alternative criteria.

I happen to think the original Ralt RT 40/41 roll bar structure was superior to what is required when one of these chassis is put up for re-homologation.

There was a fatality at Lime Rock years ago in a FA. The roll hoop structure did not fail. The mountings at the top of the tub failed and well below the drivers head.

The failure point of the structure shown in the picture will be the attachments at the tub.

The original Ralt structure was designed to progressively collapse from the top down. The structure increased in strength as it got closer to the driver's head.

I bring this issue up because I had a complete roll hoop failure on a car that the structure that conformed to SCCA requirements. The roll bar was braced for and aft with both braced starting just 6" below the top of the hoop. The accident happened at corner 5 at Elkhart. The car got up side down and landed on the hoop. The hoop sheered off at the braces. The braces remained in place and the driver was not injured but he did have to replace his helmet. There are a lot of cars built exactly as my car was. The car was a FV.

The roll bar structures required by the rules assume that the roll bar will be so strong that any displacement or yielding when loaded will be insignificant. The Ralt design instead controls the collapse of the structure and absorbs energy so that the structure protects the driver even as it is in failure mode. Thus it avoids a failure that probably would result in injury.

I had an 87 Citation, built after the FV incident, that became airborne and the initial impact was on the main hoop. Beyond suspension damage, the roll hoop was badly dented at the point of impact but it remained upright. The entire engine bay had to be replaced but the roll hoop had not yielded and was within the original specs. for location. I did put a cap over the top of the hoop, made from roll bar material. The car is still being raced.

I don't know if the 87 Citation roll bar would not have failed as the FV had if there had been a greater for/aft force in the crash. But those two incidents and my own experience with being upside down in a race car led me to the current Citation design.

This is a long way of saying that I think the current roll bar requirements need a rethink. Maybe we should do something more like the Ralt where the main structure is maybe even with the top of the driver's head and there is a collapsible structure above that. The entire structure could be significantly higher than the current minimums. What is required for SRF and illegal for every other car probaably should be the norm.

[nulrich]

When we talk about side panels, it seems safety is the over-riding focus, with compliance, and dinner invitations secondary. When it comes to roll bars, compliance seems to be the only concern.

Nothing could be further from the truth. If you knew me, or had inspected a Radon carefully, you would know that. The GCR doesn't require real composite nose crush structure, tailcones, side impact attenuators, a full 16 gage 4130 steel floor welded to the frame, composite nose panels, cockpit protection panels, 1/8 thick metal fuel cell enclosures, a roll cage designed to F3 standards, etc, etc, etc. If you don't believe me, talk to the owners. Some of the, ahem, larger ones wish I'd spent a few pounds less on safety.

If all I cared about was compliance, I could have designed a lighter, cheaper car and traded some of that weight for ballast (and competitive advantage).

If all I cared about was compliance, I could have replaced the composite side panels with aluminum ones (same weight, stiffer chassis) and avoided years of frustration.

If all I cared about was compliance, I could have shrugged my shoulders and let the larger drivers barely pass the broomstick test.

When you are upside down in the grass, forward tabs and strategically located front hoops (that manipulate the broomstick rule) are no substitute for height. I have been a witness to a death in just that situation.

I'm sorry for your loss. The location of the front hoop has nothing to do with "manipulating" the broomstick rule. It's location is based on structural design, it never even occurred to me its location was relevant to the broomstick test. In fact, as has been pointed out several times, for the Radon the measurement should probably be to the front bulkhead, since that and the main roll hoop are what would contact the ground in a rollover. That would raise the clearance even more.

If all I cared about was compliance, we could have welded on a minimal steel tab to raise the main roll hoop and give more broomstick clearance. Instead, I made a very substantial extension, one that is bigger in cross-sectional area than the top of that extended roll hoop you are installing. And one that meets the dimensional roll hoop requirements in the 2014 F1 rules (where "blade" roll hoops are allowed).

