Just don't get it!

problemchild
Posts: 901
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Just don't get it!

Post by problemchild »

Lots of complaining in various places about run groups, etc. All valid.

Reduced FV car counts and resulting race groups are the 2nd biggest threat to FV, the biggest, of course, being the FV competitors themselves. Unless you live in one of 5-6 areas in North America, where FV has some degree of car counts, you will race in Formula Alphabet. Not safe, not fun. Why would anybody buy tires every (or every other) weekend, then monster mannies, wheel fairings, or whatever trick of the month, so they can go out and be the slowest cars in the run group?

We needed to cut costs drastically 25 yrs ago. We still had a chance 10 years ago. The only slim hope now is to find a very durable control tire and limit any additional technologies, rule creep, or interpretative rule-stretching. If FVs are going to be slow, they damn well need to be the cheapest formula class out there.

I also suggest that FV racers start looking for vintage racing or other racing organizations that may be able to provide better race group potential going forward. FV and SCCA are on life support. I expect SCCA will survive in a reinvented form, but not much room for expensive slow formula cars.

Or .... we can sit around, bitch about the run groups, thank Brian for protecting us from change, celebrate selfish cheating champions as heros, because we're the best class, lasted 50 years, still number ?, blah, blah, blah ....
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
MarkP-2
Posts: 50
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 9:37 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by MarkP-2 »

Greg:

I sypathize with your statement on costs, but don't feel that Mike V. or Brian should be criticized for doing what Mark Donahue once
said was the "Unfair Advantadge". They're both within the rules that curently stand or stood at the time and the rules makers are
the one's who should be criticized, if anyone!
In regards to costs, I think it's nuts to pay $750.00 per a set of tires that only has a useful life of 6-7 heat cycles when used at Nationals.
The vintage racers, Canadians and many other vee drivers throughout the world have spec tires or those that last the entire season, so why
can't we arrange for it? The Monster Mani's, wheel fairings and so on are one time fixed expenses, however expensive, don't cost the driver
thousands of dollars per year as the tires have become, and they're not going to become any cheaper now that Goodyear has exited the stage.
If we can at least get the tire costs reduced at this point and continue to work on other possible cost containments, not eliminations because
that won't happen, then maybe we can get back to large amount of vee's again on the track. They're more vee's sitting in garage's currently than
on the track and efforts need to be made to get them back racing. I know there are several respected national drivers who would favor a "spec
tire" such as used in Canada, so maybe we need a little push from them to get the ball rolling. We all enjoy this class, no matter if we race at
Nationals or Regionals, so lets make some progress on another 50 years of FV racing.

Mark
92' Protoform P-1
RickyBobby
Posts: 61
Joined: January 25th, 2008, 8:08 am

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by RickyBobby »

I, for one, would be in favor of referring to the Canadian, European, Australian vehicle spec. Would it ever be possible for the USA to transition to their vehicle specs? Seems to work great for them, and unless someone out there knows the specifics, it appears that those countries enjoy reasonably sized fields of cars. We're not looking to change or abandon the Vee formula as the base of the class, but to bring more interest to a dwindling US market.

Bob
MarkP-2
Posts: 50
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 9:37 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by MarkP-2 »

Bob,

I think tires would be enough of a change for the moment, but maybe a timeline for future possibilities could be made if parts became hard to acquire?

Mark
Bill_Bonow
Posts: 301
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:53 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by Bill_Bonow »

RickyBobby wrote:I, for one, would be in favor of referring to the Canadian, European, Australian vehicle spec. Would it ever be possible for the USA to transition to their vehicle specs?
As Greg correctly put it, that time passed about 10 years ago. The exception being the Canadian standard. For the most part, it is a US FV with the 14" wheel/tire package. It seems to work great for them and I personally think tires would be the best solution. However, the tire topic "floats" as good as a screen door submarine.

As for the rest of the world, FV has evolved into a class very similar to one that has been in the SCCA GCR for the past 5 years.

