New formula and prototype classes

[Mike B]

I have a strong opinion on this (for obvious reasons). Curious to hear other's thoughts.

https://www.scca.com/downloads/48076...es-11/download

Not sure why FM is now classed in two places...

[Bob Wright]

My first thought is FM is about to go the way of FB. The participation numbers would support that. In some way it makes some sense as it has become clear the CRB will never let the USF2000 car in FC; the F4 car doesn’t fit anywhere (it’s currently in FA) and the three of them turn approximately the same lap times, although in completely different ways. At least they’re trying....

[holmberg]

I don't know what motivated them to create a new formula class at this time, nor do I have an opinion about combining these particular cars (FM, F4, and USF2000),

but I do believe it is inevitable that eventually all the formula cars will be combined into a few tiers, similar to the prototype cars (P1, P2).

So I would see:

1. a top formula tier with the fastest winged cars (FA, F1000, F3, etc),
2. a middle formula tier with the rest of the winged cars (FC, F4, FM, USF2000, maybe even FE2),
3. and a lower formula tier with non-winged cars (FF, F500, F600, FST).
4. Maybe FV can continue on its own.

I would then see power and weight adjustments, and spec-line cars, within these tiers to bring them to approximately equal.

Other car designs could then join a tier. For example, an MC-engined non-winged formula car.

The way participation has been going in the formula classes, I think they'll have to do this at some point in the not-so-distant future.

Maybe this is a first step toward a tier concept.


Greg

[holmberg]

The new Prototype X class really confuses me. Exactly how many Daytona, IMSA, and Le Mans prototypes are going to show up to an SCCA race? How many people have that kind of money?

It seems like a product without a market. Supply with no demand.

Rather than an even faster prototype class, I'd like to see a slower, no-downforce prototype class. Somewhere around FF speed.


Greg

[B Farnham]

The new Prototype X class really confuses me. Exactly how many Daytona, IMSA, and Le Mans prototypes are going to show up to an SCCA race? How many people have that kind of money?

It seems like a product without a market. Supply with no demand.

Rather than an even faster prototype class, I'd like to see a slower, no-downforce prototype class. Somewhere around FF speed.


Greg

You mean like an SRF?

[holmberg]

You mean like an SRF?

SRF3 is quite a bit slower than FF.

Also, I'd like to see a slower prototype class in which anyone could build a car to certain parameters. I'm thinking around 950 lbs with driver. SRF3 is 1560 lbs with driver.


Greg

[E1pix]

SRF3 is a resounding success.

A new Sports Racing class built to parameters sounds like DSR from the '80s, or one of FF speeds sounds like S2000.

Building a new class that would be close to SRF in speed would compromise one of the only non-tintop classes that's actually working -- while it seems nearly all others are in various stages of implosion.

[Teuobk]

The new Prototype X class really confuses me. Exactly how many Daytona, IMSA, and Le Mans prototypes are going to show up to an SCCA race? How many people have that kind of money?

It's a bit of a head-scratcher. Presumably they wouldn't have created it absent demand for it? Dunno. Maybe there's somebody with a recent DPi or LMP2 that's looking to clobber the outright lap record on their local track and has the wallet for it? (and hopefully the skills)

Who else allows cars like that to run at the amateur level? SVRA maybe? I know that the "Masters Endurance Legends" series focuses on them, but even their recent support race for the United States GP at COTA a couple weeks ago wasn't exactly overflowing with prototype entries.

All that being said, if somebody showed up at a track I was at and offered me a lap or two driving an LMP2 car, I certainly wouldn't say no!

Jeff

[problemchild]

The Fx class is just the latest action by SCCA leadership to destabilize and eliminate existing OW classes and replace them with F4. Even with all the press, hype, and hundreds of $K invested by SCCA, that class has massive issues that have not been fixed after half a decade. It needs more bully tactics to support any appearance of viability. The new class "discusson" also distracts membership from how much of their the money was spent on F4/F3.

[problemchild]

I do not understand the Px initiative. Unlike F3/F4, the LMP3 class is quite viable, and the likely destination for wealthy club racers that like fast purpose-built race cars over the next decade ....... but this Px class does not appear aimed at that market at all.

