February 2014 Prelims

[Swift17]

....... a commercial, we'll be right back after a short break, don't touch that dial. "

[Purple Frog]

Under 11,000 views. No Apexspeed record. Just getting warmed up.



Doug needs to research what is the longest thread in history. We need quanitative and measurable goals.

[Wren]

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.

This.

The proposed rule change is the biggest change to FC rules, ever. Spec lines? Breaking away from FF construction? These are terrible ideas.

Write your letters.

www.crbscca.com

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.

I didn't follow the 2013 rules rewrite very much. I found it uninspiring and as much as I like to write letters, I couldn't even find a reason to write a letter in support or against them. There were parts of it I really liked and parts of it I didn't care for.

But, I am unaware of any evidence that the rules were pushed through. Did you call someone and find out how the letter count broke down?

I also don't think that keeping the 2012 rules would have avoided the lawsuit. It's pretty noteworthy that the proposed rules we are looking at now, as a result of the lawsuit, are not the 2012 rules, but some terrible bastardization of new rules, old rules, and bad ideas.

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

Car counts are bad in the SCCA, especially on the East Coast because the F2KCS guys came along and gave people a better experience. I doubt that overall SCCA and SCCA Pro entries are down in total.

There are manufacturers coming to FC, more than in a long time.

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.

That is the most positive thing to come from the 2013 rules. It would be much easier now for an FB manufacturer to introduce their chassis to FF/FC.

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

Great point. It has been really cool to see some of the new solutions that people have come up with on the new cars to the market.

I think that we will lose the whole concept of FC being a formula class and the best car/driver combo winning under this proposed rule set. We will descend into the arguing, complaining, and sandbagging that go along with spec lines and competition adjustments.

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.

IMHO, looking to the Road to Indy for solutions to what to do about amateur club racing is not going to be the right solution. I don't think they are the same customer base or that the organizations are solving the same problem.

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.

FC is not a vintage class. There are new cars, new parts, and new ideas coming to the class every year. There is really sophisticated stuff happening in FC, most people just aren't making press releases about it.

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

I think it is an inevitable result of open rules. Every time that I see people yearning for the days of open rules in big time classes, I know how expensive it would actually be. I think that the open rules classes are the only interesting ones, but I at least understand the desire for spec classes. From what I see, the ways to be competitive at the front of the small bore open wheel classes is:

1. Work insanely hard and spend a reasonable amount of money
2. Spend an outrageous amount of money

I don't know that there is a solution or that we should even be looking for one based on the number of 18 wheelers and toters that I see at the average SCCA race.

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

Anyone can sue for anything. You don't have to win to achieve the desired result. They are suing one of their vendors, someone who made money from them selling cars. Their sole claim is that he went to dinner one night at the 2010 runoffs. That could be the most expensive dinner ever.

I don't think that the SCCA should let lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits determine their rule book. Our rules aren't going to mean much if they are subject to change as long as someone has the resources to make it happen.

[Daryl DeArman]

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.

Anyone can sue for anything. You don't have to win to achieve the desired result.

Lots of courts frown on frivolous litigation or abuse of process. Often sanctions are imposed on the offending party. Attorneys who take on such cases not acting in good faith can be sanctioned as well. Time will tell if this matter is frivolous. I think not, you seem to imply that it is. We disagree again.

I don't think that the SCCA should let lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits determine their rule book. Our rules aren't going to mean much if they are subject to change as long as someone has the resources to make it happen.

For someone so familiar with the GCR you'd think you'd see all that lawyer repellent page after page. Don't apply for a position in their risk management department anytime soon

Do you realize "resources to make it happen" applies to political connections as much, or moreso than financial means? The way I see it the financial resources only entered the scene to counter the politics.

[Steve Bamford]

[QUOTE=Daryl DeArman;420585]Lots of courts frown on frivolous litigation or abuse of process. Often sanctions are imposed on the offending party. Attorneys who take on such cases not acting in good faith can be sanctioned as well. Time will tell if this matter is frivolous. I think not, you seem to imply that it is. We disagree again.



