Wheel cover ban

[Matt King]

The biggest question I have about these is why anyone would call them wheel "pants"? Do they cover your butt or legs? I think someone was searching for the word "spats."

[smsazzy]

The biggest question I have about these is why anyone would call them wheel "pants"? Do they cover your butt or legs? I think someone was searching for the word "spats."

Chaps.

[problemchild]

Steve - If they stay legal, I will certainly make a set. I think it a a cool idea. Not out of Carbon Fiber though. Probably Aluminum or Fiberglass.

Greg - I seem to remember you posting all kinds of really cool stuff you had developed for your car but were unable to use because of weight. Were all those innovative development ideas you had evil as well?

Like this cockpit adjustable rear droop limiter. [ external image ]

Or your cockpit adjustable external front roll bar? (weighs only 6 pounds)

I can't believe you would try to kill FV by developing a part that is going to require all of us to immediately go out and spend money. Will this cockpit adjustable external roll bar attract one single competitor to FV? Will it reduce cost to any single competitor? Will it make any FV racer safer? Will it make any single FV driver fit in their car better? No of course not.

Will they cost competitors money? Will somebody make money? Will there be a perception to some competitors that they will improve performance? Yes, Yes(presumably you), Yes.

The innovation allowed in racing is part of the fun.

I was an innovater .... not a rule manipulator or cheater.
I only built things that were legal. I have always been vehemently opposed to gray area rule manipulations.
I built stuff because I did not have money for tires and was trying to make back some of the gap. They were not for profit and were a waste of time in hindsight.
FV was not on its deathbed at that time. Neither was it when Caldwell made comments to Butch, which I am sure would have been disagreed with by many back then.
After 50 yrs, every possible combination of legal tweeks has been explored. By all means, go back and try them again ..... but don't try something new because you want to manipulate the rulebook. Go race NASCAR if you want to do that.

We need people to use their creativity to stabilize and grow FV. We also need positive unselfish leadership from people that race at the top levels of FV.

Steve, If you have a way to attract a couple hundred newbies to $23K FVs with CF whizzy bits, then please do so. You're struggling to find one. I would prefer we try to attract newbies to $5-10K Fvs without whizzy CF bits.

[Matt King]

The biggest question I have about these is why anyone would call them wheel "pants"? Do they cover your butt or legs? I think someone was searching for the word "spats."

Chaps.

Equally appropriate, since they obviously chapped someone's ass.

[smsazzy]

Steve - If they stay legal, I will certainly make a set. I think it a a cool idea. Not out of Carbon Fiber though. Probably Aluminum or Fiberglass.

Greg - I seem to remember you posting all kinds of really cool stuff you had developed for your car but were unable to use because of weight. Were all those innovative development ideas you had evil as well?

Like this cockpit adjustable rear droop limiter. [ external image ]

Or your cockpit adjustable external front roll bar? (weighs only 6 pounds)

I can't believe you would try to kill FV by developing a part that is going to require all of us to immediately go out and spend money. Will this cockpit adjustable external roll bar attract one single competitor to FV? Will it reduce cost to any single competitor? Will it make any FV racer safer? Will it make any single FV driver fit in their car better? No of course not.

Will they cost competitors money? Will somebody make money? Will there be a perception to some competitors that they will improve performance? Yes, Yes(presumably you), Yes.

The innovation allowed in racing is part of the fun.

I was an innovater .... not a rule manipulator or cheater.
I only built things that were legal. I have always been vehemently opposed to gray area rule manipulations.
I built stuff because I did not have money for tires and was trying to make back some of the gap. They were not for profit and were a waste of time in hindsight.
FV was not on its deathbed at that time. Neither was it when Caldwell made comments to Butch, which I am sure would have been disagreed with by many back then.
After 50 yrs, every possible combination of legal tweeks has been explored. By all means, go back and try them again ..... but don't try something new because you want to manipulate the rulebook. Go race NASCAR if you want to do that.

