April meeting

[Dietmar]

The FV Ad Hoc Committee met on April 27

Members attending: Steve Oseth, Stevan Davis, Mike Kochanski, Dietmar Bauerle

Guest: Fred Clark

A member has asked the Committee for a clarification of the current rules regarding offset bushings. Does the term BUSHING include king pin bushings as well as link pin bushings.

The Committee agrees that the term BUSHINGS as used in 9.1.1 C.3. A.9 in the FCS does not specify which bushings may be altered or offset. The Committee however also agrees that NO MODIFICATIONS may be made to any OTHER component(s) other than clearancing of the carrier or trailing arm to eliminate binding.

The member is free to submit his request for further clarification to the CRB, but the Committee can not support a change to the current rules with regards to "offset bushings".

Another request concerning the addition of a gusset on the lower torsion arm was also raised.

The Committee has never seen or heard of a torsion arm breaking. We are also of the opinion that this addition might be a performance advantage and therefore necessitate the addition of a gusset to all cars to achieve this advantage. It is therefore our opinion that there is not a need for a gusset on the torsion arm at this time.

No other matters were presented or discussed.

Next meeting is scheduled for May 25

[brian]

I suggested the gusset to protect the spindle, not the torsion arm. The bending and flexing of the lower arm places extra stress on the spindle and we all know that they break. As to performance, maybe less flexing will reduce camber change problems and tire wear, but i doubt it will revolutionize the class and make everyone do the gussets. Thanks to the committee for the opinion.

[SR Racing]

Any planned discussion on pistons and cylinders? Legality of the Chinese Cylinders?
Any more discussion on a multiyear outlook?

[FV80]

Jim,
I am not aware that we NEED any discussion about Chinese P&Cs. If they are dimensionally and materially identical to VW (Kolbenschmidt), then they are legal - else not. I don't have or need any, so I don't have any first hand experience with them.

As for 'the future', the Committee has attempted to address a couple of these issues in the past and got firmly shot down by the general populace. Therefore, I think we are in 'maintainment mode' for the foreseeable future. Past discussions have always led us to a situation where we can't really change ONE thing, without affecting other items, thereby requiring more changes at once. The combination of those changes present an impossible situation related to parity that just can't be managed properly. It is just not reasonable to put together rules changes that would require every vee in the (SCCA) country to make significant modifications in a relatively short time frame (unless there is no alternative).

The class seems to be holding it's own overall and is staying in the top 5 SCCA classes across the nation - usually in the top 3, and the top Formula Class.

However, we are certainly willing to address and discuss any specific items brought up by any member of the FV community (such as those indicated in the June Committee Meeting Minutes http://www.formulavee.org/interchange/v ... =15&t=4385).

I am on "vacation" at the moment, so this reply is my own - I have not discussed this with the other Committee members.

Steve, FV80

[brian]

The Chinese P&C are not dimensionally the same as the VW or KS. The ring lands are in a different location and are of a different width. I requested this variance from the CRB years ago to reduce the cost of P&C's, and was denied. That denial should be the basis of a protest of any Chinese P&C.

[SR Racing]

Yep. As Brian pointed out they are NOT "dimensionally the same".

Yes. I understand the issues with changes to the current Vee. That is why I asked about a 5 year plan. I don't know how the FV class is holding up across the full country, but I certainly see a 10 year trend which isn't that great. When we started racing I never entered an event in this part of the country (Reg or Nat) where there wasn't 15+ Vees there (and 20 wasn't unusual). The last several FST regional events we went to have always had 5 or less FV's. (and more often like 2 or 3). I know that one can assign several reasons for this. (Economy, driver age and Run-Off requirements), but it still seems like something to be addressed. The rest of the world that has a FV like class must be doing something different since they appear to be getting big numbers.

