Tire Survey

[Speedsport]

Did the committee collectively approve the tire survey that is being circulated and advertised as coming from the committee?

The survey questions are very poorly designed and heavily biased towards a chosen outcome. I would be dissapointed if the questions on it were concieved and approved by the entire committee.

[smsazzy]

Yes Mike. The committee collaborated on the survey.

[FV80]

Mike, et all,
Yes, the Committee was involved. Yes, the survey is "biased" towards a spec tire. HOWEVER, you have the option to poll against it anyway. The "flow" of these forums (one of the few ways the Committee has to get information from other FV racers) was towards ST. I'm not positive (since I didn't actually post the survey) whether you can simply vote AGAINST ST and then skip the rest of the questions or not - but the poll was an effort to determine whether or not the 'forum "majority voice"' was indicative of the general FV populace ... and *IF* it was, what would be a logical track to explore.

Regardless of the rest of the questions... the number one question (was it really #1?) .. the MOST IMPORTANT question was DO YOU (WE) WANT A SPEC TIRE?.

Answer as you see it. You can also reply to any member of the Committee with additional comments (as many already have). We welcome the input and are looking forward to being OVERWHELMED with input

If anyone is reading this thread, we missed something, and that was a TIME FRAME. I think we are likely to have all of the input that we are going to get (at least to 95%) in 2 weeks. We'll leave it open a little longer than that, but if any of you out there are 'pondering', ponder no more - get your poll cast.

Steve, FV80

[jpetillo]

I was surprised as well. I was going to post something similar to Michael. It seemed to me as well that even if the community were leaning significantly towards no spec tire, that the survey results would still indicate a spec tire is desired. I'm concerned that such results would send the wrong message to the community if and when you posted the results. That wouldn't be fair no matter what side of the fence you're on.

But, I'm sure the committee had a good motive to go this way. Would you tell us why you decided to bias the survey towards a spec tire? How were you thinking you'd use this information?

Would you consider posting a non-biased survey?

I'm not looking to stir the pot - not my way - just curious. John

[JimR]

I agree with Michael and John on the slanted survey outcome. As a result I chose NOT to post a response. Having raced FV for 30+ years these rants have been seen before and my question remains why. Percentage wise I don't think the tire equation and its relative cost has changed much in all the years I have been doing this. I also believe in the last 10+ years that the tire choices provide a good balance between performance and durability. Those seeking to foster change through this survey may not see it this way but I believe this banter and further action is a good way to divide and kill the class. Spec tires will not alter tire costs. If you don't believe that ask how much people spend on tires in SRF, SM and FE, all spec tires classes. In my case I own both a FV and SRF and the tire costs for spec tires and their usable life are on par with the racing slicks we use in FV. In other words you make your choice on what you spend and at what level you compete. Speed costs money and having a spec tire hasn't equalized the fields or leveled the costs in classes that mandate a spec tire. Those that are fast will still be fast and those that can buy tires to get a fractional sweet spot will still do so. For those promoting a spec tires I don't believe mandating this will change anything. In fact having to repurchase tires, rims, or have two sets of tires for national/regional participation will not decrease but increase costs so how is this proposal good for FV? I expect some will immediately challenge my post, but I don't really don't care as my opinion is every bit as valid as your own.

Jim Regan

[tiagosantos]

You're right, every opinion is valid - how are we supposed to know your opinion if you choose not to participate in the discussion?

Anyway, can someone post the Survey questions? I took the survey the day it came out, didn't think it was all that offensive. Can't remember the exact wording, though, maybe I missed something. Did it not ask whether or not you wanted a spec tire? And then a bunch of questions related to tires. If you're against a spec tire, couldn't you say "NO" to that first question? Couldn't you even say that you would stop racing if a spec tire was introduced?

What's the problem, exactly? Too many questions about spec tires on a spec tire survey?

[FVartist]

The problem is, it was a form of a Push Poll (a seemingly unbiased telephone survey that is actually conducted by supporters of a particular candidate and disseminates negative information about an opponent.) I retained a copy for myself and after going over it, it would not have any problems for those in favor, but does for those against.

You asked:
"If you're against a spec tire, couldn't you say "NO" to that first question?" The first question does not have a yes or no option. It isn't until the 5th question that your question is asked and then only with an applied opinion attached.

With these types of polls, a predetermine result is expected. That is the problem.

Bruce

[Dave]

If they do a weight increase survey I hope it isn't as biased.

Dave

[tiagosantos]

Bruce - could you post the questions here?