[holmberg]

I do not understand the Px initiative. Unlike F3/F4, the LMP3 class is quite viable, and the likely destination for wealthy club racers that like fast purpose-built race cars over the next decade ....... but this Px class does not appear aimed at that market at all.

I'm don't understand what you're saying. PX includes "Le Mans Prototype 3 (2017-Present)". How is that not targeting the LMP3 market?

What I would like to see is more evidence of enough "wealthy club racers". How many people with enough money and the desire to run an LMP3 are there in the US?

Greg

[problemchild]

I'm don't understand what you're saying. PX includes "Le Mans Prototype 3 (2017-Present)". How is that not targeting the LMP3 market?

What I would like to see more evidence of is enough "wealthy club racers". How many people with enough money and the desire to run an LMP3 are there in the US?

Greg

I missed that the way they had it listed. Why would they use the term DPi but not LMP3? If they are targeting LMP3, why include all the other stuff, It is kind of like grouping F1 cars with F2000 cars.

[problemchild]

What I would like to see is more evidence of enough "wealthy club racers". How many people with enough money and the desire to run an LMP3 are there in the US?

Greg

Have you been to a SuperTour event? While not alot of those racers are on Apexspeed, a significant portion of the paddock is spending $100K-500K per year on their racing activities. Unfortunately much of that is about driving fast cars, rather than the competition. I expect getting these people steered into the same few classes is like herding cats, so perhaps this Px initiative is an attempt to herd them into one big catchall class. It is beyond my pay-grade

[reidhazelton]

As I recall, the rationale behind this was forward looking. Currently, cars that trickle down to club racing are spec cars. There is no reason to doubt this current state will also be the future.The question then is what to do with a formula-based class structure when all the new cars are not built to a formula but a spec. Additionally, most of the current spec pro cars are within a few seconds of one another, or can be mapped to get there. F4/F3/USF2000(Elan and Tattus)/ProMazda (again, both versions)/FLites. The issue then is what do you do? Do you make spec cars "un-spec" and fold them into existing formula classes? Do you just make a slew of spec lines in formula-based classes? When I was involved, there was no easy answer for how to make the future spec cars play nice with SCCA's formula structure.

This FX class seems like a start to solving the problem. I assume it is not the end of it, but it's a start.

I don't think there is any easy answer, but the spec cars will be another compounding affect that will hurt SCCA. It's going to be a large shift to the current state, and we've seen how that tends to go with SCCA's highly change-resistant customer base. I think what occured with FB and FA will be foretelling of what is to come if we are to not have 25 formula classes. Many classes will have to be merged. FE/FM/FC, FF/F5, FB/FA/PFM for example.

Sub note. It's really unfortunate that SCCA still refuses to communicate the rationale behind these decisions. A year ago I wrote a letter requesting better communication and laid out one way to do so. Crickets. Had this decision been explained (pretty easy thing to do) it would likely have met less push back. Generally, their lack of communication and horrible rollouts scuttle any chance at success they may have had.

[racerdad2]

Said in jest... maybe... Let's all hang our current open wheel cars on the wall in the garage or living room and buy FE2's !!! Very fast ! One large run group at each outing. Give us TWO races each day. You want competition ! This would be it !!!

[Bardahl77]

I've watched SCCA racing for over 40 years, and like a lot of sanctioning bodies, they seem to play around way too much in trying to "jump start" classes. Some new stuff works, others don't, and often it becomes very confusing.

I recall when there was Formula A, B, C and Formula Ford & Vee. Seemed pretty straightforward. The FSV came in, FA went out and B became Atlantic, the little engines went away and FC evolved. Then F500/F600/F5, F1000, FSCCA/FE, Formula Mazda, Pro Mazda. Some classes that start inexpensive get out of hand, like Sport Renault -> Spec Racer -> SRF -> SRF3 and FFs going to the Honda engine.

We have a good entry area in F5 and FV. Where you go from there gets kinda of wonky - FF -> FC -> FA? Where does F1000 fall? FE? F3? F4? Sheesh.

