Does FV NEED TO BE SAVED ?

[fvkartguy]

What can we do to bring back the competition?

http://www.formulavee.org/interchange/v ... =24&t=3238
The SCCA isn't really advertising for us. I think we need to take matters into our own hands and recruit new drivers... especially younger karters. They have experience, so they (usually) aren't a safety risk and they're also usually younger, so can lower our average age and carry on the class to the next generation.

[Hal]

Jay,

Apparently you know little about Vee's and nothing about racing. You gave a lot of hypotheicals for someone who has not raced wheel to wheel. It does not make any difference what you are racing as to speeds, if you are on the track with similar cars there will be racing and there is nothing "boring" about that.
Good luck in the parking lot.


Hal
FV 88

[butchdeer]

Observation tells me that most of the new FV drivers are children of past or present FV drivers. So to get the competition back go forth and multiply.
Butch

[Terry Abbott]

Butch...LOL ummm No Thanks!

I'm doing my part with 2 young guys. My personal opinion is, FV is here for a while, its all in a cycle. Michigan just hit 15.3 % unemployment rate and I'm sure around the country its bad also. I agree with Hal on his comment!

I'm not saying that i wouldnt like to see some changes made, and I think we need to keep addressing them and the committe in my eyes is doing that, but WE the compititors need to follow through


Terry

[jb_11]

Jaymzz,
I wholeheartedly agree with Butch that Vee racing is more about competition than outright speed. That being said, take a look at some lap times for Vees compared to a lot of the tin top classes and you might get a new appreciation for how fast they really are. A quick look at 08 runoffs qualifying times reveals the following:

Fastest Evo (categorized in T2):
Marty Grand / Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Evo / 1:48.085

Fastest Vee:
Brad Stout / Vortech FV / 1:47.055

There's a lot more to being fast than stomping the pedal on the right. FV is a class that rewards driver skill above most anything else.

[hardingfv32-1]

"FV is a class that rewards driver skill above most anything else."

This is just a bunch of rhetoric that some Vee driver like to throw around to pump themselves up. The fact is that the best drivers in any form of motor-sport get the maximum from what is available for them to use. High hp, big brakes, wings, large soft tires, etc... has no bearing on the subject of who gets the most out of their car. You use everything that is provided.

Nothing about driving a FV makes us better drivers than the rest.

Brian

[rstackjd]

This is just a bunch of rhetoric that some Vee driver like to throw around to pump themselves up.
Brian

We have to say things to make ourselves feel better. According to this and related threads we're all old, fat, technologically impaired, with slow outdated cars.

[brian]

While Brian usually makes reasonable points I do consider vee drivers somewhat differently. We do no have access to unlimited technology and horsepower and so getting the most of of our cars is an art not a science. I have often said, "you don't drive a vee, you negotiate with it." I guess that's the real attraction to me. Anyone can buy their way to front, but to make due with what you have is a special skill. We might have to upgrade the cars someday and sadly, that will make them easier to drive. Maybe that's why so many of the good vee drivers are so old. It takes patience not bravado, to make a vee fast. Patience and knowing drum brakes.

[hardingfv32-1]

In all motor sports we are talking about going to the edge and staying there. FV 's are easier to drive, if anything, than any of the faster classes. You have much less time to process inputs and make corrections in a FA as an example. ON THE EDGE, a FV can be driven with a 486 processor, where the faster classes must use a Pentiums.

Brian

[jb_11]

Brian,

I understand your argument and agree with what you are saying about driver talent. I did not infer that FV drivers are better than any other group. I said FV is "a" class, not "the" class that rewards driver skill. I also did not post lap times to stroke anyone's ego or "pump" anyone up. I'm just pointing out some objective data to show how fast vees really are relative to the types of vehicles Jay was talking about.

[hardingfv32-1]

JB

Of coarse you are not the originator of this FV driver myth. I thought I would challenge the sentence out of context. Your original post was correct and well stated.

Brian

[CitationFV21]

JB

Of coarse you are not the originator of this FV driver myth. I thought I would challenge the sentence out of context. Your original post was correct and well stated.