QUOTE]

Daryl,

Please show me where I imply this is frivolous? I simply stated anyone can sue anyone for anything. When it comes to the GCR you can pick specific parts to create a case that a lawyer would agree to saying there is something there to argue. Just look at what Nathan & Wren have written in this & other threads as an example. That doesn't make it right or a winning case, it creates a basis for an legal case.

To be clear I don't think this helps anyone at all involved in formula car racing.

[Swift17]

Lots of courts frown on frivolous litigation or abuse of process. Often sanctions are imposed on the offending party. Attorneys who take on such cases not acting in good faith can be sanctioned as well. Time will tell if this matter is frivolous. I think not, you seem to imply that it is. We disagree again.

Rule 11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name—... By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:


(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;


(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;


(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; ...


(c) Sanctions.
(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.


(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.


(3) On the Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b)....."

[problemchild]

[QUOTE=Bam Bam;420598]

Lots of courts frown on frivolous litigation or abuse of process. Often sanctions are imposed on the offending party. Attorneys who take on such cases not acting in good faith can be sanctioned as well. Time will tell if this matter is frivolous. I think not, you seem to imply that it is. We disagree again.



QUOTE]


To be clear I don't think this helps anyone at all involved in formula car racing.

When you sue your customers and your suppliers, it's not about trying to open the road ahead. It's burning the bridge behind you!

[jimh3063]

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?

Steve:
Are you speaking of the SCCA or the pro series tat the Glen. Are you speaking of the Pro series which a Pro race not a regional or national? I was referring to Regional and Nationals.
I will tell you if you asked a Regional or National guy to pay a grand for an entry fee, you would have an empty grid.

Jimmy

[Steve Bamford]

Steve:
Are you speaking of the SCCA or the pro series tat the Glen. Are you speaking of the Pro series which a Pro race not a regional or national? I was referring to Regional and Nationals.
I will tell you if you asked a Regional or National guy to pay a grand for an entry fee, you would have an empty grid.

Jimmy

I was speaking of the Pro Series, my point was there are plenty of FC cars that race, maybe just not in the SCCA Majors or Regionals...but there still is a lot of them that are still running out there. This was in a direct response to your statement saying things need to change in FC as it was a dying class, I see that as being far from the truth & believe the SCCA participation by FC has little if nothing to do with the current rule set. Even "so called" illegal cars run in FC in the SCCA, they have not been disallowed to run. I used "so called" so please don't jump all over my wording.

I need an SCCA license to get a pro level license so in turn the SCCA is benifiting (some what) off my Pro Series participation.

You may also argue that FF is a dying class as well as participation numbers have been low in the past years for the SCCA itself however I see more new FF's being ordered then any other formula class. Look at the amount of new teams this year with F1600 offerings in the Pro Series.

It is not the rule set that is, it is not kids want to drive different vehicles...it is the offering itself.

[GAC]

I have been reading about the cost of FC and the car counts on this thread. I was very surprised last year at the Runoffs at how few FCs turned up. I am guessing that the cost of being competitive is too high because of the Zetec, because there are a ton of the Pinto cars out there that are not being run. In any case, it looks to me that FB is replacing FC. The chassis are similar, FBs are quicker, and FBs cost less because their powertrain cost is less. If you are going to buy a car with the intention of being competitive, why buy a FC when you can buy a FB? In the long run, FC is going to be replaced by FB because of the cost. Maybe if you make it so a Pinto car is fully competitive with a Zetec, you might get the car counts back up, but the new car market is going to move toward FBs. It is how I see it.

[jimh3063]

Steve:
Look at the numbers of FC in the SCCA. The SCCA is where people start racing. If you are trying to get new talent in the SCCA you need to attract it. Almost all VD's running in FC are based on a car that was designed in 1999. Look how far Formula cars and designs have come since then. That is where I get my vintage comments from. Tell me why there is a Club FC class. Why because the cars are OLD. The only reason a 1999 VD is competitive is that there has been NO progress in design in the class. Just call it what is is. A bunch older guys driving around in older cars. That is what it is and there is nothing wrong with that. We are what we are. That becomes and issue if your trying to attract new talent/entries into the class in a class where in a few years these cars could be classified as classic if they were road cars.