[fvracer27]

I agree with Michael and John on the slanted survey outcome. As a result I chose NOT to post a response. Having raced FV for 30+ years these rants have been seen before and my question remains why. Percentage wise I don't think the tire equation and its relative cost has changed much in all the years I have been doing this. I also believe in the last 10+ years that the tire choices provide a good balance between performance and durability. Those seeking to foster change through this survey may not see it this way but I believe this banter and further action is a good way to divide and kill the class. Spec tires will not alter tire costs. If you don't believe that ask how much people spend on tires in SRF, SM and FE, all spec tires classes. In my case I own both a FV and SRF and the tire costs for spec tires and their usable life are on par with the racing slicks we use in FV. In other words you make your choice on what you spend and at what level you compete. Speed costs money and having a spec tire hasn't equalized the fields or leveled the costs in classes that mandate a spec tire. Those that are fast will still be fast and those that can buy tires to get a fractional sweet spot will still do so. For those promoting a spec tires I don't believe mandating this will change anything. In fact having to repurchase tires, rims, or have two sets of tires for national/regional participation will not decrease but increase costs so how is this proposal good for FV? I expect some will immediately challenge my post, but I don't really don't care as my opinion is every bit as valid as your own.

Jim Regan

Well said Jim

I also agree with the question in the survey

[brian]

Frankly, I saw it as an attempt to just get more info and extend the input beyond the more vocal postings on the forum. Secondly, the survey would not be the final word anyway. Letters to the CRB are the standard for rule changes. It's just the committee reaching out and doing what the forums have asked them to do.

[smsazzy]

What was biased about the survey? As the primary author of it, and someone who voted NO by the way to a spec tire, I am confused how I could be biased towards something I voted no on?

It follows standard survey methodology of establishing the status of the respondent, in this case if they currently race now, or plan to race more if the survey topic is adopted. Then it asks some questions around expenses to establish how relevent the discussion is in the first place. Then it asks for information regarding a spec tire. The survey gives the opportunity for a yes/no, and asks if the spec tire was to be adopted what the consequences would be, and gives those who said no an opportunity to choose what it would be if voted yes. It seems to me it is very complete.

It asked:

1-Do you race in FV today?
Yes, 5 or more races per year.
Yes, less than 5 races per year.
Yes, less than 5 races per year, but I expect to race more if there were a spec tire.
No, but I would be more inclined to race a Formula Vee if there were a spec tire.
No


2-Is the cost of racing a significant deterrent to your racing (or racing more)?
Yes
No


3-What is your largest area of expense in FV racing today?
Travel (gas, hotel, etc.)
Tires
Entry fees
Development (engine, shocks, chassis, etc.)
Crash damage
Other


4-Of those items, which two expenses do you think could be best controlled or lowered with rule changes?
Travel (gas, hotel, etc.)
Tires
Entry fees
Development (engine, shocks, chassis, etc.)
Crash damage
Other


5-Would you like to see a spec tire implemented for Formula Vee with the intent of lowering overall tire expenses?
Yes
No


6-Do you think a spec tire for Formula Vee in SCCA would increase participation in FV?
Yes
No


7-If you are not in favor of a spec tire in Formula Vee, would having to race a spec tire cause you to race less or quit racing Formula Vee?
Not applicable, I support a spec tire.
Yes, I would race less or quit racing FV
No, I would race anyway.


8-If given the following options for a spec tire, which would be your preference?
-Run a specifically designed slick tire by Hoosier, Goodyear, American Racer, or other; that fits on existing FV rims, is a racing slick compound and is designed to last 12-15 heat cycles with very little grip degradation. Rubber to last 20+ sessions.
-A treaded hard tire, similar to the vintage tire, on existing rims.
-Move to a DOT tire on different rims similar to those used in the F1200 series. (requires a one time purchase of new wheels)
-Change to a wider tire, on different rims, similar to the FST tire used today. (requires a one time purchase of new wheels)

[SR Racing]

Yes. I agree. I didn't see anything wrong or biased with the survey considering what they were looking for. I voted "no" to a spec tire and I think that covered my opinion on it in FV.

[fvracer27]

4-Of those items, which two expenses do you think could be best controlled or lowered with rule changes?
Travel (gas, hotel, etc.)
Tires
Entry fees
Development (engine, shocks, chassis, etc.)
Crash damage
Other

I really don't understand this question.

How would a rule change control or lower travel (gas,hotel), crash damage or entry fees?

[smsazzy]

Travel and entry fees could be lowered by having every race weekend be a double race weekend. That would consolidate travel and entry fees into one.

Crash damage could be lowered by approving new parts that are available at lower cost. Aftermarket spindles, etc.

[njg005]

I agree with Michael and John on the slanted survey outcome. As a result I chose NOT to post a response. Having raced FV for 30+ years these rants have been seen before and my question remains why. Percentage wise I don't think the tire equation and its relative cost has changed much in all the years I have been doing this. I also believe in the last 10+ years that the tire choices provide a good balance between performance and durability. Those seeking to foster change through this survey may not see it this way but I believe this banter and further action is a good way to divide and kill the class. Spec tires will not alter tire costs. If you don't believe that ask how much people spend on tires in SRF, SM and FE, all spec tires classes. In my case I own both a FV and SRF and the tire costs for spec tires and their usable life are on par with the racing slicks we use in FV. In other words you make your choice on what you spend and at what level you compete. Speed costs money and having a spec tire hasn't equalized the fields or leveled the costs in classes that mandate a spec tire. Those that are fast will still be fast and those that can buy tires to get a fractional sweet spot will still do so. For those promoting a spec tires I don't believe mandating this will change anything. In fact having to repurchase tires, rims, or have two sets of tires for national/regional participation will not decrease but increase costs so how is this proposal good for FV? I expect some will immediately challenge my post, but I don't really don't care as my opinion is every bit as valid as your own.