Steve just posted some interesting experiences which I think are worth reading. It's actually a perfect segue into discussing roll hoop height....higher is not necessarily safer.

Nathan

[nulrich]

Earlier I was asked something like: "would I rather have a roll hoop 7 inches higher than my helmet built to minimum SCCA standards or one 3 inches higher that meets FIA standards?"

The answer is definitely and unequivocally the lower hoop.

The SCCA minimum is a single 1.375" x .080 hoop braced six inches below the top. Although it is fairly stout in vertical loading and side loading, it is very poor in fore/aft loading. The failure Steve described is exactly what can happen to such a hoop in a real crash scenario, where the top of the hoop breaks off and you are suddenly left with roll hoop six inches lower.

The "alternate" design criteria in the GCR are based on an older FIA standard and require the main hoop withstand loading of 1.5x laterally, 7.5x vertically, and 5.5x longitudinally. The required strength in the fore/aft direction reflects the FIA's experience with actual high speed crashes.

That means an FC main hoop designed to the "alternate" standard has to withstand 6600 pounds of fore/aft force without failing. The SCCA minimum hoop will fail at roughly 2000 pounds of fore/aft force.

You'll notice that all of the cars from Europe with FIA certified main roll hoops, as well as the cars homologated under the "alternate design" criteria (the Radon and the Citation, for example) have double hoops or braces that extend all the way to the top of the main hoop. That's to meet the stricter FIA criteria.

When you get into the structural design of a roll hoop you'll also quickly learn (if it's not intuitively obvious) that as the roll hoop gets higher the stresses at the bracing points and elsewhere in the frame grow dramatically. From a layman's perspective, it seems like simply making the roll hoop higher will improve safety, but in fact you want to strike a balance between roll hoop height and strength in an actual impact. A higher roll hoop does you no good if it fails on impact.

In the real world not all drivers are 5'6" and weigh 140 lbs. Fabio Orsolon, for example, easily passes the broomstick test with the original Radon roll hoop, and passes it by a mile with the new design. But I'm 6'5" and 210 lbs, and although I can sit in the car and pass the broomstick test, I'm told I have no business driving a formula car. The challenge for the designer is not only to design a safe, strong hoop, but also deal with the peculiarities of drivers and driver seating positions. I'm learning.

The single biggest improvement in roll hoop safety would be to require all new cars to meet the "alternate design" standards for strength (the current FIA standards are now DOUBLE those). The FIA standards for both F3 and F1 now require a 70 mm (2.75 inch) clearance to the broomstick. I'd support that standard for all new cars.

Nathan

[jimh3063]

Gents:
In an effort to give this thread back to it's original purpose, I've started a thread on the subject that it seems to be veering off into. I hope that Steve, Nathan, Greg and any other people who can add valuable input will move the roll hoop and side panel protection topic to http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62052 give this thread back to it's intended purpose.

Jimmy

[problemchild]

It is really important that people write letters. If these changes get passed, we are in for years and years of turmoil, hybrid cars, and likely the demise of FC in SCCA club racing.

With dozens of new FFs seeing the track in the past few years, it is not the time to separate the classes as the proposed rules would do.

[jimh3063]

Greg:
IMHO " If these changes get passed, we are in for years and years of turmoil, hybrid cars, and likely the demise of FC in SCCA club racing." has almost already happened. Have you seen car counts. Maybe a change from the status quo may be what the class needs. Go to a club race and look at the FC car counts. From the two regions I run in, it looks like it's well on it's way and not because of hybrids. I think it may be a great scapegoat, but the problem lies a lot deeper than Hybrids. Our cars are time machines. No new kids want to hop in them. There is NO new blood in the SCCA in general sadly. NASA is growing like a weed. If we hope to truly save what I feel is quickly becoming a vintage class by another name, I think we really need to be honest about what the problems really are and not go on a witch hunt for a boogie man to divert the attention from what is really wrong with the class. Is there away to get the car count as well as demographics of the drivers in our class. I think you'll see we are already dying or at least becoming a vintage class.