I think what we need is a modern FV - like a tube chassis based on something like Miata components and Subaru 2.0 drivetrains. Something people can build from a kit & donor that has built in limitations but allows for some creativity. Hell, take a page from banger racing and put a $20K claimer on cars to discourage Scott Tucker types.

Personally, I'd like to see the top tier be FA again - except with sealed factory crate engines from GM, Ford and Chrysler. Kinda like ASA engines with about 500 hp, get that V8 noise again.

Anyway, more stuff like Formula Mazda and less like Shelby Can-Ams!

[problemchild]

Some classes that start inexpensive get out of hand, like Sport Renault -> Spec Racer -> SRF -> SRF3 and FFs going to the Honda engine.

I need to offer this correction. Over any kind of timeline, the Honda engine in FF is the best bargain in motorsport. Your portrayal is just myth. I spend more on one set of new FF tires than I spend maintaining 5 FIt engines over the season. It is the only reason that I can be in the racehire business. If anything is out of hand in our class, it is the prices of wheels, gears, shocks, which much like the FIT engine are front-loaded expenses. Although the spec tire has provided better racing at reduced expense, it is still is the most expensive part of racing FF, not unlike many classes.

As an outsider, I would not have grouped SRF3 in that context either. If your baseline is comparing to 30 year old cars running in their original configuration, then I don't think that is a fair baseline. Many people would consider your "getting out of hand" as "evolving with the times". Although SRF3 may have done a better job overall than FF, FF has allowed people with the 30 year old, original configuration cars to remain very competitive with the cars with the newer engines, which are less expensive to operate.

[Bardahl77]

I guess my take is based on the additional cost that installing the later Ford and Honda engines, when I see a kit for a DB-1 running $16K it just seems so much more to plump for. If the new sealed engine can remain competitive much longer before a rebuild, I guess it's a better deal, but the initial cost of entry is rather dear for classes that are supposed to be relatively affordable.

[Rick Kirchner]

The getting out of hand vs evolving with the times argument....

Well, if the SCCA had more of a NASCAR mentality they would let guys win with their nifty new gadget and then make it illegal afterwards. "well, you got us on that one - just this time". Nascar isn't full of lawyers like the SCCA....

We keep talking about getting the cost of racing down and when it comes to the cars (and repairing battle damage) the technology creep is a killer. From Armstrongs and Monroes to Konis, then Fox/Penske to a $10,000 set of ohlins - shocks that are worth as much as the rest of the car.

Wheels? We used to have steel wheels - then centerline disc wheels - then came the mag centers with spun rims and finally the Oz/Techno stuff all more $$$$.

integral hubs and axles (VW TY3 as well as triumph give way to aluminum uprights, separate bearings, aluminum hats, then floating rotors. We go from an assembly with less than a dozen pieces to one with several times as many.

Want to save money? Keep it simple, reduce the parts count, and aggressively update the rules to prevent creep.

Now we can all argue if the philosophy is about good racing or building a better mousetrap.

[Bardahl77]

What I think is fun are classes where the rules are essentially a box like a Pinewood Derby, where creativity and skill make the difference. One of my favorites is the British 750 MC class, where the rules are pretty simple - metal chassis, no composites, either front engined if you use a longitudinal layout or mid-engined if you use a transverse FWD drivetrain driving the rear. The current engine is the Fiat FIRE, similar to but a bit smaller than the 1.4 Multiair in the Fiat 500. Chrysler is building these things in the US now, so there would be a good source for them. And the variety in the cars is amazing, like DSR back in the pre-bike motor days, or H-mods.

Aside: I love old H-Mod cars - Crosleys, Saabs, Mercurys, Panhards, NSUs. Hey, let's put full bodies and some shocks on F5 cars and use 1.0 non-turbo Fiesta 3-cylinder engines and trans!

[John LaRue]

The Fx class is just the latest action by SCCA leadership to destabilize and eliminate existing OW classes and replace them with F4. Even with all the press, hype, and hundreds of $K invested by SCCA, that class has massive issues that have not been fixed after half a decade. It needs more bully tactics to support any appearance of viability. The new class "discussion" also distracts membership from how much of their the money was spent on F4/F3.