Jimmy

[Steve Bamford]

I have been reading about the cost of FC and the car counts on this thread. I was very surprised last year at the Runoffs at how few FCs turned up. I am guessing that the cost of being competitive is too high because of the Zetec, because there are a ton of the Pinto cars out there that are not being run. In any case, it looks to me that FB is replacing FC. The chassis are similar, FBs are quicker, and FBs cost less because their powertrain cost is less. If you are going to buy a car with the intention of being competitive, why buy a FC when you can buy a FB? In the long run, FC is going to be replaced by FB because of the cost. Maybe if you make it so a Pinto car is fully competitive with a Zetec, you might get the car counts back up, but the new car market is going to move toward FBs. It is how I see it.

FB's have no where else to run, if they had a successful Pro Series you would likely have seen less of them at the Runoff's.

The Pro Series for FC is like the Runoff's every event.

I was one less car at the Runoff's as a week long event was too long for me. I believe the June Sprints had a similar number if not more FC's then the Runoffs.

[jimh3063]

I have been reading about the cost of FC and the car counts on this thread. I was very surprised last year at the Runoffs at how few FCs turned up. I am guessing that the cost of being competitive is too high because of the Zetec, because there are a ton of the Pinto cars out there that are not being run. In any case, it looks to me that FB is replacing FC. The chassis are similar, FBs are quicker, and FBs cost less because their powertrain cost is less. If you are going to buy a car with the intention of being competitive, why buy a FC when you can buy a FB? In the long run, FC is going to be replaced by FB because of the cost. Maybe if you make it so a Pinto car is fully competitive with a Zetec, you might get the car counts back up, but the new car market is going to move toward FBs. It is how I see it.

Ask how much the Citation FB that was sold at Sebring Nationals. I think you'll be shocked.
Jimmy

[Steve Bamford]

Steve:
Look at the numbers of FC in the SCCA. The SCCA is where people start racing. If you are trying to get new talent in the SCCA you need to attract it. Almost all VD's running in FC are based on a car that was designed in 1999. Look how far Formula cars and designs have come since then. That is where I get my vintage comments from. Tell me why there is a Club FC class. Why because the cars are OLD. The only reason a 1999 VD is competitive is that there has been NO progress in design in the class. Just call it what is is. A bunch older guys driving around in older cars. That is what it is and there is nothing wrong with that. We are what we are. That becomes and issue if your trying to attract new talent/entries into the class in a class where in a few years these cars could be classified as classic if they were road cars.


Jimmy

I see many kids go to USF2000 series without racing in SCCA from around the world. I have raced USF2000 & never heard one kid complain about the car itself, there were many trying to get on top level teams. The car itself is not the issue. Yes the tube is changing for next year, but this is a business move, this is not something that has been a detriment to series. You are making it out to be that to support your arguement which is incorrect.

People coming into the SCCA are not usually starting with hundreds of thousands of dollars of budgets & the change you seemingly are trying to say is needed will cost that. Please explain how you think this will help increase participation. I really don't understand the position you are taking as it doesn't make sense...well at least not to me.

What is wrong with an older car continuing to be competitive anyways? Newer cars have come along since 1999 & haven't seemed to be as competitive, they all worked under the same rule set, or sort of at least. Newer cars such as the RFR, Metrik, Radon, have been built since the design of the 99 VD & don't seem to be able to knock the car off. The Citation made huge gains last year after a ton of tesing...that is hard work & it paid off. What is wrong with any of that?

We are also not talking about street cars that millions are produced a year, apples to oranges for an arguement.

[jimh3063]

I see many kids go to USF2000 series without racing in SCCA from around the world. I have raced USF2000 & never heard one kid complain about the car itself, there were many trying to get on top level teams. The car itself is not the issue. Yes the tube is changing for next year, but this is a business move, this is not something that has been a detriment to series. You are making it out to be that to support your arguement which is incorrect.

People coming into the SCCA are not usually starting with hundreds of thousands of dollars of budgets & the change you seemingly trying say is need will cost that. Please explain how you think this will help increase participation. I really don't understand the position you are taking as it doesn't make sense...well at least not to me.

