November minutes

Post Reply
Dietmar
Site Admin
Posts: 631
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 11:56 am

November minutes

Post by Dietmar »

The Fv Ad Hoc Committee met on November 28

Members attending: John Petillo, Stevan Davis, Steve Oseth, Alex Bertolucci, Stephen Saslow, Phil Holcomb, Bruce Livermore, Dietmar Bauerle


A member of the Committee was approached by several people at the Runoffs with questions regarding the use of ball joint beams and disc brakes for FV. For this reason, the topic became a discussion item again within the Committee and we invite member input. Basically, the Committee discussed the use of the ball joint beam and disc brakes (discs for the front only) in order to get a jump start on what is inevitably coming down the road. Link pin beams are getting harder to find-period. With issues such as participation numbers down a bit over 10% over the last 5 years, the question was raised as to the ramifications of ALLOWING ( read not mandating) the use of ball joint beams. It's unclear whether this would be a deterrent or a benefit. Again, member input is requested.

Pistons: The Committee has submitted all information that we have accumulated over the last few months to the CRB regarding piston specifications. Some statement should be forthcoming in Fastrack, probably as a Tech Bulletin.
We are also waiting to hear from the CRB- possibly in Fastrack, regarding the 2mm ring groove and whether or not the question will be submitted for member input.
The Committee is not privy to decisions of the CRB on either matter.

A member submitted a request for allowance of a cockpit head surround for FV that would obviously need to be “manipulated” during entry/exit. FV is one of the few formulas that does not allow for any similar type of protection. The CRB nixed that request in this month’s Fastrack. The Ad Hoc Committee agrees that some form of head protection might be appropriate for use in FV and will begin discussion towards a possible rule change request. Along similar lines, the Committee still feels that the Glossary definition of bodywork is ridiculous for open wheel cars, and will try to write a proposal specific to FV . None of this could go into effect until 2014 ( if at all)

No other items were presented or discussed.

Next meeting scheduled for December 26
SR Racing
Posts: 1209
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 1:58 pm

Re: November minutes

Post by SR Racing »

Dietmar wrote:, the question was raised as to the ramifications of ALLOWING ( read not mandating) the use of ball joint beams. It's unclear whether this would be a deterrent or a benefit. Again, member input is requested.
A ball joint beam in itself would not be any advantage. They are heavier, less aerodynamic, slightly wider track, and would require some mounting changes. The beam alone could not be used, since the turkey legs are difference sizes. So if you used BJ turkey legs you would require the BJ spindles. BJ spindles come either as drum or disc configurations. So it would seem prudent to allow discs with this conversion (rather than go drums and then have to change spindles again to go to discs (assuming that is allowed later). Also the disc brake spindles are readily available new. Not so with the drum spindles.)

We (FST/FFDA) have been through this many times. There is no real good migration path to BJ beams, other than biting the bullet and going full BJ/Disc front ends. Obviously the rears could stay drums in this configuration. However, thinking ahead.. The German better cast rear drums are now difficult to find and a rear brake conversion to discs is cheap, all parts are new and it is a simple change.

Yes, I know I will be accused of pushing FST again, but the above is a logical path to keep FV parts available.

Isn't it time that the Committee look out 3 or 4 years and put a plan into place? FST has certainly proven the concepts needed to keep a "entry level" open wheel class going. There are many options to get to FST over a several year period. But with 15-20 active FST's running and growing everyday, it makes little sense to migrate to a different venue.

FV has drum breakage issues, a shortage of good drums, unavailable good brake shoes (at this time) (and very expensive). You will NEVER break a disc spindle or rotor or have to adjust brakes again and and pads are $15.
Dietmar
Site Admin
Posts: 631
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 11:56 am

Re: November minutes

Post by Dietmar »

Jim:

Thanks for the comments.
It seems that no matter how hard we try on the Committee to be specific and include the entire discussion in our minutes, we often times far short.

Of course we have included the ENTIRE beam assembly in our discussion, including the use of different wheels, the need for modification(s) to the frame for mounting, the width of the assembly, steering box ( read rack), weight increase, etc ( just some of the ramifications that we are looking at).