Transitioning has been discuss many times over the past decade. It goes nowhere and as it was put a few years ago at the Runoffs FV meeting, "FV will stay as is, period".
Bill Bonow
" I love Formula Vees, they're delicious!"
MarkP-2
Posts: 50
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 9:37 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by MarkP-2 »

Bill:

Thanks for the positive post! I guess if you had that attitude 10 years ago, the FST class would never have been created.


Mark
satterley_sr
Posts: 237
Joined: June 27th, 2006, 3:27 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by satterley_sr »

We have a "spec" tire. Hoosier R45/55. Can we go to something like the hard compound used on (dare I say it?) FST?

Seems like a simple change.

Dave
Bill_Bonow
Posts: 301
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:53 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by Bill_Bonow »

MarkP-2 wrote: I guess if you had that attitude 10 years ago, the FST class would never have been created.
Mark,

I don't understand your post at all.

"I" had nothing to do with the creation. It was the effort of a group of people. Attitude has no bearing on FV (or any other class status).
Bill Bonow
" I love Formula Vees, they're delicious!"
MarkP-2
Posts: 50
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 9:37 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by MarkP-2 »

Positive or negative attitudes have a large effect on a persons actions Bill.

Mark
brian
Posts: 1348
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:31 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by brian »

I saw a recent study that showed the regional cost per entry rose $49 in the past decade. Of that $49, $45 were track costs. Track costs essentially are track rentals. To me, that says none of us, the club included, have much control over the lion's share of increases. In 2013, through the efforts of Topeka staff and a membership insurance committee, we successfully renegotiated and structured our insurance program saving a lot of money for the regions. But track costs and things like ambulances, which are regulated by federal standards, continue to grow.
The above post is for reference only and your results may vary. This post is not intended to reflect the views or opinions of SCCA and should not be considered an analysis or opinion of the rules written in the GCR.
tiagosantos
Posts: 389
Joined: June 20th, 2010, 12:10 am

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by tiagosantos »

satterley_sr wrote:We have a "spec" tire. Hoosier R45/55. Can we go to something like the hard compound used on (dare I say it?) FST?

Seems like a simple change.

Dave
It does seem simple, but it isn't, at least to a fairly large percentage of people. Some people won't accept slowing down our cars in any way, others don't want to change their setups, others say hard tires have a bigger "first cycle" advantage.

Anyway, the difference between SCCA FV and FV elsewhere in the world, is how the club is structured. Major changes in SCCA are put up for public discussion, where there's too much of a split, not to mention strong opinions on either side of any argument. Elsewhere in the world, someone or a group of people tends to be in charge of determining the rules and they set things up however they see fit, people have to adapt. Have you ever heard of FIA asking for member input on a rule change? :D

Not saying one way is better than the other.. But obviously having things up for discussion with the members, makes it a lot easier to keep the status quo if the discussion is fairly divided.
satterley_sr
Posts: 237
Joined: June 27th, 2006, 3:27 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by satterley_sr »

So do you support a harder compound or not?
CitationFV21
Posts: 272
Joined: July 6th, 2006, 10:49 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by CitationFV21 »

If we are back to one tire manufacturer, then they should suspend development which should reduce the cost of the tires. (I can dream, right?)

Hoosier has said they will do a run of hard compound tires (say R60) if enough people commit (I.e. money)

The last time I spoke to them (a while back) the minimum order was 30 fronts and 30 rears - may be higher now.

But that is only 15 cars worth - so for example, if every driver in the NERRC or NARRC series committed to a set for 2014, you could probably have no problem.

Note: I notice Hoosier now lists R55A and R60A as equal - the purpose is to find a compound that has more heat cycles and is more consistent - not necessarily the hardest compound possible.

They should be able to tell us what they can supply and if it will meet our needs.