Jimmy

[problemchild]

Greg:
IMHO " If these changes get passed, we are in for years and years of turmoil, hybrid cars, and likely the demise of FC in SCCA club racing." has almost already happened. Have you seen car counts. Maybe a change from the status quo may be what the class needs. Go to a club race and look at the FC car counts. From the two regions I run in, it looks like it's well on it's way and not because of hybrids. I think it may be a great scapegoat, but the problem lies a lot deeper than Hybrids. Our cars are time machines. No new kids want to hop in them. There is NO new blood in the SCCA in general sadly. NASA is growing like a weed. If we hope to truly save what I feel is quickly becoming a vintage class by another name, I think we really need to be honest about what the problems really are and not go on a witch hunt for a boogie man to divert the attention from what is really wrong with the class. Is there away to get the car count as well as demographics of the drivers in our class. I think you'll see we are already dying or at least becoming a vintage class.


Jimmy

I am more concerned with finding proper solutions in due time. FFs are selling. Lets keep the common market going and let the same venders and suppliers service our formula car community. The mix of new and traditional suppliers would indicate that both can be successful in the current marketplace.

These proposed changes are not member-driven changes prompted by the community demanding hybrid cars. These proposed changes appear to be a response from one member suing the rest of the members of SCCA.

We need to fix the problems in the right way for the right reasons!

[Daryl DeArman]

We need to fix the problems in the right way for the right reasons!

Exactly. Which is exactly why the 2013 rewrite was so stanky. We wouldn't have 200+ replies, 10,000 views and counting or this lawsuit if that 2013 rewrite wasn't pushed through.

[jimh3063]

Hiding our head in the sand until all we have are old Van Diemens and Citations may be good for the people who sell parts but not a whole lot more. Being an ostrich about the issue isn't going to make it go away. No I change that, it is EXACTLY what will make FC go away. I don't know the right answer but what has been going on isn't working. You don't need to be a car designer to see that you just need to look with the two eyes you were born with to the grid. Look at the the other F2000 series. That are going to dump a whole grid of VD's on the market at the end of the season. They are not dumping the chassis because it's a bad car, they are dumping it because in order to keep new blood coming in they need to think differently. If we want a vintage class, then just call it that and make a class for newer designed cars and be done. There is nothing wrong with that.

Again, I don't know what the right answer is, but what has been going on for years is what is slowly killing off the class.

Again look at SCCA car counts. That is what we are talking about here right.
Look at the runoffs car count for FC. That used to what I saw at an NE regional.

Use your eyes first, look at the facts. Do the research about the car counts. Look at the future. If this is the future of the class then it will be relegated to a dying class.

Look at who is successful. Look where the cars are going. The SCCA is not adding car count to FC but other series are. Look at how before you vote. What the SCCA has done in 2012 was a knee jerk reaction that caused a wave of crap that didn't need to happen. If the rules for at 2012 were good enough to 20 years, why weren't they good enough in 2013. Look at motivations, look at who drove the 2012 changes and look at why.

Look at the future of the class. Look at how to make it better. I'm not sure that killing off progress is the right way. I'm not a car designer, I'm a person who likes the class because for me, its as close as I'm going to get my old fat ass to F1. I'd like to go to an SCCA race and see it the way it used to be in FC. Are you all sure that killing off so called hybrids is the way to make that happen?

Maybe the rule change as proposed isn't the panacea it could be, but doing nothing is a sure way to watch a class die.

Jimmy

[stephen wilson]

There's no proof of your theory on declining car counts. The possible causes have been discussed many times, with no clear answer. I don't think NASA drivers are exactly cross-shopping Formula Car racing.

[jimh3063]

There is as much proof that my theory is correct as there is Greg's on hybrids.
I think my theory can actually be backed by reality. It is going on now; It s not what may happen it's what is happening NOW!!!!