Dietmar
http://www.quixoteracing.com
Bill_Bonow
Posts: 301
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:53 pm

Re: November minutes

Post by Bill_Bonow »

Dietmar wrote: A member of the Committee was approached by several people at the Runoffs with questions regarding the use of ball joint beams and disc brakes for FV. For this reason, the topic became a discussion item again within the Committee and we invite member input. Basically, the Committee discussed the use of the ball joint beam and disc brakes (discs for the front only) in order to get a jump start on what is inevitably coming down the road. Link pin beams are getting harder to find-period. With issues such as participation numbers down a bit over 10% over the last 5 years, the question was raised as to the ramifications of ALLOWING (read not mandating) the use of ball joint beams. It's unclear whether this would be a deterrent or a benefit. Again, member input is requested.
About 4 years ago, there was an FV meeting at the Road America Runoffs with a few CRB and FSRAHC member present when this general "FV update" topic came up. I seem to remember that a vote (show of hands) was taken and the general consensus (almost unanimous) was to leave the rules "as is" and let the class survive as long as it can. Many of the current FV committee member were present, but some of the newer members were not. At that meeting, many of those now suggesting this update were in that meeting and were steadfast in their position that FV should not be changed.

My personal feeling is that this idea of an optional beam and disc brake update has minimal chance making it past casual forum conversation. FV is what it is. Its history and rules stability should be left alone. If there are those that want disc brakes and ball joint beams on their FV, SCCA already has a class in the GCR. Its been in there for 5 years.
Bill Bonow
" I love Formula Vees, they're delicious!"
tiagosantos
Posts: 391
Joined: June 20th, 2010, 12:10 am

Re: November minutes

Post by tiagosantos »

Oh boy, it's about time we got a fun Winter discussion topic!

I'm all for the change. Let me know what the official member input channel is!

Bill - let it go. FV decided to keep doing their own thing a while ago, and it'll decide what to do in the future all by itself. If it eventually evolves into what FST is now, fantastic, you pioneers and visionaries will be praised as being right all along. If it doesn't, it doesn't. If it dies, it dies.. The current crop of FST posts feel a bit like being back in kindergarten - just because I didn't want to play with you at some point, doesn't mean we can't play something else later on.

What is the problem of people making a choice at some point, and changing their minds 4 years later? I can't think of many situations in life where one would be held accountable for an opinion for the rest of his life.

Anyway - ball joints and discs, bring it on!
brian
Posts: 1348
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:31 pm

Re: November minutes

Post by brian »

As a result of the closing of LRE, ICP, the makers of the Citation FF & FC, are selling the uprated rear drums and front spindles directly. They have been the manufacturing source for LRE. While the cost is higher, the rear drums will probably be the last ones you'll have to buy as a result of cracking. The web address is http://www.icpcitation.com
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.
RickyBobby
Posts: 61
Joined: January 25th, 2008, 8:08 am

Re: November minutes

Post by RickyBobby »

I, for one, would love to see our FV morph into a similar spec as seen throughout the rest of the world. If we had specs similar to our Canadian brethren, maybe we could entice some of them down to the lower 48 on occasion. I fully support our class but feel that it may be time to consider moving away from the current "vintage" formula.
AJP
Posts: 41
Joined: February 20th, 2008, 9:10 pm

Re: November minutes

Post by AJP »

My initial thought was that disc brakes would be great. I think I was one of the folks at the runoffs that was blabbing about how great it would be to have them. But when you really look at the path to getting disc brakes onto the car, you realize it's not that easy and may be detrimental to the class for a number of reasons. I thought about this a bunch as I'm sure many others have. Updating the class in theory is easy. There is plenty of low hanging fruit. The question is how do you do it without losing people by complicating a well sorted, time tested formula.
For instance. If we use the same system FST is using, we will gain nothing but a few pounds at each wheel, a need for modifying our chassis and a small gaggle of still unknown chances for ruining an expensive race weekend. Also, if we use the BJ beam we have much bigger shock mounts acting as air brakes and a wider track and all this is essentially just making us slower. We can cut them off and use inboard shocks I guess. But that's not easy nor uncomplicated. Certainly not easier than not changing anything and going to the track and spending 5 minutes adjusting your old drum brakes.
In regards to losing drivers, any of the folks that are on the fence about getting to the track, are going to give up completely if they feel they need to spend money and time, which few people in this class have enough of, to update their cars.