ChrisZ
SR Racing
Posts: 1205
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 1:58 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by SR Racing »

If anyone is serious about this, (I suspect not.) You should go to one of the Hoosier Dealers and signup for a group buy. (saving you a few more dollars) The dealer can interface to Hoosier for you and make the buy commitment. They (Hoosier) are not going to build any other compound tire without knowing they can sell them. A few calls from drivers isn't going to accomplish anything. If you can get a decent consensus/commitment, I would participate. (Or you can contact the dealer of your choice.)
tiagosantos
Posts: 389
Joined: June 20th, 2010, 12:10 am

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by tiagosantos »

satterley_sr wrote:So do you support a harder compound or not?
Yes..
jstoezel
Posts: 207
Joined: September 19th, 2010, 6:21 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by jstoezel »

Bill_Bonow wrote:The exception being the Canadian standard. For the most part, it is a US FV with the 14" wheel/tire package.
As you said it is a US FV for the most part, but it is unfair to describe it as mostly an SCCA FV on a different set of tires. In fact the tire difference has a huge impact on the class. Tires aside, there has been a couple other subtle important modifications over the past 10 years that have greatly helped the Canadian series.

Both CASC and WCMA have higher minimum weight of 1075lbs. While the minimum weight was initially increased from the SCCA 1025lbs to 1050 because of the difference in tires, at least one (if not both) associations increased it even further based on member request.
As well, both CASC and WCMA have tighter rules that prevent the use of blown intake manifolds. Recently WCMA adopted rules to allow the use of removable head bolsters, which brings FV cars closer to current widely used safety standards.

Indeed these rules (including the different tire spec) might appears as irrelevant and/or as slight variations to the SCCA FV, but they have been effective at keeping the Canadian series affordable. More than that I think it shows a will from the Canadian FV associations to keep the series up to date. This I believe is important to help build confidence in its members (and those who may want to jump onboard) that FV will still be there say 10 years from now. I wouldn't involve as much time and money if I knew the class was going to be left to die. I might not even had joined altogether.

This past week-end I tested 2 sets of 4 tires. One was 1 season old (5 race week-ends or 30 races or 45 sessions (!!!) on a very rough and abrasive track), one was brand new. In the dry there was absolutely no difference in terms of grip (data logger verified). In fact I liked the old set of tire better, it could have been a placebo effect induced by the euphoria of lapping on such cheap rubber. 4 of these tires cost less than 500CAD, and that's after it's shipped from the US to Canada, with the inclusion of border fees. They are certainly less grippy than slick tires but all the racers end up with the same disadvantage, for many, many sessions.

I had to replace my intake manifold as the one I ran last year was cracked. I bought one from Bill Vallis that is CASC/WCMA legal for $400 (they all seem to be in this price range) and still ran the fastest lap of the week-end.

In defense of the Canadian series and as opposed to the SCCA FV (and offspring classes) rules, I think these have shown great ways to maintain relative low costs while leveling the field, while promising some future (or at least continuity) and without the need to overhaul the whole class.
Last edited by jstoezel on July 1st, 2013, 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jean-Sebastien Stoezel
WCMA FV #0
davidb
Posts: 1
Joined: June 12th, 2013, 12:37 am

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by davidb »

I couldn't agree more with Greg's analysis. The truth, as I see it, is that Vees are slow, odd looking, ill handling, expensive and utterly devoid of any claim to glamor, but they were at one time, really inexpensive racing--we need to bring that back! There's a reason for the recent popularity of Chump Car, Lemons etc.

FV is essentially dead in Cal Club,a mega region in the 2nd largest city in the country, with one, or often no, Vees entered at a typical regional. A much ballyhooed 50th anniversary event brought out 6 cars. This is in a region where 60 car fields were routine "back in the day."

Over the last few years there have been attempts to control tire costs in Cal Club, i.e. mandate American Racer tires, but nothing seems to catch on. The same goes for trying to copy the vintage approach: a class for fans and generators, another for conventional rear suspensions and on and on...tweeks aren't effective; this class needs a much more comprehensive approach.

And tire costs are only part of the problem, big buck carb/manifold combinations contribute to the "I can't compete with those guys, so why go out just to be humiliated in a spec class." It always seemed to me that the rules for this class have been dictated by the 10 or 15 guys, Greg's "cheater heros," who's only interest is in a Runoffs podium,

I am working on a proposal to establish F1200 as a "regional only" class in Cal Club (there are 12 or so such classes now: RS sedan, spec Rx7, Club Ford etc.) But need more info re. manifolds. and other details; wheel availability, tires etc.