Stephen, tell me your thoughts on why the car counts are so bad.
Just your opinion.

Jimmy

[alangbaker]

Look at the future of the class. Look at how to make it better. I'm not sure that killing off progress is the right way. I'm not a car designer, I'm a person who likes the class because for me, its as close as I'm going to get my old fat ass to F1. I'd like to go to an SCCA race and see it the way it used to be in FC. Are you all sure that killing off so called hybrids is the way to make that happen?

Maybe the rule change as proposed isn't the panacea it could be, but doing nothing is a sure way to watch a class die.

Your implication that this rule change is "doing something" beneficial is completely unsupported, but what it will do is make it more expensive for formula car manufacturers by allowing less commonality between their FF and FC offerings. They won't just eat those increased costs, they'll be passed along to us: the club racers.

How does making club racing formula cars more expensive make things "better"?

[Jnovak]

We need, must have, a common set of chassis construction rules for at least FF, FC and FB. This is critical to manufacturing costs for every manufacturer.

This does not need to stop innovative and creative designs from coming into the marketplace. The best car wins in the long haul IMO.

I am certain that this will be a point of MAJOR discussion with the FSRAC and the CRB.

MAKE certain that your positions are known so that valid decisions can be made.

Go to WWW.CRBSCCA.COM

[S Lathrop]

Hiding our head in the sand until all we have are old Van Diemens and Citations may be good for the people who sell parts but not a whole lot more. Being an ostrich about the issue isn't going to make it go away. No I change that, it is EXACTLY what will make FC go away. I don't know the right answer but what has been going on isn't working. You don't need to be a car designer to see that you just need to look with the two eyes you were born with to the grid. Look at the the other F2000 series. That are going to dump a whole grid of VD's on the market at the end of the season. They are not dumping the chassis because it's a bad car, they are dumping it because in order to keep new blood coming in they need to think differently. If we want a vintage class, then just call it that and make a class for newer designed cars and be done. There is nothing wrong with that.

Again, I don't know what the right answer is, but what has been going on for years is what is slowly killing off the class.

Again look at SCCA car counts. That is what we are talking about here right.
Look at the runoffs car count for FC. That used to what I saw at an NE regional.

Use your eyes first, look at the facts. Do the research about the car counts. Look at the future. If this is the future of the class then it will be relegated to a dying class.

Look at who is successful. Look where the cars are going. The SCCA is not adding car count to FC but other series are. Look at how before you vote. What the SCCA has done in 2012 was a knee jerk reaction that caused a wave of crap that didn't need to happen. If the rules for at 2012 were good enough to 20 years, why weren't they good enough in 2013. Look at motivations, look at who drove the 2012 changes and look at why.

Look at the future of the class. Look at how to make it better. I'm not sure that killing off progress is the right way. I'm not a car designer, I'm a person who likes the class because for me, its as close as I'm going to get my old fat ass to F1. I'd like to go to an SCCA race and see it the way it used to be in FC. Are you all sure that killing off so called hybrids is the way to make that happen?

Maybe the rule change as proposed isn't the panacea it could be, but doing nothing is a sure way to watch a class die.

Jimmy

I wish I could replay for you Paul Whites arguments as we started the constructors meetings that produced the 1986 construction rules. You are singing the same song.

One weekend last year, I counted the number of FC that were racing in SCCA sanctioned events in a 500 mile radius. It was close to 100 cars. I don't think that indicates a dying class. It indicates there are a lot of places to race FC cars.

What we really need is the Zetec engines in a F3 chassis. That makes way more sense than bastardizing FC as it is. At least to me it does. Oh, I forgot, we tried that.