The bottom line is we just want to stinkin' race. We want to go out and beat the other guy fair and square. If we didn't get him this race we'll get him next race. That's all we care about. I think the lack of enthusiasm for changes in this class mostly stem from this fact and that we don't care what we're driving. As long as the other guy is driving the same thing it doesn't matter what it is. So unless we run out of brake drums, there is no need to change to disc brakes. The drum brakes work well enough. It's what the other guy has on his car so we don't care. It's not sexy or really fast but when you're racing for the beer glass or cheese platter it doesn't matter. We're all going to get old and die and nobody is going care if we raced at all not to mention if we had disc brakes. We might as well keep it as simple as possible while we can and just enjoy the racing with as many people as possible.
Also, I don't think the lack of disc brakes is going to make or break this class. Nor the small engine or skinny tires. If people really cared about that stuff they would be flocking to FST and it would be bigger than FV after these 4+ years. What they care about and want to do most is race. They can go out and buy a FV and competitively go racing for less than any other class. Maybe a little more than FST but with many more folks to race with at the moment. They can do this because a 20 year old car is just as competitive as a 2 year old car. No other class can say this because the rules have been very stable. When they stop coming for FV, there will be FST and we can all bite the bullet then. In the mean time, FV will continue as it is with the most stable rules for a non-spec class of any in 50 years of racing.

FST has a great formula. They are pioneering the next step in FV, the least expensive form of road racing. But, all either class has going for it is COST and stable rules. I think if disc brakes are really important to someone, they should think about FST and hopefully it will always be there so we can all count on being able to convert our cars someday. In the meantime, we will be able to enjoy ourselves more than most people on earth get a chance to and race our lowly old vee until we really do run out of parts.

The committees much appreciated time and skill would be better spent on making sure we all have the same pistons.

Andy P.
NER
Bill_Bonow
Posts: 301
Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:53 pm

Re: November minutes

Post by Bill_Bonow »

Thought is was worthwhile to put a link up from the minutes of said Runoffs meeting referenced from my above post.

interchange/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3436

I guess I was wrong, the meeting was 3 years ago (not 4)
Bill Bonow
" I love Formula Vees, they're delicious!"
jpetillo
Posts: 755
Joined: August 26th, 2006, 2:54 pm

Re: November minutes

Post by jpetillo »

AJP wrote: ...
The bottom line is we just want to stinkin' race. We want to go out and beat the other guy fair and square. If we didn't get him this race we'll get him next race. That's all we care about. I think the lack of enthusiasm for changes in this class mostly stem from this fact and that we don't care what we're driving. As long as the other guy is driving the same thing it doesn't matter what it is.
...
NER
Here, here - well said - the complete post.
John
problemchild
Posts: 902
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Re: November minutes

Post by problemchild »

With the demise of "national" racing and SCCA moving into a more "rational" format, there is even less reason to evolve FV. FV and FST need each other desperately to protect their race group from faster formula classes. That (having to run with much faster cars), is the biggest threat to either class, IMO. Let the few, who seek FST componentry, move to FST so that the majority of FV racers can continue on with the status quo. They will all be on track together, as allies, hopefully without FC, FB, FA, etc.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, partial conversion of a FV beam assembly is more expensive than installing a complete FST beam assembly, and only eliminates a small portion of the non-desirable features.

FYI .... any changes in track are minimal with a complete BJ assembly. They both come from the same donor sedan. Also, I have no scientific rationale, but I belive the BJ beam assembly does generate more grip than the KP beam assembly, certainly the KP beams I am building. I believe the "stiction" factor is different. I state that as an opinion, so no reason for anyone, Jim, to correct me with your "facts".
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
fvracer27
Posts: 247
Joined: October 25th, 2009, 8:40 pm

Re: November minutes

Post by fvracer27 »

Well said Andy!