We need people to use their creativity to stabilize and grow FV. We also need positive unselfish leadership from people that race at the top levels of FV.

Steve, If you have a way to attract a couple hundred newbies to $23K FVs with CF whizzy bits, then please do so. You're struggling to find one. I would prefer we try to attract newbies to $5-10K Fvs without whizzy CF bits.

Conceivably, if you tightened the adjustable droop down far enough, you could effect the ride height of the car. Sounds like cockpit adjustable ride height. A rather gray area.

I'm not saying you were cheating Greg. My point is simply this, innovation is fun. It is part of why many of us do this. Don't claim innovation is evil on one hand and then brag about how innovative you are on the other.

Michael's innovation is not a gray area. It very nicely fits into the existing rules. It is not illegal and is not cheating.

[problemchild]

Stephen. Waste our time with nonsense. I never said anybody was cheating. I said I was not.

Innovate this:12 entries to the Glen driving school this weekend.
6 SMs
2 ITA
2 SRF
1 FF
1 T2

The Glen used to be one of the stongest FV areas.
How will wheel covers or rehashing intake manifolds help attract new FV blood.

[FVartist]

"FV was not on its deathbed at that time"

When did this event occur? FV was the second largest class at the Runoff, the third in Nationals, and seventh Regionally. I could paraphrase Mark Twain, the story of FV's demise is slightly exaggerated. Perception, seems to be viewed very differently.

[smsazzy]

It is worth mentioning that FV National Racing grew by 11% last year according to the published SCCA participation numbers. That's better than the overall average of 7% across the board. Maybe we're doing something right afterall.

Can't speak to regional numbers as those are not posted on the SCCA website.

[problemchild]

"FV was not on its deathbed at that time"

When did this event occur? FV was the second largest class at the Runoff, the third in Nationals, and seventh Regionally. I could paraphrase Mark Twain, the story of FV's demise is slightly exaggerated. Perception, seems to be viewed very differently.

That would be a matter of opinion.
In 90% of the country, FV racers race in Formula Alphabet with less than 5 FVs in attendance.

Again ..... debating things that can be debated forever and contribute nothing to reducing costs or promoting growth.

Please ..... Innovate some growth!

[RacerGeek]

Steve, If you have a way to attract a couple hundred newbies to $23K FVs with CF whizzy bits, then please do so. You're struggling to find one. I would prefer we try to attract newbies to $5-10K Fvs without whizzy CF bits.

... says the guy selling a wrecked, carbon fiber-bodied Womer for almost double what he paid for it!

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41774

[smsazzy]

Greg,

You are always calling for innovative ideas for growth. Get out from behind the keyboard and do something. Instead of insulting those of us who have a different feeling than you, try starting a revolution. Come up with your own ideas to solve problems and lead. Stop with the insults and blame game and do something.

The never ending sky-is-falling rhetoric clearly is not working.

Go recruit some new drivers instead.

[problemchild]

Steve, If you have a way to attract a couple hundred newbies to $23K FVs with CF whizzy bits, then please do so. You're struggling to find one. I would prefer we try to attract newbies to $5-10K Fvs without whizzy CF bits.

... says the guy selling a wrecked, carbon fiber-bodied Womer for almost double what he paid for it!

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41774

Actually,
It is not wrecked.
It is not mine, I did not pay for it, and over $13k has been spent upgrading it since purchase.
I am helping a friend sell his FV.

I think CF on FVs is positively stupid. Not my call!
I play the game that is playing and try to improve it going forward.

[problemchild]

Greg,

You are always calling for innovative ideas for growth. Get out from behind the keyboard and do something. Instead of insulting those of us who have a different feeling than you, try starting a revolution. Come up with your own ideas to solve problems and lead. Stop with the insults and blame game and do something.

The never ending sky-is-falling rhetoric clearly is not working.

Go recruit some new drivers instead.