[DaveW]

...Look at the the other F2000 series. That are going to dump a whole grid of VD's on the market at the end of the season. They are not dumping the chassis because it's a bad car, they are dumping it because in order to keep new blood coming in they need to think differently. ...
Jimmy

IMO, and (disclaimer) I have not done any research on this exact situation, probably the main reason they are changing cars is that the owners of the series get part of their profits/operating expenses from sponsorship related to the new car/engine, etc., and, maybe, a share of the new car purchase price and sale of spare parts. Now, there is nothing wrong with that approach, but these periodic variations are very expensive, and they come and go so fast that it makes my head spin. That, IMO, is not the way to sustain a class for amateur drivers like us who just don't have that kind of $.

[stephen wilson]

There is as much proof that my theory is correct as there is Greg's on hybrids.
I think my theory can actually be backed by reality. It is going on now; It s not what may happen it's what is happening NOW!!!!

Stephen, tell me your thoughts on why the car counts are so bad.
Just your opinion.

Jimmy

What I mean is there is no proof that car counts are waning due to antiquated technology, or that modern state-of-the-art racecars will bring people flocking to the class.

I'll try and post my thoughts later, no time now!

[DaveW]

...What we really need is the Zetec engines in a F3 chassis. That makes way more sense than bastardizing FC as it is. At least to me it does. Oh, I forgot, we tried that.

[jimh3063]

I can actually speak with knowledge on the whole F3 chassis thought. Your making the same argument that John LaRue tried to make when he called me when the original question was asked about carbon panels. One of the arguments he made is the class should go to an F3 like chassis like the Dallara F3 chassis John Baytos put a Zetec in. I explained that they are SOOOO VERY EXPENSIVE to fix. I can make that statement as I OWNED one. That would kill off the class quicker that it already is.

Can I get the place to look at the info on a 100 cars in one weekend. I was just at the Sebring Nationals and it was pitiful. I think there were 5 Fc's at the Sebring Winter Nationals. That race used to be huge for FC. The Northeast used to be a bastion for FC. Now it's a few usual suspects. I don't know the answer, but I do know an F3 Carbon tubbed car is not the answer. Ask anyone who has owned one how expensive the tubs are to fix.

I think that the hybrid is the next evolution of the tube frame formula car.

Just my thoughts. I would ask when you vote. Look a the big picture.

I'd also ask, if this isn't good for car counts and moving the class into the 21st century, then what is?
Jimmy

[Jnovak]

Jim, your comparison of the USF2000 series and Club racing does not make any sense. Yes they are turning over their complete car count for next year. Why is that? It is because they are making a ton of $$ on the cars and everything else.

It now costs a MINIMUM of $300k and can be close to $500k if you want to race with an indycar team and the owner of the series is making lots of $$. I know this for a fact as a friend of mine is a team owner.

I do not begrudge what they are doing, it is clearly intended to be a profit machine, good for them. Additionally how can you think that it benefits the competitors to have to purchase new cars every few years?

On another note, the USF2000 cars are not legal for club racing and will not go be going to club racing unless they get the Mazda engine approved along with other changes.

[jimh3063]

IMO, and (disclaimer) I have not done any research on this exact situation, probably the main reason they are changing cars is that the owners of the series get part of their profits/operating expenses from sponsorship related to the new car/engine, etc., and, maybe, a share of the new car purchase price and sale of spare parts. Now, there is nothing wrong with that approach, but these periodic variations are very expensive, and they come and go so fast that it makes my head spin. That, IMO, is not the way to sustain a class for amateur drivers like us who just don't have that kind of $.

Dave:
Both the existing motor and transmission are being moved over from this years VD/ELan to the new car. I was told be the series is that was to get kids excited to drive cars that are more like a modern Formula car. Although the Elan cars are new if you are talking about when they were built, they are really a 1999 Van Diemen.
The cars older cars will be sold as rollers.

Jimmy

[DaveW]

IMO, and (disclaimer) I have not done any research on this exact situation, probably the main reason they are changing cars is that the owners of the series get part of their profits/operating expenses from sponsorship related to the new car/engine, etc., and, maybe, a share of the new car purchase price and sale of spare parts. Now, there is nothing wrong with that approach, but these periodic variations are very expensive, and they come and go so fast that it makes my head spin. That, IMO, is not the way to sustain a class for amateur drivers like us who just don't have that kind of $.