Steve:
Ask any FC owner with a Zetec, where was the car first run. I think you'll find the majority of them were originally Pro cars. They trickle down to the SCCA. If it were only a making money thing, why would USF2000 change the shifting module on the ld200 to a sequential while still keeping the rest of the car this year. If they are making you buy a totally new car, why wouldn't they just wait a year. They did it because they are trying to be more like modern formula cars by using newer technology. Our series is also looking at how to attract younger drivers. If you look at our series, there is a lot of older drivers.

I will also point out that F2KCS does not use the SCCA rules. They rules are based on them but are not the same.

Jimmy

[Steve Bamford]

Steve:
Ask any FC owner with a Zetec, where was the car first run. I think you'll find the majority of them were originally Pro cars. They trickle down to the SCCA. If it were only a making money thing, why would USF2000 change the shifting module on the ld200 to a sequential while still keeping the rest of the car this year. If they are making you buy a totally new car, why wouldn't they just wait a year. They did it because they are trying to be more like modern formula cars by using newer technology. Our series is also looking at how to attract younger drivers. If you look at our series, there is a lot of older drivers.

I will also point out that F2KCS does not use the SCCA rules. They rules are based on them but are not the same.

Jimmy

The engine package was & is different being a Mazda in the USF2000 Series. I believe the engine was detuned last year to help save the gear box. Thus the move to the sequential. Money talks in private business, this is basically a spec series & we all should know how that works. If you want to be in the Road to Indy you need to follow suit.

What you are proposing I don't really see attracting younger drivers & I actually see it driving away older drivers. Who wins in that situation?

We need to keep costs down as much as possible to keep current cars competitive so we don't lose other customers. Maintaining current business is much easier then finding all new customers.

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl,

Please show me where I imply this is frivolous? I simply stated anyone can sue anyone for anything.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your intent for stating "anyone can sue anyone for anything", if not to imply this suit was without merit, what was your intent?

[GAC]

Steve Lathrop, what is the cost a of a new Citation FB without engine, and what is the cost of a new Citation FC without engine? Could someone else post how much a Zetec or a F1000 motor costs?

There is nothing wrong with running older cars, but if there are two engines, and only one is competitive, anyone racing with hopes of winning will not run the uncompetitive engine. Since it appears that you have to have a Zetec to win, there are fewer competitive cars available, and the cost of the Zetec cars is a lot higher. So, you end up with fewer drivers racing them. If you want to change the rules for the class to help car counts, address the engine issue.

[jimh3063]

Then engine package was & is different being a Mazda in the USF2000 Series. I believe the engine was detuned last year to help save the gear box. Thus the move to the sequential. Money talks in private business, this is basically a spec series & we all should know how that works. If you want to be in the Road to Indy you need to follow suit.

What you are proposing I don't really see attracting younger drivers & I actually see it driving away older drivers. Who wins in that situation?

We need to keep costs down as much as possible to keep current cars competitive so we don't lose other customers. Maintaining current business is much easier then finding all new customers.

Steve:
i had a friend that ran in USF2000 and that is where I get a lot of my info on that series from. They mentioned nothing about the gearbox issues. They did mention that the series was trying to attract talent with a more modern car. I had one of the first Zetec engined VD's. It was made to run in FA and was 180hp and a very similar tq curve to the Mazda. That is the same rating the USF2000 guys run. I had no problems whatsoever and no one else I ran with did either. I'm not sure where you are getting your info from.

Let's agree to disagree.
Jimmy

[Steve Bamford]

Perhaps I misinterpreted your intent for stating "anyone can sue anyone for anything", if not to imply this suit was without merit, what was your intent?

You can go back & re read all of post 245. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough in that post.

[Daryl DeArman]

What is wrong with an older car continuing to be competitive anyways?

It really depends on your perspective. Am I trying to build and sell new cars? Do I want more manufacturer support in the class? Do I want 4-5 year old cars to be a dime a dozen because that helps entries? Do I own a 15 year old car that I wish to keep racing competitively because that's the only way I can afford it and justify the efforts?