[Campbell Motorsport]

The decision to have no plan, which for the most part is the route FV has chosen to follow, is indeed a plan. Maybe not a good plan, but it is indeed a plan. While you can argue that FV remains in the top 5, the recent entry at the June Sprints was at the very least, partially indicative of the state of the class. The June Sprints is (was?) one of the top Nationals in the country with a long history and status. Everyone went to, or tried to go to the Sprints. This year’s Sprints had 11 qualify, 10 went to the grid, and only 9 took the green flag. One can draw their own conclusions from that result.

Anyone in business knows the importance of good 1,3 and 5 year plans to keep a business competitive and successful. This process is necessary for FV. Other classes are looking at changing to meet the future, FV should do the same.

Larry Campbell

[Speedsport]

The June Sprints this year were a victim of bad scheduling. It was the week after a double national at mid-ohio, and no one from the Great Lakes division came over for it. 4-5 cars from last years count were from that division - had they shown up the numbers would have been much better.

However, I don't think the problems with FV can be fixed. FV is a class where people who want to race can race at reasonable costs...typical FV racers are middle class people. I'd be willing to bet that most of us would be racing something faster and cooler then FV's if we could afford to. But it's this group that is most effected by a decrease in disposable income, which has been on a decline for a while now. The fix for that does not involve new brakes, new engines, ect. ect.

[tiagosantos]

Although I agree that FV is a class for scroungers and budget challenged people (which is why I race FV), I don't think that should stop development and progression. Seriously, if all we cared about was making FV as cheap as possible, surely we'd have a spec tire by now..

I think there shouldn't be any radical changes (like changing engines..) but maybe we could be open to change in things that might make negligible or small performance improvements, but that make the class more attractive. I'm sorry, but no one under 45 wants to have to deal with drum brakes.. I know we all eventually learn how to mess with the damn things, and if you're 65 and been playing with them all your life, you think I'm talking nonsense. But to people outside of our little bubble, drum brakes in a formula car are a joke. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain to friends and colleagues that yes, drum brakes work just fine.. They usually get it, once they stop laughing.

Disc brakes don't mean a significant investment (not compared to buying a pair of front german drums, two LRE rear drums and 2 sets of carbotechs.. I shudder thinking about it, actually..) and would they actually make that much of a difference? Other than not having to adjust them ever and buying cheap pads every couple years.. Maybe the difference in weight would be a lot more significant than I realize.

I'm sure there are other little things that could be changed and improved on. How about relaxing the wheelbase dimensions so the typical american teenager can fit in a vee without a 5ft high main hoop..

Do we have any idea what the average age is for FV drivers in SCCA at least? What's the ratio of new people under 30 coming in, versus drivers who are quitting of old age? I understand and respect the drivers who have been doing this for a long time, I deeply admire what people have done with this class for so long.. And I'm sure if it stays the same, it'll still last for a long time. But we should think of ways to attract new drivers.. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, but being pretty young myself, I'm worried that soon enough, I'll have no one to race with! And I can't afford to race anything else, so yeah

[brian]

I'm afraid that Mike's correct about declining entries. As long as fuel is over $4 and entries are pushing $500, there's not much we can do about the cars that will change anything drastically. A look at the participation numbers this year and you'll see virtually every class is down. Tiago, I don't wish to start the FV vs. F1st rant up, but a disc brake conversion is a bit more costly than you imagine and involves other changes besides the brakes. Besides, most teenagers I know don't like anything without a keyboard

[FV80]

Tiago,
Several years ago now, I proposed that we allow disk brakes. I even BOUGHT a conversion for link pin suspension (the cheapest of which also involved a change to 4 lug wheels and hubs, so that's what I tried) and ponied up for a test day to attempt to compare the situation. In my (admittedly brief) test, it appeared that the increase in weight of the 4 lug wheels balanced out any advantage of the disk brakes. I reported that I could not tell the difference and that my lap times were not measurably different, so I thought it would be a reasonably safe thing to try.