I could really give a crap whether they are banned. I give a crap that Harding is posting crap on public forums and now FB car builders and crew and the entire racing community are offering their opinion on a non-issue ..... after this awesome race took place that should have everyone talking.

I offered to fund and operate a program to find a proper tire. I was not given the endorsement.
I have submitted proposals to increase wheelbase, cockpit size, and minimumweight.
I helped bring spec tires to Canadian FV, created the "F1200" name, and created the initial F1200 drivers association. I have recruited dozens of F1200 and FV drivers in 30 years, and currently consult with several dozen now at no charge. I repeatedly offer to do more, but I insist that I am working for progress and growth, not to oppose progress and growth.
I refuse to spend days of time sitting on committees determined to prevent any positive development.
If you consider that a "keyboard commando" then that is your choice, but once again you are wasting your time that could be spent innovating growth.

[satterley_sr]

I thought "bodywork" could not extend beyond the shock towers. If these spats,pants whatever are considered bodywork how can they be outboard of the shock towers?

[FV80]

I thought "bodywork" could not extend beyond the shock towers. If these spats,pants whatever are considered bodywork how can they be outboard of the shock towers?

Bodywork width is only restricted IN FRONT of the centerline of the beam tubes. This is the 2 sections of the rules that apply here....

E. Any bodywork forward of the center of the torsion bar tubes shall
have a maximum width of 31.75 inches (80.645cm).
[that is distance between the center of the shock tower uprights]
F. No part of the frame or bodywork shall project beyond a plane
connecting the vertical centerline of the front and rear tires.

They are calling the panels bodywork and it meets the rules as indicated above.
Steve, FV80

[jpetillo]

I find myself divided on this subject. I want the innovation/evolution, since this is not a spec class and I'd like to think that some day I will have the time to apply some of my own ideas. I think we all believe we have something to add in the way of new ideas and would like to do some of them to make our cars better, and we want the freedom to do that tinkering.

On the other hand, there is the concern of whether something will turn folks off to the FV class - mostly in losing current racers. Unfortunately each of us has a different understanding, belief, bent, and threshold to what we think will turn forks off. For some it's the manifold, for others the spec tire, for others the expensive suspensions, etc.

I was thrilled to see Mike & Al's inner wheel covers. To me it shows that they know what they're doing. It's something I've wanted to do, but I barely have the time to get my car to the track prepped, nor are my fabrication skills honed in any way close to theirs.

We do see other racing classes and organizations changing the rules to disallow an innovation that is currently allowed by the rules, and they usually do this "for the good of the class". No governing body has an easy decision to make when it comes to deciding what's for the good of the class, as they really would need a crystal ball to see how the future will go as a result of their decision/action. So they do the best they can. There is no jealousy or ill will used in making such decisions - they are tough enough to make on their own. Any resulting recommended changes are not made lightly. I can tell you for a fact that almost no stone is left unturned in a committee discussion on each and every topic, and playing devil's advocate is done by all in an effort to flush out every viewpoint and consideration. I have been on many a panel or committee - one just last week with the govt. - and the FV committee works as well as I have seen. Being on the committee is not easy. I can also tell you that preventing positive development is not a characteristic of the committee.

One big problem we have in FV, and it was brought to light once again with the manifold debacle, is rules creep - rules creep to me meaning that something is accepted after enough people have it or have done it, even if we have to amend the rules to make it so. It would be hard to believe that we did not have a rules creep problem going on before Brian's manifolds hit the market. I don't think Brain invented the enlarged manifold concept. I think it was already going on and he brought it to our attention. We may want to thank him for that. Anyway, one reason it followed the course it did was because of rules creep - there were many modified manifolds out there.