I don't believe there is a right/wrong answer--it just depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

[Steve Bamford]

Steve:
i had a friend that ran in USF2000 and that is where I get a lot of my info on that series from. They mentioned nothing about the gearbox issues. They did mention that the series was trying to attract talent with a more modern car. I had one of the first Zetec engined VD's. It was made to run in FA and was 180hp and a very similar tq curve to the Mazda. That is the same rating the USF2000 guys run. I had no problems whatsoever and no one else I ran with did either. I'm not sure where you are getting your info from.

Let's agree to disagree.
Jimmy

I am getting my info from directly running the series last year.

I agree to disagree but you haven't addressed many of my questions unfortunatley.

[jimh3063]

Steve Lathrop, what is the cost a of a new Citation FB without engine, and what is the cost of a new Citation FC without engine? Could someone else post how much a Zetec or a F1000 motor costs?

There is nothing wrong with running older cars, but if there are two engines, and only one is competitive, anyone racing with hopes of winning will not run the uncompetitive engine. Since it appears that you have to have a Zetec to win, there are fewer competitive cars available, and the cost of the Zetec cars is a lot higher. So, you end up with fewer drivers racing them. If you want to change the rules for the class to help car counts, address the engine issue.

This is a rough estimate but
A Complete Zetec engine costs $16-18K or more now for a blueprinted.
An LD200 minimum of $8k and some are spending upwards of $12k with all the blueprinting.
That's $20-30k just for the drivetrain.
That is an estimate. I can dig up my bills from when I build the Radon of you want more detail.

I will say I bought a new gearbox and had a lot of work done to it. I thought it was a lot of money for what it was but it is night and day to my old box in my VD. It shifts like buttttaaa thanks to Williams.

Jimmy

[jimh3063]

I am getting my info from directly running the series last year.

I agree to disagree but you haven't addressed many of my questions unfortunatley.

Steve:
Which questions?
Jimmy

[Dennis Valet]

USF made the switch to sequential gearboxes because the perception is that any car without sequential gearbox is not suitable for the ladder. It's perceived as old and irrelevant. It's easier to convince parents to plop down $400,000 for a season with sequential gearboxes than it is to convince them to do the same thing on a 15 year old car with an H pattern.

USF2000 is in the position now where they don't need to beg for entries anymore. They can afford to force teams to upgrade to improve the perception and legitimacy of the series. Had they done this a few years ago everyone would have laughed in their face.

I think one of the benefits of moving to the sequential gearbox and adding more horsepower is the fact that the class begins to distance itself from FF. The jump from FF to FC is not tremendous in terms of laptimes. There is a big jump in terms of driving technique and ability to relay technical information, but the lap times are so close that it's hard to convince people that their kids should do FF before moving up to the USF2000 cars and/or FC.

[Steve Bamford]

It really depends on your perspective. Am I trying to build and sell new cars? Do I want more manufacturer support in the class? Do I want 4-5 year old cars to be a dime a dozen because that helps entries? Do I own a 15 year old car that I wish to keep racing competitively because that's the only way I can afford it and justify the efforts?

I don't believe there is a right/wrong answer--it just depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

I agree that there are many ways to look at it.

From my point of view the way you go out & sell more cars is if you are the manufacture/dealer you put a shoe in your car & you out & win championships. I bought Remy's FC after he won the series, why because I simply wanted the driver to be the weak link, not the car. I bought my Mygales believing they had a great record in Europe & should do very well in North America. I looked at building a Citation over the winter as Tim did a great job winning the series with it.

Not everyone can do that so that is why it is great that we can keep a 1999 design at the pointy end of the grid. If people didn't believe they had a competitive chance then we would lose some entrants.

[nulrich]

I've talked to a fair number of people interested in buying new FC and FF cars. I may be getting a skewed sample, but here's what I hear from them. Feel free to correct me on any details if you have better information.

FC chassis ready to race all cost about the same, at least from Citation, Elan/Van Diemen, and Radon. I don't know about the Spectrum, I haven't seen a chassis price listed. I don't think you can buy a Metrik unless you are a customer of Paul's. The RFRs were definitely a lot cheaper.