I anticipate big time pushback.
satterley_sr
Posts: 237
Joined: June 27th, 2006, 3:27 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by satterley_sr »

satterley_sr wrote:So do you support a harder compound or not?


Yes..

Great you & me we just need about 60 others.

Dave
tiagosantos
Posts: 389
Joined: June 20th, 2010, 12:10 am

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by tiagosantos »

What I was trying to say before is that apparently it isn't that simple. We've had surveys before where the majority was still ignored or disregarded. It's just the way things work, nothing seems to change unless there's very nearly 100% support.
hardingfv32-1
Posts: 1014
Joined: December 1st, 2006, 8:01 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by hardingfv32-1 »

davidb wrote:.... It always seemed to me that the rules for this class have been dictated by the 10 or 15 guys, Greg's "cheater heros," who's only interest is in a Runoffs podium,

I am working on a proposal to establish F1200 as a "regional only" class in Cal Club (there are 12 or so such classes now: RS sedan, spec Rx7, Club Ford etc.) But need more info re. manifolds. and other details; wheel availability, tires etc.

I anticipate big time pushback.
Who is "davidb"?

The rules are biased to those spending the money to be competitive.

Anyone active in FV would have all the info needed to make the hard choices. Why would anyone pushback at a Cal Club proposal? There is no one in FV Regional racing. Who do you expect a F1200 class to appeal too? How many inactive FV drivers have you talked to?

Brian
jpetillo
Posts: 759
Joined: August 26th, 2006, 2:54 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by jpetillo »

tiagosantos wrote:What I was trying to say before is that apparently it isn't that simple. We've had surveys before where the majority was still ignored or disregarded. It's just the way things work, nothing seems to change unless there's very nearly 100% support.
Actually, I think it's the opposite. The surveys often only capture input from those that respond, which tend to be a minority, like those who frequent the forums. The numbers who post here are very small, and represent a minority - a vocal minority, but still a minority. When the CRB asks for member input, I would guess that they get responses from all the same survey responders, but they also get responses from the folks who are not on the forums. I don't think it's the organization or process that's the problem, it's the situation. I think the majority is not convinced. If that's the case, then the majority is not being disregarded or ignored.

I'm just trying to add another perspective. That's it's not that simple like you said, I could not agree more.
CitationFV21
Posts: 272
Joined: July 6th, 2006, 10:49 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by CitationFV21 »

jpetillo wrote: Actually, I think it's the opposite. The surveys often only capture input from those that respond, which tend to be a minority, like those who frequent the forums. The numbers who post here are very small, and represent a minority - a vocal minority, but still a minority.
Most forums or groups require you to join. This is in a sense pull technology - only the people who are connected are included. We need push technology - we need to find the drivers out there who are not racing - we need to call them, write them, e-mail them - we have to make contact with them and ask them - not wait until they respond.

The difference between a website and the newsletter I used to do is that I had a database of subscribers and I had to contact them every year - I learned what car they had, where they were racing etc. I knew who responded to my surveys and who did not - so I could chase people down.

The SCCA used to be a social group - people went to monthly meetings, car shows, races (even as spectators). Now we are isolated, hiding behind the computer firewall. Now this is a problem with all groups in this high tech world we live in. But the group that solves the problem will succeed.

John, here is a challenge for the NE FV Group (http://www.nefv.org) - they have a good start - they need to find someone to be the list keeper (not me right now :) ) and we need to find everyone who is not racing. Each member probably knows someone, and then we need to form a group (here I will volunteer) to call these people and find out why they are not racing. Maybe the problem is tires, maybe it is entry fees, maybe it is parts, we don't know until we ask.

ChrisZ

BTW - getting new drivers in is a separate issue for another thread.
BLS
Posts: 441
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 7:52 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by BLS »

"The truth, as I see it, is that Vees are..."

"slow": With respect to what? Vee's run lap times in the same basic range as small bore production cars, SRF, etc.