Dave:
Both the existing motor and transmission are being moved over from this years VD/ELan to the new car. I was told be the series is that was to get kids excited to drive cars that are more like a modern Formula car. Although the Elan cars are new if you are talking about when they were built, they are really a 1999 Van Diemen.
The cars older cars will be sold as rollers.

Jimmy

OK, so I am somewhat in error. But, the new cars won't be cheap, and the same principles I stated in my post quoted above yours still apply. That just makes another variety of formula car to further divide up the available drivers.

[jimh3063]

OK, so I am somewhat in error. But, the new cars won't be cheap, and the same principles I stated in my post quoted above yours still apply. That just makes another variety of formula car to further divide up the available drivers.

Dave
I'm not arguing that it is dividing up the limited pool of drivers. I actually agree. I am just looking for things that make FC a better class. What has been going on for 20 years doesn't seem to be working. If that is the case, what is the answer.

Jimmy

[Steve Bamford]

Dave
I'm not arguing that it is dividing up the limited pool of drivers. I actually agree. I am just looking for things that make FC a better class. What has been going on for 20 years doesn't seem to be working. If that is the case, what is the answer.

Jimmy

Suing the SCCA which in turn drives up costs for each member is not the answer.

You talk about the northeast having poor turn outs yet we had 38-40 cars on the grid at Watkins Glen. How do you explain that Jim?

[DaveW]

Dave
I'm not arguing that it is dividing up the limited pool of drivers. I actually agree. I am just looking for things that make FC a better class. What has been going on for 20 years doesn't seem to be working. If that is the case, what is the answer.

Jimmy

This is not an answer to your question, but...

IMO, the reason most FC/F2000 drivers select one of these to drive is not to have the latest bling. It is to have a relatively fast, adjustable, car for the cost, and to be able to compete for a reasonable expenditure on a relatively-level playing field. Bringing in higher-tech, more-expensive cars, no matter how neat they may be, will not, IMO, increase the field sizes or improve the quality of the competition. It will just increase the cost.

[jimh3063]

Dave:
I agree increasing the cost is a bad thing and hurts car count. I will say, my Radon was the cost of a Elan complete if you compare apples to apples. How do I know this, I called them. The guy I called is actually in one of the threads on here. I don't know a lot about Citations but I would guess that they are similar when you actually equip the car apples to apples (i.e. same shocks, data, etc). Steve L could talk in more detail but I was told the Citation is a bitzer, albeit a very good bitzer. You need to include the time and effort of getting the parts and the labor to put it all together into the mix. If you use that gauge, the hybrid Radon may be a less expensive deal. The Firman I think is the cheapest of them all. I don't know a lot about them but seem them real cheap used.

For the record, I owned 2 VD's. The seating position hurts my back and wrists. I chose the Radon because it is a better fit for me ergonomically. I also was truly impressed by the workmanship of the car itself. Anyone who has been up close and person will tell you the quality of the build is phenomenal. I'm not saying it's the best car out there. I'm saying it's the best car for me.

As I said, I don't' know the answer, but I know what has been going on isn't it.

Jimmy

[DaveW]

...
I agree increasing the cost is a bad thing and hurts car count. I will say, my Radon was the cost of a Elan complete if you compare apples to apples. How do I know this, I called them. The guy I called is actually in one of the threads on here. I don't know a lot about Citations but I would guess that they are similar when you actually equip the car apples to apples (i.e. same shocks, data, etc). Steve L could talk in more detail but I was told the Citation is a bitzer, albeit a very good bitzer. You need to include the time and effort of getting the parts and the labor to put it all together into the mix. If you use that gauge, the hybrid Radon may be a less expensive deal. The Firman I think is the cheapest of them all. I don't know a lot about them but seem them real cheap used....
As I said, I don't' know the answer, but I know what has been going on isn't it.