Brian

Brian,

What myth? Maybe you missed the point. FV was started to be a spec class. If certain people had not seen the ability to make money on the class (although some would state they left more money IN Vee than they took out) we would all still be driving Nardis. It is not the fact that we are better drivers than other classes, but of all the classes, if you got beat, you got beat by someone who drove better that day - not the guy with the trick parts or the bigger wallet.

For most of it's life the class has run the balance of spec class vs technology improvement. It is only when we forget the balance that the class suffers.

ChrisZ

[hardingfv32-1]

MAYBE FV started as a spec class, but the rules were never maintained as a spec class. This is what the majority FV competitors have always wanted, so that is why the rules are the way they are. FV is about driver AND car competition. If you need a spec class to be competitive then you should try SRF. You are trying to change the game, good luck.

Brian

[CitationFV21]

Brian,

I disagree - the majority of FV drivers do NOT want an open class - what make FV so great is you can put your D13 away for 4 years and come back and race it knowing you will still have friends to race with. That is why that infamous sentence is written into our rules. No doubt Spec Racer (Renault, Ford or whatever) is a more controlled class - but it ain't a formula car! And the FE is too expensive. FF was almost (among other things) killed by the Swift, if the same thing tried to happen in FV we would probably find a way of banning it. Controlled, restricted evolution is the history of FV, if you race every year you don't see it, if you are away for 10 years you notice it, but it doesn't change the class.

Going back to Jim's statement - does FV need to be saved? I repeat, from what? Parts shortages - can be solved. Lack of new drivers - there are ways to attract more drivers - young and old. I think if you went to a race and personally asked FV drivers what they want - it would be to reduce or hold cost and keep the cars simple and easy to repair. Time and money are the factors. And if you can do that and increase competition (read - not go faster, but close up the times between the fast and the slow guy) then FV will do just fine.

Now, I would also go ask Miata drivers why they picked that class - I have a funny feeling percieved safety and large groups would be the reason - initially it was cost , but I don't think that is as big a deal anymore (not with a person running in three race groups at LR last regional!)

ChrisZ

[hardingfv32-1]

How do we know that all of your/others cost control rumbling is not just a function of the bad economy. Are we going to change the rules every time the economy turns bad?

Are you sure the Vortech is not the Swift FF phenomenon of the FV class. My point would be that if it is, it is already to late to change the rules. The guys at the front are not going to tell the rest of us that this is the case until it is to late. This is exactly what happened with FF. Hell, the guys at the front probably have no clue either.

FV parts are in trouble. If you are using one of the FV prep shops or are an old timer that has accumulated a used parts inventory, every thing seems fine. If I can not find a air cooled VW junk yard in the Los Angeles area, then things are NOT fine. Sure, if you seldom race or never get involved in a accident, what is the problem?

Brian

[CitationFV21]

How do we know that all of your/others cost control rumbling is not just a function of the bad economy. Are we going to change the rules every time the economy turns bad?

..............
Brian

Brian,

I have been doing this for almost 30 years - in fact my car is almost 30 years old... Yes, I only run between 4 - 6 races a year, and some years I could not race because the car was crashed and I needed time to save up. But the fact is that I am still racing - and I know many people who end up retired after 3 - 4 years of racing other classes because it just about bankrupted them. And just the opposite - when the economy gets bad we should not be changing the rules. Even in good times we should be looking at ways of saving money. I have been pushing for cost savings since 1982.....

(BTW - our economy runs the same way - when things are good, no one complains about taxes and excessive spending - (note I said and))

Your comment about the Vortech is valid if you look at the Runoffs, but just having a Vortech does not guarantee a win. On the other hand you have to look at the people who run up front, pretty much the same people in the top 10. As to the Swift - I had a front row seat as Skip Barber bought the first car - the Runoffs winner, for Jeff Andretti. I worked for Skip as the Crossle and Mondiale importer and had it sitting outside my office all that winter. To win the next few years you HAD to have a Swift - but remember I said almost killed FF - eventually the other manufacturers caught up.

I will check on parts shortages at the next National. I used to restore Corvairs, and just about every part is reproduced by Clark's Corvair parts, along with others. My feeling is right now there are more parts and cars sitting in storage - enough to keep us going for many years. Parts that need to can be reproduced. This is a problem and we need to address it, but not to panic.