Regarding rules creep. Often the something being considered is usually something that is questionable regarding legality in the first place. However, it could also be a trend that is not good for the class. I guess that anything expensive falls into that category of potentially not being good for the class. To me those expensive items include manifolds, shocks, suspension, bodywork, engines... you a name it. Each of these carries their own unique set of controversies as highlighted in the forums. Preventing the onset of rules creep is one of the Committee's biggest concerns, and many recent decisions/discussions have been in an effort to prevent it. Sorry for the aside.


I think we should be discussing how we as a class want to consider such changes, like acceptance of innovation, etc., in general. We need to understand what we can tolerate, and still have a great class. That way when issues come up we have some idea how we should view them, and then addressing them might be easier.

Stephen's comments I see as beginning this specific thought process in this thread. Perhaps this is not innovative, but I think it's the answer to how we go forward. We also need the community to work more together as opposed to being divided. That does not mean that there has to be absolute agreement, but it does mean that constructive dialogue in search of what we want and what we can do better would get us there faster. Forget the past - look forward. All of us should try supporting the committee and providing them insight to help direct the class. It can't hurt - can only help!

I'd like to see regional representatives working together to compare notes and help each other with things like attracting outside regions to specific events - like the Vee Fest event we have annually in the NE and other areas have as well. What works for one region may work for another. I'd be interested in hearing how other regions do promotion and what worked for them - and didn't. Would folks be interested in doing that - volunteering to be your regional representative? If so, let me know - send me a PM. John

John

[FV80]

Nice post, John.
Steve, FV80

[Matt King]

Good points, John, especially about manifolds and rules creep. Here's a radical suggestion: The FV Committee should be reestablished with more official power over the FV rules within the SCCA/CRB structure. It should be elevated from an advisory committee to a committee with authority to write and rewrite rules for the class, with oversight from the CRB and BOD as necessary. The membership of the committee should be made up of representatives elected by the FV competitors in each division.

[fvracer27]

I find myself divided on this subject. I want the innovation/evolution, since this is not a spec class and I'd like to think that some day I will have the time to apply some of my own ideas. I think we all believe we have something to add in the way of new ideas and would like to do some of them to make our cars better, and we want the freedom to do that tinkering.

On the other hand, there is the concern of whether something will turn folks off to the FV class - mostly in losing current racers. Unfortunately each of us has a different understanding, belief, bent, and threshold to what we think will turn forks off. For some it's the manifold, for others the spec tire, for others the expensive suspensions, etc.

I was thrilled to see Mike & Al's inner wheel covers. To me it shows that they know what they're doing. It's something I've wanted to do, but I barely have the time to get my car to the track prepped, nor are my fabrication skills honed in any way close to theirs.

We do see other racing classes and organizations changing the rules to disallow an innovation that is currently allowed by the rules, and they usually do this "for the good of the class". No governing body has an easy decision to make when it comes to deciding what's for the good of the class, as they really would need a crystal ball to see how the future will go as a result of their decision/action. So they do the best they can. There is no jealousy or ill will used in making such decisions - they are tough enough to make on their own. Any resulting recommended changes are not made lightly. I can tell you for a fact that almost no stone is left unturned in a committee discussion on each and every topic, and playing devil's advocate is done by all in an effort to flush out every viewpoint and consideration. I have been on many a panel or committee - one just last week with the govt. - and the FV committee works as well as I have seen. Being on the committee is not easy. I can also tell you that preventing positive development is not a characteristic of the committee.

One big problem we have in FV, and it was brought to light once again with the manifold debacle, is rules creep - rules creep to me meaning that something is accepted after enough people have it or have done it, even if we have to amend the rules to make it so. It would be hard to believe that we did not have a rules creep problem going on before Brian's manifolds hit the market. I don't think Brain invented the enlarged manifold concept. I think it was already going on and he brought it to our attention. We may want to thank him for that. Anyway, one reason it followed the course it did was because of rules creep - there were many modified manifolds out there.