Jimmy

I am certainly not a good benchmark on car costs. I bought my Citation 95SF "assembled" (it still needed a fair amount of work) just before the 1994 Runoffs. I traded in a Citation 88SF FC (which Citation already had a buyer for) and wound up paying, IIRC, just over $10K after the trade. If I had to purchase a brand new car now, I'd probably be priced out of the market. The fact that I've been able to run the same car (with multiple upgrades, of course) for 20 years is what has kept my racing reasonably affordable.

If I had bought any other make of FC at that time, I probably would have had to buy at least 2 new (at least to me) cars since then.

[jimh3063]

I am certainly not a good benchmark on car costs. I bought my Citation 95SF "assembled" (it still needed a fair amount of work) just before the 1994 Runoffs. I traded in a model 88SF Citation FC and wound up paying, IIRC, just over $10K after the trade. If I had to purchase a brand new car now, I'd probably be priced out of the market. The fact that I've been able to run the same car (with multiple upgrades, of course) for 20 years is what has kept my racing reasonably affordable.

If I had bought any other make of FC at that time, I probably would have had to buy at least 2 new (at least to me) cars since then.

Dave:
I have a lot of respect for you. I think you do well more because of the your skill and amount of time you've been at this than the car. You're lucky that you had things line up that you could get your car so cheap. I think those days are over though.

I think the going rate for a car with gears and spares is around 45 on the track. Maybe 35 with no gears and spares. That is for an older car. I can't see any car that is competitive being bought brand new and COMPLETE for much less than 90K done on the track with spares and gears. Just my opinion based on the research I did prior to buying my car.

Jimmy

[DaveW]

Dave:
I have a lot of respect for you. I think you do well more because of the your skill and amount of time you've been at this than the car. You're lucky that you had things line up that you could get your car so cheap. I think those days are over though.

I think the going rate for a car with gears and spares is around 45 on the track. Maybe 35 with no gears and spares. That is for an older car. I can't see any car that is competitive being bought brand new and COMPLETE for much less than 90K done on the track with spares and gears. Just my opinion based on the research I did prior to buying my car.

Jimmy

Thanks, Jimmy. The 70's, 80's, and 90's were, IMO, the golden period of SCCA racing.

I'm sure you are correct on the costs - the prices you mention are in line with what I've heard.

[reidhazelton]

A new car is $90k and we are wondering why participation has been in decline?!

[Jnovak]

A new car is $90k and we are wondering why participation has been in decline?!

Root cause IMO.

You can purchase a brand new TA 2 car from Howe for right at $80K. However this does not include paint and you do have to pick it up or pay for shipping.
BTW did I forget to mention, race ready.

I know because there is a BRAND NEW one right next to me in our shop and it is a nice piece with adjustable everything.

An FC car costs $90K? Not a plan to sell many cars IMO.

[Dennis McCarthy]

In 2008 we purchased what was supposed to be the last VD from England from Elan which they had badged as an Elan DP-08. Between the Zetec motor package, Penske shocks, Some spares including wing & wheel sets, no fancy data package (simple Aim XG log) no 5K gearbox massage or trick lightweight bodywork/bearings /plumbing we had all of 90K in the car. This number doesn't take any labor into account.

[Daryl DeArman]

Suing the SCCA which in turn drives up costs for each member is not the answer.

Agreed, so shouldn't the membership demand behaviour from the SCCA that will act as the best lawsuit repellent around?

[Steve Bamford]

Agreed, so shouldn't the membership demand behaviour from the SCCA that will act as the best lawsuit repellent around?

Not really sure exactly what you mean in your statement as I could view it a few different ways.

Not exactly sure what anyone can do to protect from a law suit 100%...I can sue anyone for anything! doesn't mean I will win but I can do it knowing it will cost them time & money regardless of the outcome. As we know often it is cheaper (sometimes smarter) to settle then to fully defend your position as well.