Actually Greg it is just the opposite, or so intended. As Reid points out in his later post there is pressure to find homes for cars that do not fit the existing rules of our long established formula classes; F4 is one car among the many. I predict that this will become more prevalent rather than less in the years to come. There are essentially four choices with respect to these cars a) reject them; b) insert them into an existing formula class because of their "like performance" while maintaining their existing specifications (what we refer to as "spec lining") c) modify the existing formula to incorporate those cars; or d) create a new class.

The BOD has an inclusive mentality so option "a" isn't going to be popular with them or the competitors. Option "b" has been utilized and FA has essentially become a dumping ground for these cars. That practice hasn't hurt FA simply because the true FA car out performs most everything else. Option "c" has to my knowledge only been employed once in FA when the 016 was admitted. That decision, in my personal opinion, drove away many of the 014, 040 and 041 cars although it can be argued they had already begun to disappear due to the extreme engine rebuild and operating costs. Option "d" is usually a non-starter as these cars simply don't exist in sufficient numbers to justify their own class on a nationwide basis.

The FX concept is thought to create a place for the various spec open wheel cars, both existing and those to come down the pipeline in the future. It will also give a place for existing SCCA OW classes to run if and when their numbers become unsustainable. It is hoped that by taking pressure off of an excellent core offering of existing formula classes they will then have a chance to grow. SCCA is one of the last places for this type of competition/development in OW racing and I think it should be showcased. Perhaps the demand for this type of racing is dying; if so then the FX concept will likely be the framework for future OW racing.

After having sat through hundreds of hours of meetings where data is analyzed and letters are reviewed in an attempt to balance performance in the sedan and prototype classes I assure you this is not a simple or enjoyable task. If and when we do deviate from the core "formula type" rule sets to those which involve spec lines (where cars are classed based upon performance, not compliance with the rule set) you will see a never ending political battle for superiority. This my friends is the norm in the sedan and prototype classes - go read the letters! Tony Ave said it best a few years back - those rule sets encourage the competitors to lobby for their performance rather than earning it through better engineering and execution. You must further keep in mind that balancing performance on a formula car is much more difficult than a sedan. First, the specs on a sedan are pretty much fixed. They don't offer the aero and suspension tuning options that a formula car does which can enhance or mask the true performance potential of a given car. Further, it is relatively easy to add weight to a sedan to achieve the desired BOP given that it was constructed to haul passengers.

I encourage all of our formula car competitors to get out and run their cars in 2020. Many of the classes are close to or below the 4.0 rule which initially means that they will not receive an automatic invitation to Runoffs; it can ultimately mean they will be removed from the GCR. FRP offers us an excellent place to run and an unmatched experience for the time and money. Now FRP participation can be used towards a Runoffs invitation. Be reminded however that the FRP entries do not count toward SCCA's class totals. I routinely remind everyone on the BOD and CRB to not ignore those entries even though they are not included in the totals - they are after all still SCCA entries even if through PRO. I hope we will see more and more cross-over as was common years ago which will serve both SCCA and FRP in the long run.

As for the money being spent on F3/F4 the CRB and advisory committees are far removed from those decisions and data. FWIW Greg's numbers are well below those I have heard through the grapevine. All of that is controlled by SCCA Ventures. Call your respective BOD members and inquire.

I hope this helps to give some insight on the rationale behind the FX concept.

Regards,

John

[RussMcB]

I keep thinking to myself, FX is like FS, but, since FS is limited to Regional Only, FX will allow those cars to run in nationals (or whatever it's called now).

[BLS]

I keep thinking to myself, FX is like FS, but, since FS is limited to Regional Only, FX will allow those cars to run in nationals (or whatever it's called now).

I was wondering the same thing. Why not just make FS a national class? Why add another new class?