There seems to be parity in F2000 right now. The winning teams are the ones that work the hardest, test often and intelligently, and have the best drivers and engineers. Had Tim and Eric applied their hard work and talents to a Van Diemen or Radon they still would have won the F2000 championship in 2013.

Zetec engine prices seem to range from a low of $15k to a high above $20k. Again, the engine builders can correct me if I'm in error, but that's what customers have told me.

LD200 gearboxes can be had for as little as $7k and can range up above $12k with all the bells and whistles and trick parts.

Obviously used cars, engines, and gearboxes will be a lot cheaper. The variation in engines, gearboxes, dampers and data makes total car cost quite variable, more so than chassis cost.

I don't know what a full up FB drivetrain costs, but for a real comparison you'd have to look at the engine/gearbox, driveline, differential and shifter.

Prospective customers are always most interested in performance potential, but after that tend to fixate on certain things depending on their mindset, age, and personality. Some are very very concerned with safety. Many of these come from sedan racing and perceive formula cars to be exciting but dangerous (which is likely untrue).

Many of the young kids are very put off by the H-pattern gearbox. I realize many of them have never shifted a conventional manual gearbox. They all want paddle shifters.

Most prospective customers want a car that looks and feels like a Formula 1 car as much as possible. That's why the later Van Diemens have a raised nose even though it's likely not as good aerodynamically with the low front bulkhead.

Many new Club racers are migrating to FB because those cars have the look, feel and sound of Formula 1 cars. If there was a healthy FB pro series I think many current FC and F2000 competitors would go there, at which point I would predict a major aero and engine war and skyrocketing costs.

I'm not a fan of spec racing, but if you can build many identical cars costs go way down. Whether the resultant savings go to reduced chassis costs or into profit for the series is another issue.

Nathan

[Steve Bamford]

Steve:
Which questions?
Jimmy

here is what I had in post 254

"People coming into the SCCA are not usually starting with hundreds of thousands of dollars of budgets & the change you seemingly are trying to say is needed will cost that. Please explain how you think this will help increase participation. I really don't understand the position you are taking as it doesn't make sense...well at least not to me."

[S Lathrop]

I will add a little bit to some of the ideas in Nathan's post.

FC is a good class at a good price point. Yes new cars are very expensive but you can race at many price points. The car is relative easy to drive, maybe easier to drive fast than a FF.

I engineered a lot of FC drivers who moved from FC to Indy lights and they were generally better prepared than the drivers coming from the spec cars.

I think that FB will be the next best step from FC to higher level cars such as Indy lights. These cars are very fast, they demand good driving skills and to finish a race you have to take care of your equipment. They are way better preparation for Indy Lights than FA or any other class out there.

For this discussion, FC is just fine as it is. The real strength of the class is the hard core masters and the fact that you don't have to spend $100,000 every few years to stay competitive.

[eospeed]

[QUOTE=jimh3063;420637]This is a rough estimate but
A Complete Zetec engine costs $16-18K or more now for a blueprinted.


Jim an optimized zetec built to the current rules is $14,500 add $554.00 for an engine driven alternator kit.




Erik

[jimh3063]

here is what I had in post 254

"People coming into the SCCA are not usually starting with hundreds of thousands of dollars of budgets & the change you seemingly are trying to say is needed will cost that. Please explain how you think this will help increase participation. I really don't understand the position you are taking as it doesn't make sense...well at least not to me."

Steve:
As I had mentioned in previous posts. The majority of the Zetecs that run in the SCCA are hand-me-downs from the Pro Series. Very few people who race just SCCA and have a Zetec, actually did the conversation themselves. They bought a Zetec done. That Zetec in most cases was once a Pro car. That allows people without a pro budget to get newer technology at a cheaper price if they can wait a bit. In the beginning all the newer more expensive cars will be only in the Pro series. As time goes on and IF newer technology is allowed to be introduced, that newer technology will trickle down to the SCCA in a few years. I feel that it would attract people to the class at a price they can afford and a car that keeps their interest and is modern. If I may ask, what was Club Continental introduced?

This whole paradigm is used throughout the business world.

Out if curiosity, how much did you pay for Remy's car? That is a trick piece of kit and I'm sure was not cheap.
Jimmy

[jimh3063]

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.