The responses on this board told me that I was wasting my time and money. I did not realize just how good disk brakes could (and surely would) be - EVERYONE who wanted to be competitive would immediately HAVE to convert to disks and that was not the desire of the masses (based primarily around those who raced less than 3 events per year <sigh>).

At any rate... the Committee is always interested in input and ... even the CRB will entertain real "PROPOSALS" for rules changes looking towards the future ( can you say Formula 'F' (Honda!)??), so, if you have ideas that YOU think might fly, by all means PROPOSE THEM OFFICIALLY - either through a direct request of the Committee - or, more preferably, through a request directly to the CRB (go to CRBSCCA.com). If the CRB deems it worthy of consideration, they will refer it to the F/SR Committee, who will likely request input from the FV Ad Hoc Committee.

As for disk brakes - although I have a pretty good handle on what make drum brakes work now, I would still vote for it for the reasons you mention ... if I were asked. Keep in mind that the conversion kit for a wide five disk brake .. link pin setup is well over 3 times the cost of a 4 lug conversion though, so you need to be specific in your request. If we just allow "disk brakes" and nothing else, it will mean a conversion kit that costs about $800 (last I checked). It might take a couple of years to pay back that investment . If you don't like the link pin setup, the next step is to also allow the ball joint front end and its associated potential "performance gains" - which we also seriously considered. PRE-TESTING such changes in a competitive field is clearly NOT ALLOWED by the CRB. The changes have to be MADE ... and only THEN can be tested, so be careful what you ask for....

The Committee is VERY interested in input for the future of FV. So far, we have not received very much input in that regard - other than comments like Jim's above. It has become clear that the Community does NOT want the Committee to initiate proposals - so we wait for input from the Community. Please submit some via the CRB as above. (and don't worry about it being shot down before .. we can always look at it again )

tks,
Steve, FV80

[tiagosantos]

Brian - that's exactly why I got a data logger for my vee, I couldn't stand not having a keyboard attached to it!

Steve - thanks for the feedback I understand the risks and potential implications with submitting ideas, so I choose to make my long winded, perhaps poorly informed posts here on the forum and hope that either someone proves me wrong, or that eventually I'll strike gold and someone will run with it I'm not an SCCA member and don't run with the SCCA, although we abide by SCCA's rules as far as FV goes. So although I have an interest in whatever rules and changes you guys have, I don't think I have the right or the ability to propose anything at this point.. Also, being pretty new to the class, I worry that I may not know the reasoning behind things to the extent that most of you guys do - so while I'm not afraid to say what I think and feel, I'd rather not be trying to change anything myself without someone backing me up and telling me THAT'S AN AWESOME IDEA, WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT BEFORE! hehe.

Btw, what did you end up doing to the conversion kit and 4 lug wheels?

EDIT: Looking at Cip1.ca, a set of brand new 4.5in wide, 4 lug wheels at 50 bucks each is $200, the 4 bolt link pin front conversion is $260 and the rear is $230.. So with the added "damn it, I forgot that" factor, $800-900 minimum.. And you'd probably need at least 3 sets of wheels. They might be easier to find used though, I'm not sure.

Versus $160 for two front drums, $250+ for two rear drums, $280 for carbotechs all around = let's say $700 all around. Of course, the problem is most people already have a stash of 30 year old drums they don't want to get rid of, and from how much trouble I'm having finding a decent set of wheels, there must be dozens of them in each FV driver's garage all around the country

Is there a discussion on the forum where this has been talked about before? I'll go search for a while..

[Matt King]

Now that we have two separate but similar AC VW classes (FV and FST) is there any opportunity in the future for the two classes to evolve/devolve towards a common middle ground? Is just doesn't seem like it makes long term sense to split the vote, so to speak, with two classes with so many similarities. Yes, it would mean everyone would need to make some changes, but that's the nature of compromise.

[Bill_Bonow]

OK Matt,

You have my attention. Love to hear ideas on the devolution of FST. I'll sit down and wait for my answer.