[RussMcB]

I went back and re-read it. They do mention FS (see last sentence):

Formula X (FX)

A. Purpose and Philosophy - The Formula X class is intended for winged, open-wheel formula cars of modest power andperformance (sub FB/F1000/FA). The class is to include cars which a) are built in significant numbers, but not sufficient enough topopulate their own class; and b) may not be constructed to existing class formulas within the GCR. The class may also include carswhich have been built to a recognized SCCA formula but are not running in sufficient numbers to warrant their own class. Theclass is not intended for unique one-off or prototype open wheel cars which are not widely available; those should be classed inFS.

So, (for instance), my ex-Formula Atlantic, motorcycle powered car wouldn't fit in the new FX class.

[Mike B]

I still don't understand why FM is listed under FX, when it still has its own class.

[Garey Guzman]

I still don't understand why FM is listed under FX, when it still has its own class.

Is it possible they mean Pro FM, not "classic"?

[Matt Clark]

I think the PX class might surprise you. There are a lot of older prototypes out there in HSR, SVRA, etc. They just ran their Classic Daytona24 this past weekend, and there was a pretty wild mix of them. The problem with the vintage/historic groups, is that you aren't really allowed to "race" most of the time. This new SCCA class would allow you to take an slightly dated car & run it hard in a real race.
I would LOVE to have enough cash to pick up an older GTP car & play with it like that. Plus, as spectators, we might have a chance to see the older cars in true anger again.

[Mike B]

I think the PX class might surprise you. There are a lot of older prototypes out there in HSR, SVRA, etc. They just ran their Classic Daytona24 this past weekend, and there was a pretty wild mix of them. The problem with the vintage/historic groups, is that you aren't really allowed to "race" most of the time. This new SCCA class would allow you to take an slightly dated car & run it hard in a real race.
I would LOVE to have enough cash to pick up an older GTP car & play with it like that. Plus, as spectators, we might have a chance to see the older cars in true anger again.

Next step will be to add F5000 and old Indy Lites to FX.

I wouldn't be surprised to see current LMP cars using a club weekend as a test day before a pro event, unless IMSA rules prevent it.

[reidhazelton]

Next step will be to add F5000 and old Indy Lites to FX.

I wouldn't be surprised to see current LMP cars using a club weekend as a test day before a pro event, unless IMSA rules prevent it.

The rule says the cars have to be sub FA/FB speeds. So I doubt an 800hp vintage car would fly in that class as "modest power".

[Thomas Copeland]

Actually Greg it is just the opposite, or so intended. As Reid points out in his later post there is pressure to find homes for cars that do not fit the existing rules of our long established formula classes; F4 is one car among the many. I predict that this will become more prevalent rather than less in the years to come. There are essentially four choices with respect to these cars a) reject them; b) insert them into an existing formula class because of their "like performance" while maintaining their existing specifications (what we refer to as "spec lining") c) modify the existing formula to incorporate those cars; or d) create a new class.

The BOD has an inclusive mentality so option "a" isn't going to be popular with them or the competitors. Option "b" has been utilized and FA has essentially become a dumping ground for these cars. That practice hasn't hurt FA simply because the true FA car out performs most everything else. Option "c" has to my knowledge only been employed once in FA when the 016 was admitted. That decision, in my personal opinion, drove away many of the 014, 040 and 041 cars although it can be argued they had already begun to disappear due to the extreme engine rebuild and operating costs. Option "d" is usually a non-starter as these cars simply don't exist in sufficient numbers to justify their own class on a nationwide basis.

The FX concept is thought to create a place for the various spec open wheel cars, both existing and those to come down the pipeline in the future. It will also give a place for existing SCCA OW classes to run if and when their numbers become unsustainable. It is hoped that by taking pressure off of an excellent core offering of existing formula classes they will then have a chance to grow. SCCA is one of the last places for this type of competition/development in OW racing and I think it should be showcased. Perhaps the demand for this type of racing is dying; if so then the FX concept will likely be the framework for future OW racing.