I am also surprised that no manufacturer has tried to build a car to dominate the small formula market and put FV, FF, F5 out to pasture - they keep trying to do it with higher powered cars - Formula Mazda, Formula Renault, FE, etc. If Honda or Toyota were smart.....

ChrisZ

[rstackjd]

I am also surprised that no manufacturer has tried to build a car to dominate the small formula market and put FV, FF, F5 out to pasture - they keep trying to do it with higher powered cars - Formula Mazda, Formula Renault, FE, etc. If Honda or Toyota were smart.....

ChrisZ

[/quote]

I think that's where F600could come in. A class with a non-winged cars configured "loosely" on FF and running more or less "stock" 600 cc motorcycle engines. hmmmmm - now that could be a fun class.

[CitationFV21]

Slightly off topic, but being aware of the competion or alternatives is important.

http://www.formulasuzuki.co.nz/TheCars.html

http://www.pakwheels.com/forumreply_az_ ... !2~pw.html&

http://www.leastoneracing.com/formula5.php

http://www.leastoneracing.com/irlvee/home.php

ChrisZ

[jpetillo]

ChrisZ has had some very good points. I agree that FV does not need to be saved, but that we need to have a plan for the future.

rstackjd's 600cc motorcycle engine based car does sound like fun, but I think the problem is that even a 600cc motorcycle engine puts out over 100 HP. If we're at that power level then the cars would need real suspension to keep them safe. This all makes the price climb. I think that would be a class more like FF than FV. It would be low cost for perhaps a handful of years.

As compared with other formula classes, I think we want low cost for entry, low cost for maintenance, low cost for crashing, and for do-it-yourselfers. With all the recent hype about bug engines being a problem due to age, then trying to replace our engines is an option.

Steve Pastore of VSR and I kicked around the idea of keeping the current chassis and replacing the bug based engine with perhaps twin cylinder air cooled motorcycle engines of something like 90's vintage and for us to graft these engines onto our trannys. The engines would put out about the same HP as the Vee and be cheap and easy to maintain, but get us out of the 60-70's technology and parts problem. Being air-cooled we would perhaps just have to modify air ducting under our current bodywork. These 90's vintage engines would have fresh supply chains and would be reliable and require overhauls much less often. It would have to be a single chosen engine that we'd know enough about to have it act similar to a Vee engine by using restrictor plates, extra weight, RPM limiter, or whatever so that people who switched could run with the bug-engined Vees. Those who want to stick with the bug engined Vees could do so and stay competitive for as long as they wanted.

Perhaps the engine swap is not the solution, but I think this kind of idea is the way we need to think about going. The same consideration can be made about many other parts on the car - have a new technology that has the performance of the current formula to keep those cars viable, but it needs to be cheaper and have a long future of parts.

I'm just beating the same drum as many others have - I'm saying nothing new, but I'm just trying to refocus the discussion back to what Jim S. started when he suggested we put more emphasis on the future evolution of FV.

Of course FST attempts to fulfill some parts of this, but I personally don't think FST is the answer in its current configuration. It solves some problems, but I think we're just putting a band-aid on the problem and buying ourselves 10 years at best even if the whole FV class switched. It's a different class, so it isn't the evolution of FV.

We need to stay focused on the evolution of FV at this time and consider the options and see where that brings us.

I'd suggest we start with identifying and identifying the parts that are expected to go away or are going up in price, and figure out a way to shore up the supply if we can. If not, then we should start to consider what the alternatives could be.

Thoughts - (besides that the post was way too long)?

[Bill_Bonow]

With all the recent hype about bug engines being a problem due to age, then trying to replace our engines is an option.

One point to make, The 1600 VWAC engine was built by VW for production cars until 2003. You can get any/all the parts you want for the 1600. Most of those parts are genuine VW. The "problem due to age" issue is purely with the 1200 (40 hp) engine.

Steve Pastore of VSR and I kicked around the idea of keeping the current chassis and replacing the bug based engine with perhaps twin cylinder air cooled motorcycle engines of something like 90's vintage and for us to graft these engines onto our trannys.

OK, I get the concept. With the additional modifications required, can you really foresee this being a less costly conversion than bolting in a 1600 VW.