"odd looking": Your opinion, I happen to think many of the cars are beautiful

"ill handling": ???, compared with what? Maybe compared to winged cars. FV's routinely hit 1.5-1.7 G's with our Porsche 356 derived suspension, perhaps the best handling cars without wings

"expensive": For a racecar, it is still one of the least expensive classes and does not appear to cost anymore than it did in the '70's**

"devoid of any claim to glamor": If you wish to race for glamour, it's going to require a lot of money and skill. I'm not sure any SCCA class could be considered "glamorous"

** While I have yet to get back on the track, my purchase of and rebuilding a car, plus the costs of racing (I have created a budget) a FV do not appear to be any more than when I raced before
Barry
Old Zink FV,
'87 Citation
tiagosantos
Posts: 389
Joined: June 20th, 2010, 12:10 am

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by tiagosantos »

jpetillo wrote:
tiagosantos wrote:What I was trying to say before is that apparently it isn't that simple. We've had surveys before where the majority was still ignored or disregarded. It's just the way things work, nothing seems to change unless there's very nearly 100% support.
Actually, I think it's the opposite. The surveys often only capture input from those that respond, which tend to be a minority, like those who frequent the forums. The numbers who post here are very small, and represent a minority - a vocal minority, but still a minority. When the CRB asks for member input, I would guess that they get responses from all the same survey responders, but they also get responses from the folks who are not on the forums. I don't think it's the organization or process that's the problem, it's the situation. I think the majority is not convinced. If that's the case, then the majority is not being disregarded or ignored.

I'm just trying to add another perspective. That's it's not that simple like you said, I could not agree more.
I admittedly have a terrible memory and I may very well be remembering things selectively.. My recollection from the spec tire survey was that 200 or so people replied to the survey, 70% were in favour of a spec tire. Again, I could be wrong, but that indicates a lot more people replied to the survey than participate here in the forums. By an order of magnitude..

It also seems like more people replied to the survey than ever send in member input to fast track questions. Either way, the reply to the survey from SCCA, if I remember correctly, was along the lines of "nope."
smsazzy
Posts: 703
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 5:56 pm

Re: Just don't get it!

Post by smsazzy »

Here are the actual results:

Overall Responses:

Would you support a spec tire?
195: Yes (77%)
55: No (22%)
2: Blank (1%)

What would be your preferred tire option if a spec tire were adopted?
175: Run a specifically designed slick (70%)
33: Change to a wider tire, similar to FST (13%)
20: Run a treaded hard tire, similar to a vintage tire (8%)
15: Move to a DOT Tire (6%)
9: Blank (3%)

If a spec tire was adopted, would you continue to race? (Those who voted NO)
33: I would race anyway (60%)
20: I would race less or quit FV (36%)
2: Blank (4%)

Do you race in FV Today?
122: Yes, 5 or more races per year (48%)
49: Yes, less than 5 races per year (19%)
19: Yes, less than 5 races per year, but I expect to race more if a spec tire is adopted. (8%)
29: No, but I would be more inclined to race FV if there were a spec tire. (12%)
33: No (13%)

Responses only from those self described as ‘racing today’:
Would you support a spec tire?
141: Yes (74%)
47: No (25%)
2: Blank (1%)

What would be your preferred tire option if a spec tire were adopted?
139: Run a specifically designed slick (73%)
18: Change to a wider tire, similar to FST (9%)
15: Run a treaded hard tire, similar to a vintage tire (8%)
11: Move to a DOT Tire (6%)
7: Blank (4%)

If a spec tire was adopted, would you continue to race? (Those who voted NO)
27: I would race anyway (57%)
19: I would race less or quit FV (40%)
1: Blank (2%)

Responses only from those in 2011 SCCA National Points:
( http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/ass ... -final.pdf )

Would you support a spec tire?
38 national drivers: Yes (70%)
16 national drivers: No (30%)

What would be your preferred tire option if a spec tire were adopted?
43: Run a specifically designed slick (80%)
5: Change to a wider tire (9%)
3: Change to a DOT tire (6%)
2: Treaded Tire (4%)
1: Blank (2%)

If a spec tire was adopted, would you continue to race? (Those who voted NO)
9: I would continue to race, regardless (56%)
6: I would race less or quit FV (38%)
1: Blank (6%)
Stephen Saslow
FV 09 NWR
Post Reply