After having sat through hundreds of hours of meetings where data is analyzed and letters are reviewed in an attempt to balance performance in the sedan and prototype classes I assure you this is not a simple or enjoyable task. If and when we do deviate from the core "formula type" rule sets to those which involve spec lines (where cars are classed based upon performance, not compliance with the rule set) you will see a never ending political battle for superiority. This my friends is the norm in the sedan and prototype classes - go read the letters! Tony Ave said it best a few years back - those rule sets encourage the competitors to lobby for their performance rather than earning it through better engineering and execution. You must further keep in mind that balancing performance on a formula car is much more difficult than a sedan. First, the specs on a sedan are pretty much fixed. They don't offer the aero and suspension tuning options that a formula car does which can enhance or mask the true performance potential of a given car. Further, it is relatively easy to add weight to a sedan to achieve the desired BOP given that it was constructed to haul passengers.

I encourage all of our formula car competitors to get out and run their cars in 2020. Many of the classes are close to or below the 4.0 rule which initially means that they will not receive an automatic invitation to Runoffs; it can ultimately mean they will be removed from the GCR. FRP offers us an excellent place to run and an unmatched experience for the time and money. Now FRP participation can be used towards a Runoffs invitation. Be reminded however that the FRP entries do not count toward SCCA's class totals. I routinely remind everyone on the BOD and CRB to not ignore those entries even though they are not included in the totals - they are after all still SCCA entries even if through PRO. I hope we will see more and more cross-over as was common years ago which will serve both SCCA and FRP in the long run.

As for the money being spent on F3/F4 the CRB and advisory committees are far removed from those decisions and data. FWIW Greg's numbers are well below those I have heard through the grapevine. All of that is controlled by SCCA Ventures. Call your respective BOD members and inquire.

I hope this helps to give some insight on the rationale behind the FX concept.

Regards,

John

There are several of us in F1000 looking to run SCCA in 2020. I see a lot of discussion about equality/parity in classes between different types of cars. This will not be the case in F1000 vs. FA. When will that be addressed?

[John LaRue]

There are several of us in F1000 looking to run SCCA in 2020. I see a lot of discussion about equality/parity in classes between different types of cars. This will not be the case in F1000 vs. FA. When will that be addressed?

There are several letters on that topic currently before the FSRAC; they have a call on Wednesday and will likely make a recommendation to the CRB thereafter. My question is simply would opening up the engine do more harm than good? (Will it increase the car count?)

I'd suggest that you and anyone who has an interest in this topic get a letter into the system ASAP outlining the pros/cons of this proposal.

Regards,

John

[Thomas Copeland]

There are several letters on that topic currently before the FSRAC; they have a call on Wednesday and will likely make a recommendation to the CRB thereafter. My question is simply would opening up the engine do more harm than good? (Will it increase the car count?)

I'd suggest that you and anyone who has an interest in this topic get a letter into the system ASAP outlining the pros/cons of this proposal.

Regards,

John

I did.

I hope I wasn't being too selfish but in summary I asked in the interest of cost and safety they dial down the FA's to F1000 level. Going the other way is too destabilizing.

[bill gillespie]

Mr Copeland,
I’ll go out on limb with a say , and predict that NO current FA
racer will support dialing back their car to FB performance .
We already have an SIR on the 016 and just got another 30 lb added .
The F3 has 303 turbo hp,.. so , how you gonna dial it back.. it already has
10-14 mph advantage on the straight, track dependent.
How about FA1 and FA2 ? Seems to work well for the P1 and P2 guys...
I sent that suggestion to the CRB , and was told , thank you, now go back and color.
regards,
Bill

[Daryl DeArman]

As to dialing back FA or dialing up F1000 cars, why not let the number of entries for 2020 decide which route to use going forward? If traditional FA cars have more entries you dial the F1000 cars up so you don't disenfranchise the masses and if the F1000 car owners decide to take their marbles and play elsewhere you haven't lost as much. If F1000 cars have more total entries you dial back the FA cars.

[problemchild]

FA1 and FA2 is so much better than FA and FB. Perhaps we could even run them in the same race group.

[bill gillespie]

FA1 and FA2 is so much better than FA and FB. Perhaps we could even run them in the same race group.