The same consideration can be made about many other parts on the car - have a new technology that has the performance of the current formula to keep those cars viable, but it needs to be cheaper and have a long future of parts.

Seems to be about an 8 year echo in these here forums.

Of course FST attempts to fulfill some parts of this, but I personally don't think FST is the answer in its current configuration. It solves some problems, but I think we're just putting a band-aid on the problem and buying ourselves 10 years at best even if the whole FV class switched. It's a different class, so it isn't the evolution of FV.

My biased .02, I'll agree and disagree with parts of this statement. I disagree: We started as an evolution of FV that later split off to form a different class. That is why the rules are written around the option of FV conversion. We have solved the clear majority of FV "issues". Again, getting 1600 parts are not an issue at all and is not a "band-aid". I agree: Any partial conversion would be a disaster, it's either all or nothing

We need to stay focused on the evolution of FV at this time and consider the options and see where that brings us.

9 years ago, I returned from a trip to New Zealand (where I met the NZ FV group) where they were seeing the same parts issues. They had built a "test car" to prove out these "options". Upon return I suggested your last statement (on the old FV email group). You would have thought I torn Christ from the cross.

I'd suggest we start with identifying and identifying the parts that are expected to go away or are going up in price, and figure out a way to shore up the supply if we can. If not, then we should start to consider what the alternatives could be.

Listen...... there goes that 8 year echo again

[fvkartguy]

Is it just me, or do the America FV's seem to be the least... "evolved"

[SR Racing]

I think it's pretty much all over the place. From looking at the web, it looks like most have evolved a little more than the US. AUS is going through similar FV/FST splits as we are. Some are running the 1385's, some have progressed(?) to Supervee like. Some with inboard suspensions etc.

[jpetillo]

Hi Bill, thanks for the comments. I was just trying to focus the discussion back to what Jim wanted us to consider, and then just added something else to discuss and consider. I agree I have added nothing that was not mentioned sometime in the past - in fact no one here has posted anything new, I'm sure. This forum is not the old forum, and it hardly speaks for the whole FV community - most of us aren't here. But it is what we have and I think posters need to be allowed to readdress the old issues and concepts so the new players (like me) can have a hand at helping out.

The fact that some or all of what I mentioned was discussed 8 years ago is good to know. So, what was done and what was the outcome?

But, you bring up a good point. These things go in cycles. Often the reason something goes in cycles is because the last attemp did not provide a solution. In my world we call that marginally stable. Going in cycles may be the best we can get but it's worth trying to do better.

You're right about the 1600 engine. Of course that would be a much easier and cheaper bolt in than an alternative engine. It's certainly the front-running candidate by all measures. But even if the 1600 engine was made up until 2003, it's an old design and technology, isn't it? I guess I was looking for a more long term solution and starting with something that could be more reliable and take much more abuse and be cheaper in the long term. The air cooled twin concept I mentioned may not be the solution, either. But, I do think we need to look past the 1600 to see if there might be a better solution.

John

[CitationFV21]

Other groups around the world have gone from 1200 to 1300, to 1500 and some right to 1600.

The advantage they have is that they had a small geographical area to work with.

Imagine if we had the Michigan Vee group and the Ohio Vee group and the Illinois Vee group all with different rules. That is what it is like in Europe.

Small groups of FV participants have worked - look at EMRA in the 80's and early 90's.

Right now Formula First seems to be a Midwest group - there is little or no exposure here in the NE besides Watkins Glen. That is the problem with a big country.

If someone could build a 1600 to match a 1200, it might work on a regional level. However, the class is too competitive on a National level to have 2 engines.

So maybe that is the evolution - National stays with 1200 while Regional guys switch over to 1600. Buys us more time.

BTW - I like rack and pinion and disc brakes, neither are performance advantages. The problem is the front beam/ wheels and tires. If you go with discs, you really have to go all the way which is hard to equalize..

ChrisZ

[hardingfv32-1]

Engines: I know the characteristics will not be exactly the same, but how hard to choke down the 1600?

Beams, wheels, and tires: Are the FSTs actually faster in the turns? I would think they have too much tire for the power available. Can weight be used to lower the performance of the FST combination? I assume we do not want to retain the present FV tires. This is a way into a spec tire configuration.

Brian