Regarding rules creep. Often the something being considered is usually something that is questionable regarding legality in the first place. However, it could also be a trend that is not good for the class. I guess that anything expensive falls into that category of potentially not being good for the class. To me those expensive items include manifolds, shocks, suspension, bodywork, engines... you a name it. Each of these carries their own unique set of controversies as highlighted in the forums. Preventing the onset of rules creep is one of the Committee's biggest concerns, and many recent decisions/discussions have been in an effort to prevent it. Sorry for the aside.


I think we should be discussing how we as a class want to consider such changes, like acceptance of innovation, etc., in general. We need to understand what we can tolerate, and still have a great class. That way when issues come up we have some idea how we should view them, and then addressing them might be easier.

Stephen's comments I see as beginning this specific thought process in this thread. Perhaps this is not innovative, but I think it's the answer to how we go forward. We also need the community to work more together as opposed to being divided. That does not mean that there has to be absolute agreement, but it does mean that constructive dialogue in search of what we want and what we can do better would get us there faster. Forget the past - look forward. All of us should try supporting the committee and providing them insight to help direct the class. It can't hurt - can only help!

I'd like to see regional representatives working together to compare notes and help each other with things like attracting outside regions to specific events - like the Vee Fest event we have annually in the NE and other areas have as well. What works for one region may work for another. I'd be interested in hearing how other regions do promotion and what worked for them - and didn't. Would folks be interested in doing that - volunteering to be your regional representative? If so, let me know - send me a PM. John

John

How did you say all that without bashing anyone John?
All great points and well said

[FV80]

...The membership of the committee should be made up of representatives elected by the FV competitors in each division.

I believe you will have great difficulty FINDING a worthy volunteer from each division. The Committee strives for "proper" representation both Geo wise and experience wise. Volunteers are few and far between. The CRB is ALWAYS the final decision maker for all rules. We MIGHT be able to elevate the FV Committee to FSRC status, but even that is questionable. I'm not sure if there are ANY Official Committees within SCCA that have 'rules writing/changing' status, although the CRB *SHOULD* just rubber stamp in most cases.

Maybe Brian M knows more about that?
Steve, FV80

[brian]

The whole idea of the CRB and it's advisory committees is to free up time for strategic thinking and planning. Stressing over every nut and bolt issue doesn't leave time for much else. The BOD and CRB relies on the recommendations from the advisory committtees. That does not mean that there is a rubber stamp. On occaision, items are not approved and sent back for more study. These redo's are more conceptual in nature like class combinations or structural than car rule issues. The key to success is having fresh blood volunteer to help and havng members writing to their committees. The vee committee, like other classes have, is a bit less official and aids the CRB committees in gathering info.

[FV80]

...The vee committee, like other classes have, is a bit less official and aids the CRB committees in gathering info.

Brian,
HOW did the other "more official" committees get established? .. and WHY? It is quite obvious why they are needed... but why did SCCA establish them? Was it an outcry from class competitors, or something else? What would it take for the FVAHC to become "more official" in SCCA? As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the members of other committees are 'vetted' by the CRB/BOD whereas THIS Committee formed itself without SCCA input/support or anything else - we just saw a need. Is that true or not?

Steve, FV80

[smsazzy]

...The vee committee, like other classes have, is a bit less official and aids the CRB committees in gathering info.

Brian,
HOW did the other "more official" committees get established? .. and WHY? It is quite obvious why they are needed... but why did SCCA establish them? Was it an outcry from class competitors, or something else? What would it take for the FVAHC to become "more official" in SCCA? As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the members of other committees are 'vetted' by the CRB/BOD whereas THIS Committee formed itself without SCCA input/support or anything else - we just saw a need. Is that true or not?

Steve, FV80

Crap! If we are vetted, we'll all be kicked off except Dietmar!

[satterley_sr]

Stevan,

Looking at the pictures, it looks like the front of the covers is beyond the front of the axle beam. But it hard to say.

Dave

[smsazzy]

Dave,

I can assure you they are not. It is clear this was carefully considered during the design of these parts.