I was thinking beyond FA vs FB..there are many older FA’s that don’t run now because they aren’t competitive.... Rt4, Rt40, Rt41, Db4, etc.... FB would be very competitive with those cars, as is. Just a spitball, but snark noted...

[problemchild]

but snark noted...

Any snark was directed at the whole mess. Both FA and FB suffer from the same basic problem. Each community cannot find a common agenda. It seems like every FA driver has a different agenda. There are about half a dozen different agendas among the FB crowd. When a community has no common agenda ...... then SCCA starts trying to herd cats. And we know that the SCCA politicians have their own agendas.

There are similar issues with F5 and F6. And don't get started about FC. Of course USF2000 cars should be racing in FC. But John is afraid of BOP so he fights it at every level. There are groups of Pinto guys who are so spiteful, they will kill the class before they will run with FRP or USF2000 cars. It is amazing that the class has survived so long and is actually healthy (by modern terms) in a few areas. If the community actually cared enough to work with each other, it could return to glory. Good luck with that!

So we are urged to "write a letter" but then 6 letters get written, each with a different agenda, so SCCA makes some crazy decision, based on the one guy in the SCCA group who cares, and pushed his agenda to his buddies.

I will say it again. If cars are racing in the same group .... STOP trying to break up or combine classes that will still be running in that same race group. That process accomplishes absolutely nothing but disenfranchising current racers!

[Matt Clark]

I think what we need is a modern FV - like a tube chassis based on something like Miata components and Subaru 2.0 drivetrains. Something people can build from a kit & donor that has built in limitations but allows for some creativity. Hell, take a page from banger racing and put a $20K claimer on cars to discourage Scott Tucker types.

I don't think you want to get into Miata parts on a formula car, when a beam still works fine... and why go to a Subaru engine, when you could still use a VW inline 4? I mean, why not keep just up with the times like the rest of the world has with FV?
And I don't like claim rules, but a $20k formula car that needs almost zero maintenance, uses inexpensive (but quality) components & limited tech sure sounds like a hot ticket to me....

The F3 has 303 turbo hp,.. so , how you gonna dial it back..

actually, that is the easiest thing of all the issues.... just dial the boost down for them. turbos make it the simplest way to do it.

I was thinking beyond FA vs FB..there are many older FA’s that don’t run now because they aren’t competitive.... Rt4, Rt40, Rt41, Db4, etc.... FB would be very competitive with those cars, as is. Just a spitball, but snark noted...

I know it's not ideal, but what about basically giving up on balancing the "modern" FA cars, and focus more on these older ones?
As mentioned, the FA guys are never gonna accept a large restriction to F1000 levels, and the newer chassis & engines certainly would need way too much to balance down... but the 80s FA cars would make more sense if they are a lot cheaper & don't require a team to run. Plus, there should be a lot more of them hiding in garages.
Leave the name FB in place for the naming structure, use the preferred F1000 rules, BoP the older cars & some of the other classes SCCA is trying to address.

[bill gillespie]

Matt.....I didnt mean SCCA/HPD couldnt dial back the F3 by turning down the boost.....I meant they wouldn’t...

[Thomas Copeland]

Mr Copeland,
I’ll go out on limb with a say , and predict that NO current FA
racer will support dialing back their car to FB performance .
We already have an SIR on the 016 and just got another 30 lb added .
The F3 has 303 turbo hp,.. so , how you gonna dial it back.. it already has
10-14 mph advantage on the straight, track dependent.
How about FA1 and FA2 ? Seems to work well for the P1 and P2 guys...
I sent that suggestion to the CRB , and was told , thank you, now go back and color.
regards,
Bill

Yes, I'm well aware there will be push back from those in FA. I'd be pushing back too. But if there is going to be real consolidation of classes then there has to be parity, which means probably everyone has to take some hit somewhere. We've taken ours. They took our class away.

Maybe there's a meeting in the middle place somewhere. But the idea that the onus should be strictly on the the F1000 cars to meet parity is just plain wrong. The SCCA put us in this situation, now they need to fix it, somehow.

I like the idea of FA1 and FA2. If that's workable. But then again, if they are going to do that why not just give us our class back?