[tiagosantos]

Maybe put all the rules that are different between FV and FST in a hat and randomly pick half.. I'd go for that!

[FV80]

Now that we have two separate but similar AC VW classes (FV and FST) is there any opportunity in the future for the two classes to evolve/devolve towards a common middle ground? Is just doesn't seem like it makes long term sense to split the vote, so to speak, with two classes with so many similarities. Yes, it would mean everyone would need to make some changes, but that's the nature of compromise.

Matt,
I hesitate to say this but ...
The various possible changes required to 'evolve' FV into something like FST have been discussed and discussed. Retaining parity during any changeover process is just not possible. FV is still reasonably strong and there is a STRONG contigent that is against ANY change. THEREFORE, the logical process is to allow anyone who wants to make "massive wholesale changes to progress into the future" to do so ... by converting to FST. Those who want to maintain the status quo are also free to do so. As I mentioned above, any single change to FV that we could come up with IMMEDIATELY either leads directly to... or requires... other changes to make it ...logical, sensible, feasible, or cost effective. Those "other changes" quickly lead us to ... well, FST (or something very similar)!

So, why mess with a VERY successful class that still pulls more numbers than 2/3 of the other SCCA classes and screw it up? We (the Committee) are receptive to constructive input - I'm sure there are things we have not thought of and ways to do it ... but we haven't figured them out yet without alienating a measurable percentage of the existing class, and we REALLY don't want to kill the existing class.

As it has turned out, unless you live in Chicago (or close by), you will find considerably more competition in FV than FST - at least for the time being - in most areas. In SEDIV, we have exactly ONE FST running on a semi-regular basis (that I'm aware of). FV numbers are low - but higher than one in most cases.

The future of FV may very well lie in FST - but not just yet. At some point, we might have to 'back raid' the vintage guys tho'

Although the Commitee has not "supported" FST, neither have any of us come out staunchly against it. We have allowed those interested parties to proceed as they wish, and they have done ... better than we thought they might ... but not as well as they thought they would (I think). I guess you could say that I see FST as our 'contingency plan' - in case we reach a point where we just CAN'T keep things going "as they are" (more or less). Draw your own conclusions and I should state CLEARLY that these opionions are my own - and may not match those of the other Committee members.
Steve, FV80
PS - it is likely that I will not have access to email (or this forum) for the next few days ... just FYI.

[SR Racing]

Steve. Can't argue with anything you said. Good post.

However let me pee into the wind:

Stage one. ALLOW a ball joint beam with front discs and mods (to the beam) similar to FST. To include a 2" increase of the wheel base. Keep the worm gear steering (or not).
I extremely doubt there would be any performance gain. Keep the existing wheel/tire combo.
The increase in wheel base would be to allow for those cars that are at maximum now to fit the beam, which could take an inch or more due to geometry.

Positives of this step is: A stronger beam at 1/2 the price. and much better availabilty. Cheap and new spindles rotors with no breakage issues. Elimination of backing plates.

Negatives: Conversion parts cost of <$500 plus your labor.

All the above removed parts are items that you are going to destroy or wear out in a couple race seasons anyway. (Bent beam, broken spindle or rebuild requirement, $150 Carbotects or even $29 stock VW brakes,)
So at that time you convert if wanted. (FST pads go at least 2 seasons, no one has broke or worn out a rotor, I don't think anyone has needed to replace a caliper and certainly no one has broke a spindle axle.

You could stop here and have a better, cheaper, easier maintenance car with the same performance.

Or,.. you could continue on with multiple stages.

Ok, so there is my suggestion. If the ad hoc committe adresses it, I would like to hear the reasons for it not being accepted (at least by the commitee)

While the comparison isn't exact it is pretty close to the FF/Ford/Fit and even the SR/SRF conversion. On those issues there was no grass roots vote. It was simply DONE and the costs involved on these items were MORE than the complete cost of an FV. (and even close to the cost of a complete FF or SR.)

