Does FV NEED TO BE SAVED ?

[SR Racing]

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.

I think this is the best approach. Not perfect, but probably best.

A restrictor could be used (smaller than FST's) to get them close, but the torque and HP curves would be quite different. The restrictor would severly limit high end RPM HP. Thus probably a long box would be the choice. Also due to the different curves the 1600 would be the optimal on some tracks and the 1200 on others. A weight penalty would make it even better and the big guys would love it. <g>

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..

On the rack, you are correct, on the front discs, I would disagree a bit. But it would vary.

Since MOST of the Regional FV guys just want to race and aren't chasing Run-Off wins, a 1600/1200 performance disparity might be acceptable, (like 1600/1800 Miata).

Or of course, the "FV Club" class concept could be used. I am not sure even any of the above would be acceptable by a majority, but it certainly addresses engine cost and long term parts availability.

I can gaurantee you that NO change(s) will be acceptable to all.

[Bill_Bonow]

Hi Bill, thanks for the comments.

Your welcome.

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?

Don't want to be a smarty pants, but the answer is: FST was the only outcome.

[hardingfv32-1]

So how well does the average FST corner when compared with a FV? What have you noticed on the track?

Brian

[CitationFV21]

Or of course, the "FV Club" class concept could be used. I am not sure even any of the above would be acceptable by a majority, but it certainly addresses engine cost and long term parts availability.

I would be remiss if I did not state that I and a few other drivers got a Club V group started in the NE about 10(?) years ago. At that time I got lambasted for splitting the class up, so I am not going to suggest a new class again. Besides, you have Formula First and Formula S already. If you are to integrate changes, they must prove to be equal or slightly slower than a top notch vee in order to be accepted.

On transmissions, I thought long boxes were in short (no pun intended) supply. Could the 1600 pull a .82 4th in a short box? With the drop from a 1.26 3rd for example.

ChrisZ

[Bill_Bonow]

So how well does the average FST corner when compared with a FV? What have you noticed on the track?

This is a tough question because we rarely get National level FV guys at a Regional. My bet (ie, no facts) is that FV is faster in slow speed corners, but we are faster in high speed corners. Remember that FST tires are slightly wider, but are a hard compound. In '06 Bruce Livermore ran the Kettle Moraine Regional (Road America) with us. The leaders were turning slow times for FST (1:43 range) and Bruce kept up (see photo). Running quick RA time for FST (1:39 range) would leave the best FV behind.

[ external image ]

On transmissions, I thought long boxes were in short (no pun intended) supply. Could the 1600 pull a .82 4th in a short box? With the drop from a 1.26 3rd for example.

I think the shortage is due to the Runoffs at RA and the need for a longbox with a 1.22 third. Getting 1.26 longboxes is not an issue. Greg Rice has 5 or 6 fresh FST boxes ready to bolt in if your in the market.

[SR Racing]

So how well does the average FST corner when compared with a FV? What have you noticed on the track?
Brian

I will let some of the guys with more experience in the cars answer , but based upon G force data we are seeing 1.6 plus. A vee is similar. Since we only do regionals, our only comparisons on track are with "regional drivers and cars". There isn't much if any disparity that I have seen. It's tough to compare since we qualify in front of the Vee's and usually only lap them once, (typically on the straights). We have harder tires and and a heavier package, so that was expected.

[jpetillo]

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?

Don't want to be a smarty pants, but the answer is: FST was the only outcome.

You're not being a smarty pants at all. I realized that FST was an outcome of previous discussions. But that's a different class. So that means there was no outcome for FV. I think we need to make it a point to do better this time.

[remmers]

Speaking of FST and how it runs compared to FV, how does it run compared to F500? About the same lap times? I could see that getting annoying given I remember back when they were F440 and the slower drivers were very very annoying for FV drivers.

[Bill_Bonow]

John,

Yes and no. When we first started Formula First (pre-FST), it was not intended as a separate class, but as a "test bed" running in FS for potential future upgrades/changes to FV. This was being done, as a separate small group who had funded the "Committe Car" (Butch Deer, Jim Schings, Bob Lybarger and myself), under extreme protest from the "old guard" FV community (hence Lybarger jumping ship early on). Then around 2004, we had taken enough lumps and ventured out on our own.

The only outcome still associated with FV is the Ad Hoc committee. It came much later down the road, mostly after the first piston & cylinder scare took place.

remmers,

A good F500 is as fast as a good FF, so there is no comparison to FST. A good FST is 1 to 2 seconds per track mile faster than a good National FV.

[jpetillo]

Bill, thanks again. That was good. It's helpful to understand the history, as well as the dynamics.

[Bill_Bonow]

John,

That made me remember a funny detail/story. In 2000, we had purchased a Mysterian M2 for the really good Autowerks engine in the car (yes, it was worth it, 9th at the Runoffs). After that, we couldn't sell the car for over a year. When we decided to build the Committee Car, that M2 was the perfect candidate to become our test bed. We had stripped it down of the engine and trans in preparation, but at the last minute, Eugene Grimes called up Butch and bought the car as a slider (no engine or trans). That is the car that Eugene drives today (same silver paint). We then had to regroup to find a new car. We found it as a Lynx B in a garage in the Detroit area and the rest is history.