Jim Regan

I agree with Jim on this subject. Well stated. Does anyone think these arguments (I mean discussions), both here and on Apex, may be the reason why we don't attract new competitors? We sure looked divided. I'll state my opinion again, let's keep the rules as stable as possible.

[SR Racing]

, let's keep the rules as stable as possible.

I agree. The mess of things that have been discussed (displacement, cylinder availabilty, tires, wheels, weights, size, etc) is making it confusing and will just split the class.
There are a few things that will HAVE to be considered for availabilty issues, but other than that leave it alone.

FST didn't split the class it brought in new drivers or inactive drivers for the most part.

If someone wants to change, they can go FST with their existing rules. If not, stay with the already stable FV rules. Don't try to put lipstick on a pig. The pig and his potentlal dates won't like it. (No insult intended to FV.)

[tiagosantos]

Does anyone think these arguments (I mean discussions), both here and on Apex, may be the reason why we don't attract new competitors? We sure looked divided.

I hardly think anyone who isn't somehow already invested in the class is wasting time reading our forums!

[jpetillo]

I spent about 6 months watching this forum before I bought a vee. It was a tame time on the forum, apparently, since it was very helpful then - almost no bashing as I recall. I've been on forums and am used to bashing, but our forums have become extreme in that regard in recent years. I think I would not have bought a vee if it were today when I started watching the forum. But, how do we deal with it? We'd need moderators perhaps - apparently stricter than those at ApexSpeed (I think Apex does a good job).

I do think the class is much less divided than it seems - we hear from so few people - we just need to figure out how to consistently carry out constructive conversations/discussions, like we would if we were face to face.

[fvracer27]

Travel and entry fees could be lowered by having every race weekend be a double race weekend. That would consolidate travel and entry fees into one.

Crash damage could be lowered by approving new parts that are available at lower cost. Aftermarket spindles, etc.

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I guess I never thought about it that way most of our races in NER are doubles.

Mark

[smsazzy]

The voices of a vocal few should not hold back a majority if that exists. Only information gathering will tell us how the bulk of drivers really feel. We have over 200 replies to the survey compared with what???....a little over a dozen that are posting to forums. Once we see where the majority really wants to go, we will have a better idea what, if any, suggestions should be made.

As Brian pointed out earlier, this is only a start. The formal process will involve the writing of letters to the CRB either opposing or supporting any recommended changes. Then it goes to the BOD for approval. There is still a long way to go, we're at stage alpha at this point.

[smsazzy]

Travel and entry fees could be lowered by having every race weekend be a double race weekend. That would consolidate travel and entry fees into one.

Crash damage could be lowered by approving new parts that are available at lower cost. Aftermarket spindles, etc.

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I guess I never thought about it that way most of our races in NER are doubles.

Mark

We're looking for any and all suggestions for lowering costs and increasing participation. If you have any outside the box suggestions like that, let us know.

[Matt King]

200 responses is far better than anything on the forums. The committee should do a weight survey once the results are in from the tire survey since that seems to be another recurring hot topic. Keep it simple. Two questions:

1. What is the current as-raced weight of your car with driver? Provide a range of answer options in 10 pound increments.
2. What do you think the minimum weight should be for FV? Provide a range of answer options in the same 10 pound increments.

[craigs]

If we do go to a spec tire (which personally I hope we don't) let's do it right. SM is on their third spec tire in as many years. We can't afford to make those type of mistakes.

IMHO we should reward the suppliers who have been loyal to the class with at track support and contingencies if possible too.

[smsazzy]

If we do go to a spec tire (which personally I hope we don't) let's do it right. SM is on their third spec tire in as many years. We can't afford to make those type of mistakes.

IMHO we should reward the suppliers who have been loyal to the class with at track support and contingencies if possible too.

Would you rather offer contingencies or make the tire cheaper for everyone? Just asking.

On a national racing basis there are roughly 70 nationals each year. With 3 tires up for grabs at each race, that is 210 tires that were given away free. At $180 each, that is $37,800.

There were 467 entries in FV National racing last year. Spread out over 101 drivers.

If we *Assume* that the norm is to buy a new set every 3 races, the FV community bout approx 155 sets of tires. $37,800 divided by 155 sets of tires would mean $243 per set is going towards funding the above mentioned contingency program.

Full disclosure, I took advantage of that program to the tune of 8 tires. Thank you for the $1440.

Economics 101 - "TANSTAAFL" - Those "free" tires are being paid for by someone.