[SR Racing]

BTW, before someone again posts that we (SR) are pushing these things because I sell the parts..... So do a dozen other VW venders and the markup is less than FV parts. So other than the initial purchase of these items, I certainly don't make more money on it. (Not to mentiion only about 15% of my gross is FV/FST related.)

While I am making thousands pushing parts, how about the ad hoc committe considering electric fuel pumps? A couple bucks more than a OEM VW pump. More reliable, Easier to change, MUCH easier to drain the fuel celll in the off season, more engine space fexibility and battery drain only slightly more than your rain light :->

Again why not this one?

[Matt King]

OK Matt,

You have my attention. Love to hear ideas on the devolution of FST. I'll sit down and wait for my answer.

"Devolve" was probably the wrong word. I was thinking along the lines of performance adjustments that would allow the two types of cars to run together in the same class. Maybe you allow the Vees a bigger camshaft or intake manifold, throw some weight on the 1600s, or a restrictor, etc. It takes a lot of time and effort, but parity can be achieved in classes with cars that have even greater performance differences than Vees and FSTs.

[BLS]

While I am not laughing at anyone, it is almost funny. These are basically the same discussions that were going on in the mid 70's. It was not needed then with very high class participation and plenty of parts available in just about any junkyard. Some of us simply had a desire to "improve" the cars a bit.

I don't recall any real problems with the front spindles or drums breaking back then. The two I know of, one was a rear drum that did not get tightened and cotter pinned, the other was a broken spindle, reused after a crash.

While it appears the spindle bearing "spacer" solves the problem of broken spindles, the idea of a spindle breaking at 100mph is enough to make me vote to change the front beam and use disc brake/ball joint setups and discs on the rear. It could be made optional for a couple years, and yes, I understand that anyone with a desire to run up front will do this immediately. Still, the cost of a broken spindle/drum could be severe, both dollar wise and life and limb.

I would like to see the drysump like the fst cars have. It just looks like there is too much oil coming out now. The cost is minimal although space for the can is a premium. Electric fuel pump, sure why not, seems simple enough. I would leave the rest of the engine alone for now.

So, now it is time to laugh at me as I have not been on a track in 30+ years. I will be next year.

[SR Racing]

I was thinking along the lines of performance adjustments that would allow the two types of cars to run together in the same class. Maybe you allow the Vees a bigger camshaft or intake manifold, throw some weight on the 1600s, or a restrictor, etc. It takes a lot of time and effort, but parity can be achieved in classes with cars that have even greater performance differences than Vees and FSTs.

Not going to happen..

An induction change on a 1200 to improve HP ONLY does it via better breathing at higher RPM. FV/FST's do not have the gearing options that FF, etc. have. You might achieve some "peak" HP parity, but it will mean nothing on the track. Torque ranges will be all over the map and you will have people requiring one engine for a "short track and one for a long track. (and a cam and induction change isn't inexpensive. Certainly when you consider the additional breakage that will result. The new 1200 would require peak 7000+ RPM to manintain limited HP parity) Other classes have forced changes to try to maintain parity across engine/car types with very little real success. Ford/Fit is one example and even the rough parity there will take a couple more years and a controlled ECM. (and they are only 100cc different) Weight penalties are the same issue with even worse parity across tracks.

I would only consider an engine displacement change as the last phase (if done) and it would have to be mandatory for all. (SR/SRF did it and it worked in a 30 year old class.)

Frankly... I am sure this will p off a bunch..... If your "hobby" is wheel to wheel racing and you do enough races to maintain your license, skills and competiveness, I consider a complete conversion to an FST like rule set a no brainer. Make the whole thing optional. Those that are serious about racing will convert. (and in the long run cost less) Those that don't and only want to have some fun on the track can stay as Vee and still race. This method would even make racing in Vee stripes cheaper since there will be plenty of extra 1200 engines around.