[CitationFV21]

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

Well I guess I spoke too late:

"The CRB has received a proposal from Honda Performance Development (HPD) to include the Honda Fit 1.5 liter engine in the Formula
Ford class. The proposal includes a general presentation of the concept, which is summarized below, and the specific FF rules changes
that would be necessary. HPD has also submitted engine dynamometer graphs comparing a restricted Fit 1.5 liter engine and a current
“National level” Kent FF engine. The restricted Fit engine produces slightly less horsepower than the Kent engine with a nearly
identically shaped power curve. (The testing was done on the same dynamometer on the same day by a well known FF engine builder.)
The Fit engine has been installed in a DB-1 chassis and has undergone over 200 miles of testing. HPD will present the car at Road
America during the 40th Anniversary Formula Ford races, July 24-26. If member comment is favorable, the complete rules changes
will be presented in a future FasTrack."

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/ ... ck-aug.pdf

If FV were not air cooled, I would be calling Subaru about now....

ChrisZ

[cendiv37]

Since Bill brought it up, a some quick comments on an FV running with FST's.

First the caveats:
1. Most of the FST guys at RA that year were not veterans either of RA or in FST. It was a while ago and I'm sure the cars and drivers in FST have improved more than I have .
2. It was a regional and I wasn't running the best tires (which came back to haunt me).
3. I admit I was pretty motivated to see if I could stay up with these guys.

So what was it like?

FST's have much more torque out of the corners and just run away exiting each corner (not as much as F500's that we might run near, but the feeling was similar).

Cornering speeds are similar, but I felt that I was maybe just a bit quicker from entry to mid-corner before the extra torque came into play.

Braking is similar (with good brake shoes in front), and just for fun, I out-braked a few of the quickest guys into 5 just to see if I could.

FST's are REALLY nice to draft. Those big scoops and wide tires just drag you along!

Taking that into consideration, at RA, before my tires gave out (which they did), I could hang onto the front pack of FST's, but only if I got it right through the important corners. Once my tires made me back off just a bit, the FST's were gone, I lost the draft, and I faded back.

With good tires, maybe I stay with them the whole race, who knows? I do know I couldn't have stayed ahead of them and there is no way I win a drag race up the hill from 14 to S/F .

I do not think I would have stayed with the same pack at Blackhawk or similar where the draft wouldn't have helped me. I think RA made it closer because of the draft.

[Bill_Bonow]

Well I guess I spoke too late

Chris,

Not quite. The FF "old guard" is already mounting a defence plan under the battle cry of "rules stability" and will most likely fight it tooth and nail (sound familiar?)

Since Bill brought it up, a some quick comments on an FV running with FST's.

Thanks Bruce, very well stated. I only wish there were more opportunities for National grade FV's to run with FST's. Too bad CenDiv is attempting to kill off Regional racing (you know, its all about the Runoffs)

[SR Racing]

I do not think I would have stayed with the same pack at Blackhawk or similar where the draft wouldn't have helped me. I think RA made it closer because of the draft.

Yep. While our restrictors don't bother the low end output, we start to starve in the 6600 area. With a long box in both cars (required in FST), a Vee is only a couple miles per hour slower than a FST at the end of a long straight. We do get there first though. This is what probably makes it look like the Vees corner better than a FST. A FST has about 100lbs of torque at peak. An FV is around 60+. Yes, I bet we do make a big hole in the air for you. So on the short tracks FST should have the greatest advantage.

[hardingfv32-1]

Say we propose the FST engine as an alternate for FV, Regional only for 2-3 years to provide time to get the handicapping correct. How do we handicap the FST engine, more weight and/or smaller restrictor? It does not have to be a perfect performance match, just equal for a given average lap.

Brian

[Bill_Bonow]

Tough call. The FST engine makes so much torque. Early on when testing restrictor size (at Road America), we put in a 25 mm plate and could still easily pull an FV out of any given corner, but a mid straight the FV would pass us back.

The other issue is gearing. FST is allowed one gearbox where FV has a plethora of choices. When we were allowing partial FST conversions, the engine, gearbox and tires were manditory. At that point, your 85% of the way to complete conversion (hence nobody has ever done a partial FST conversion).

[SR Racing]

Say we propose the FST engine as an alternate for FV, Regional only for 2-3 years to provide time to get the handicapping correct. How do we handicap the FST engine, more weight and/or smaller restrictor? It does not have to be a perfect performance match, just equal for a given average lap.

Brian

That is about the best I could think of. The worst case scenario would be (for example) the 1600 would have an edge over the 1200s at blackhawk (low rpm track) and probably lose out to the 1200 at R.A. with high revs. At most other tracks you might be able to get them on a par with the proper match of the above. (of course if you start making 1600 intake manifolds, that might not be the case.

If someone got serious about a change, I would do some of the dyno tests (chassis and engine) to see what parity might be achievable. (But I won't do it just for grins with the info of no use. )

Jim