If a ball joint beam is allowed with disc brakes I would have 2 choices

1. Stop running a FV
2. Just convert to FST because I'm forced to do part of a conversion now

I think it makes no sense to do 1 part of the equation and I am still not sure how big the brake problem is in FV to justify making a modification like this. I'm still new to FV 3 years and it has been pretty easy to acumulate a good supply of beams backing plates and all the other parts people complain about. Maybe I just get enjoyment and make it part of my racing looking for parts.

It does not matter to me which car I run as long as I have cars to run with and the rules do not change every year
Mark Filip
NER #27
Womer EV-3
Veefan
Posts: 247
Joined: August 14th, 2007, 9:22 pm

Re: November minutes

Post by Veefan »

I agree to leave the FV class alone, all you'll do is cost everyone more money and lose racers in the long run.

If the supply is getting short for Link Pin beams, just change the rules to accept aftermarket ones. They've been building them for years for off-road use.

Brand new center for $195! and with pretty shinny wings



"Genuine JT Aluminum front beams are the Original aluminum beams since 1975. Made with cast aluminum towers and available with or without adjusters & come with bushing. Great for sand rails or add the billet aluminum clamps to fit stock VW pans (1948-1965)"

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

Re: November minutes

Post by brian »

If you research the new Majors program you will learn that the club is far from saying good bye to national racing. For those who have the resources and wish to travel to premium events, the Majors will provide that venue. For the folks that don't have a lot of resources and don't want to travel, there will be a second path to the Runoffs through local racing.

By 2014, there will be no national racing as it is today. The Majors and local will both provide a path to the Runoffs for those who want to go. The BOD believes that the Majors program will provide more flexibility in getting to the Runoffs; better concentration of within classes for better racing and more visibility and marketing posibilites for our racing.

This year, there will be the traditional program for qualifying and a second path via the Majors. To qualify for the Runoffs via the Majors it will take only 3 weekends and you're done. Stay tuned and go to SCCA.COM click on the MAJORS button and learn all the details
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.
problemchild
Posts: 902
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 9:34 am

Re: November minutes

Post by problemchild »

problemchild wrote:With the demise of "national" racing and SCCA moving into a more "rational" format, there is even less reason to evolve FV.
Not sure if you are correcting me or agreeing with me Brian :lol:

I was not offering commentary on the majors/nationals/rationals/regionals debate ..... merely stating that "national" racing, as we know it, is done. Goodbye!

Of all the things I could be doing, researching Majors is not on my "to do" list. I believe that I will be bringing a trailer full of cars to the first two 2012 Majors. Much more to do with looking for nice weather at nice tracks than looking for Majors or points to the Runoffs.

BTW .... still think we should call them Negionals rather than Rationals.
Greg Rice
"Happy 50th Birthday"
smsazzy
Posts: 703
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 5:56 pm

Re: November minutes

Post by smsazzy »

problemchild wrote:BTW .... still think we should call them Negionals rather than Rationals.
Agreed. Hard to refer to anything SCCA as rational with a straight face. :-)
Stephen Saslow
FV 09 NWR
rgu
Posts: 8
Joined: December 1st, 2007, 12:47 pm

Re: November minutes

Post by rgu »

Quoting Problemchild,

"With the demise of "national" racing and SCCA moving into a more "rational" format, there is even less reason to evolve FV. FV and FST need each other desperately to protect their race group from faster formula classes. That (having to run with much faster cars), is the biggest threat to either class"

I totally agree! And we have a model just look at Australia where FV 1200 and 1600 run in the same race. Evolve, adapt or die
tiagosantos
Posts: 391
Joined: June 20th, 2010, 12:10 am

Re: November minutes

Post by tiagosantos »

Do they run their vintage vees in the same group as well? :lol:
FV80
Site Admin
Posts: 1168
Joined: June 27th, 2006, 9:07 am

Re: November minutes

Post by FV80 »

AJP wrote:...
The committees much appreciated time and skill would be better spent on making sure we all have the same pistons.
Andy P.
NER
OK - please see my post over on ApexSpeed...
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthr ... post370294

Steve, FV80
The Racer's Wedge and now a Vortech, FV80
To sign up in the FV Registry for updates about SCCA Formula Vee, please send me an email or PM with your name, location (city/state), make/model of car, phone # and any other appropriate info.
Post Reply