Dennis:
I had spoken to the Elan guy and after taking his numbers and adding in all the required parts, came up with a little more than that. I don't have the skill set to assemble a race car so I added in the labor. You're a lot more handy than I.

Is your cold that Rocco gave you gone?
Jimmy

[jimh3063]

[QUOTE=eospeed;420649]

This is a rough estimate but
A Complete Zetec engine costs $16-18K or more now for a blueprinted.


Jim an optimized zetec built to the current rules is $14,500 add $554.00 for an engine driven alternator kit.




Erik

Erik:
Does that include the donor motor?
Does that include the fitting kit ?
Jimmy

[eospeed]

[QUOTE=jimh3063;420653]

Erik:
Does that include the donor motor?
Does that include the fitting kit ?
Jimmy

It dose include a donor engine and a Van D fitting kit IE motor mounts.

[jimh3063]

I will add a little bit to some of the ideas in Nathan's post.

FC is a good class at a good price point. Yes new cars are very expensive but you can race at many price points. The car is relative easy to drive, maybe easier to drive fast than a FF.

I engineered a lot of FC drivers who moved from FC to Indy lights and they were generally better prepared than the drivers coming from the spec cars.

I think that FB will be the next best step from FC to higher level cars such as Indy lights. These cars are very fast, they demand good driving skills and to finish a race you have to take care of your equipment. They are way better preparation for Indy Lights than FA or any other class out there.

For this discussion, FC is just fine as it is. The real strength of the class is the hard core masters and the fact that you don't have to spend $100,000 every few years to stay competitive.

Steve:
I agree with the statement, the strength of the class is the hard core masters. Every time Dave W has gone by me I say WTF. That old guy is kicking my ass (Dave no offense on the old guy comment but I think you are a lot older than me). If you take that a step further, that is a depleting pool over time. As much as I respect and admire Dave W. He will hang up his helmet eventually. There are a lot of others in the class that will be doing the same as well for health, money or other reasons. Where and how are the newer people going to be attracted to the class? Notice I didn't say say younger I said newer. Racing is like life, there is attrition.

I think adding newer technology to the class, will assist in attracting those newer drivers. I also think the trickle down of the newer tech more expensive cars to the SCCA from the Pro series will help in that.

I owned one of the first Zetecs. I ran it for a year. I used it, rented it and got offered a lot bigger bag O cash than I paid for it so I sold it. I went sports racing for almost a decade. I came back to FC because DSR and CSR turned into Spec Stohr with the exception of 20K motors. The first Pro race I went to was great. It was like old home week. I looked around and saw all the familiar faces from 2003 and it was great. The more I looked around the more I noticed it was like a time machine as far as the cars went. There were no real advancements in the cars AT ALL. I will repeat, if that's the way everyone wants it to be a vintage class, then so be it, make it Club FC part 2. Lock the rules in and that's it. But just call it what it is. A vintage class. Again, there is nothing wrong with that.


Just my opinion but I'm sticking to it.
Jimmy

[jimh3063]

[QUOTE=eospeed;420654]

It dose include a donor engine and a Van D fitting kit IE motor mounts.

Erik:
I'll need to dig up my quotes. I will ask that you provide the group a quote for motor you're talking about. Since this is a spec motor, the quote would be the same for everyone. We all can use it as a reference.

Thanks
Jimmy

[eospeed]

[QUOTE=jimh3063;420658]

Erik:
I'll need to dig up my quotes. I will ask that you provide the group a quote for motor you're talking about. Since this is a spec motor, the quote would be the same for everyone. We all can use it as a reference.

Thanks
Jimmy

It simple for a Van D it is going to be $15,054 for engine, intake,V stacks,thermo housing, engine loom , all sensors , clutch and engine mount for a Van D.

Your Radon engine had some other parts and steps to take so it fit in your car that is always more $

[nulrich]

I don't want to get into an argument about rules or their interpretation, but I do believe the current 2013 rules endanger the parity we have in FC/F2000 right now. I'm sure the loopholes that were created were unintentional, but if someone like Scott Tucker came to me right now and asked me to design a one-off FC car under the current rules, and budget and safety weren't an issue, here's what I'd do. I'm guessing Steve and perhaps other designers have seen these same openings, but fortunately no one has exploited them yet.