The FST cars corner just as well if not better than FV, they are cheaper to maintain and the converted from Vee FST's are doing just as well as the purposebuilt FST's. If one can't afford $5000 (complete conversion cost) capital investment spread out over 3 or 4+ years. (and then a savings after that), I am not sure wheel to wheel racing is the right place to be anyways. BUT.. you could still take the track and race in FV dress if desired.

I also strongly feel that it will attract more people into the class. We always have a group of people in the FST paddock area wanting to sit in cars and ask questions. Some start building.

But trying to maintain parity between engines is a waste of time and will satisfy neither group.

[Matt King]

It's obvious that neither side will ever concede, but I can't see it making long term sense for two nearly identical classes to exist within the SCCA structure. Just look at the situation with the Touring and Showroom Stock classes. Eventually push will come to shove and the SCCA will decide for us. Just saying that there might be some common ground that can be explored before it gets to that.

[Bill_Bonow]

The June Sprints this year were a victim of bad scheduling. It was the week after a double national at mid-ohio, and no one from the Great Lakes division came over for it. 4-5 cars from last years count were from that division - had they shown up the numbers would have been much better.

Mike,

Really, the numbers would have been much better with 4 or 5 more cars, really?

Look, without any FST propoganda, here are the entry numbers (including DNF/DNS) for FV at the June Sprints for the past 12 years.

2000 - 27
2001 - 29
2002 - 27
2003 - 71 (40th FV B-day, does not include vintage)
2004 - 23
2005 - 30
2006 - 15
2007 - 10
2008 - 14
2009 - 19
2010 - 14
2011 - 11

Go back another 12 years and the average number of entries is in the 40 to 50 range

I realize that the entry numbers for the "economy" classes in SCCA are in general going down due to economic conditions. However, the economy did not take a dump in late '05 early '06. Racing in general has a pretty high turn over rate and what I see happening in FV for the past 10+ years is people leaving with minimal new, "fresh blood" coming into the class.

Draw your own conclusions, but from my perspecitve as a 20+ year vet of FV, 4 or 5 more entries won't make anything much better.

[brian]

Bill, do you have access to the total number of entries over the same period? I'd be very surprised to see that the other classes haven't dropped as well. This is the umteenth time we've hashed this out and I don't think changing the parts or consolidating it with anything will make a bunch of difference. An honestly modern motor like the Honda in FF may help, but the 1600 is just sos. (same old stuff) Hay, how about a Subaru? Hang some radiators on it and scare the crap out of ourselves. There are adapters to fit one into a VW tranny. They do it off road all the time. Maybe we can get the factory to sponsor a pro series!

[Bill_Bonow]

I realize that the entry numbers for the "economy" classes in SCCA are in general going down due to economic conditions. However, the economy did not take a dump in late '05 early '06.

Bill, do you have access to the total number of entries over the same period? I'd be very surprised to see that the other classes haven't dropped as well.

Brian,

Geesh, apartently I need to write slower or in bigger font so you can understand me .

OK, try this.... Average FV June Sprints entry from 2000 thru 2005 is 27.2 (less 2003 40th B-day as it will make the drop look worse). The average FV June Sprints entry from 2006 thru 2011 is 13.8. If we accept that the economy has caused this drop, what happend to the US economoy between June of '05 and June of '06 to cause the entry numbers to decrease from that point forward by an average of 50%?

From memory, things got crappy with the economy in mid '07 (housing bubble) and late '08 (banking collapse) making things really fun for '09. And to review the June Sprint FV entry numbers again, the numbers went up by 25% from '08 to '09. From my cheap seats, that seems to be a large flaw in universally claimed "bad economy" theory.

The committee has spoken, "maintain" is the battle cry for FV and I'm 100% cool with that. The point to my post was that having 4 or 5 more FV entries at the June Sprints simply means you have 15 entries instead of 10 (I.E. diddly squat).