I'd find a driver about the size of Fabio Orsolon, say 5'6" and 140 lbs. I'd design a full tube frame to fit tightly around him. It would likely look much like a Citation frame with a much smaller cockpit (Tim wouldn't fit). The cockpit opening would be the absolute minimum required by the rules and then I'd fill a lot of it with a removable head surround.

I'd then make thick composite panels that ran the length of the cockpit and bolt them to the frame with the 8 mm U-bolts allowed under the current FIA mounting method. I figure by using the provision that allows mounting to diagonal braces I could get at least 20 U-bolts, or the equivalent of 40 fasteners of 8 mm diameter. As Steve has pointed out, point loading is an issue with composites, so the large backing plate and 8 mm bolts allowed would make that the equivalent of about 64 of the 1/4" fasteners allowed otherwise.

I'd trust Wren's interpretation that since FIA mounting is explicitly allowed I don't have to abide by the contradicting rule that requires the composite panels not to "serve any structural purpose" and I'd argue the chassis performs "to the same level or degree" as when they are removed.

I'd increase the wheelbase by about 8" and move the front bulkhead back as far as possible (which is pretty damn far for a driver like Fabio). That would allow my flat bottom to start about 12" aft of the rear of the front tires. (The old rule and still the rule in FB, I believe, is the flat bottom is referenced to the front tires, not an arbitrary point on the chassis.)

Since there's no longer a requirement that the floorpan be flat, I'd raise the nose very high, likely as high as a 2012 F1 car, where the top of the chassis from nose back to cockpit is essentially flat. There would be a big step in the floor just forward of the driver's butt. (The old rule requires an angled floorpan like the Radon to get a raised nose, but you still need to direct air around the angled floor, and the higher you raise it, the higher the feet get, which severely limits the benefit.)

I'd use radiators with Marston cores, run a high coolant pressure, and cut the sidepod inlets and radiator area by about 40%.

I'd hire Rob Perry to do the aero design. I'll let him comment if he wants, but moving the flat bottom so far back, allowing an extreme raised nose, and the reduced cooling inlets present huge opportunities.

I'd design and make a custom billet oil pan and a billet or fabricated valve cover that structurally tie the chassis to the bell housing.

I'd have custom steel aero tubing made with something like a 5:1 aspect ratio and make all my wishbones and pushrods or pullrods from it.

I'd put tungsten ballast wherever I needed it based on testing.

I'd make all my bodywork and wings from Kevlar cloth and unidirectional fiber (at 2-3 times the cost of carbon or fiberglass).

There are a few others, but I can't show all my cards.

Nathan

[jimh3063]

[QUOTE=eospeed;420668]

It simple for a Van D it is going to be $15,054 for engine, intake,V stacks,thermo housing, engine loom , all sensors , clutch and engine mount for a Van D.

Your Radon engine had some other parts and steps to take so it fit in your car that is always more $

What other parts. I would have thought it was less because I got the loom from Nathan.

So everyone who had the blueprinted engine pays the same. 15,054 minus loom?
They are spec motors so I am guessing that is true.

Jimmy

[eospeed]

[QUOTE=jimh3063;420673][QUOTE=eospeed;420668]


What other parts. I would have thought it was less because I got the loom from Nathan.

So everyone who had the blueprinted engine pays the same. 15,054 minus loom?
They are spec motors so I am guessing that is true.

That price includes the engine loom not the chassis loom.Also the alternator is optional so it could be $554.00 less then you could take out another $1500 if you did not want it optimized per the rules. So it could be as low as $13000.00
The Radon engines need some extra machining steps on the front covers and maybe a few other steps. I would think Nathan knows.Everyone pays the same price yes. except the Radon it is the only car that needs extra steps to assemble the engine.


Just to compare for fun prices would be to win not just drive.

new pinto= $14,500.00
new kent= $15,500.00
new Fv1200=$11,500
2.3atl= $35,000-to the moon
1600 toy atl=$35,000.00-to whatever