Some possible rules questions

[remmers]

So there's been a fair amount of talk concerning how "outdated" formula vees are, which I don't really disagree in the least. But, for the sake of argument, just how big of a difference would opening up the rules to allow for the same beam that FSTs use, Inboard shocks, disk brakes, and IRS in the rear of the cars? My guess is the disk brakes do little if anything, given you can lock up the drum brakes if you use them too hard, and the beams and turkey-legs are the big aero wall. the only one that seems like it might make any difference whatsoever is IRS in the back of the car. Also, this would allow for any FST's to just swap motors and be allowed to run FV or vice-versa. Just something to think about as possible rules changes to make the class appear far less antiquated.

[Matt King]

For me, the disc brakes would be welcome from a maintenance standpoint. Adjusting brakes would just be one less thing to think about. The transmission FST uses is still a swingarm, so that's not much different other than they have one set of spec gear ratios (it's basically a FV Long Box). Not sure there is a big difference in the performance of the two styles of beams either other than parts for the balljoint version are more common.

[FVartist]

The beauty of the class is the stability of the rules. This is why cars 30 years old are still competitive. This keeps cost down, not having to upgrade each year with every rule change. I am not in favor of such a drastic rule change.

Your idea is not new. When the FST concept was initially developed it was to slowly eliminate the FV converting them to FST. This was the original 5 year plan. Read the rules closely and you will see just changing the engine after the front beam change is just the start. The FST uses rims with a 4 lug pattern, the FV uses The original rims, 5 lug. This alone requres more changes. The FST allows a rack and pinion, The FV uses a steering box. These seemingly simple changes would most likely require new body work.Then there is the dry sump system the FST uses, many FV's don't have room for the system.

Seems to me, it would be a lot easier to own one of each. Let each live or die as a stand alone class. I do not want to lose FV by slowly changing it to a FST.

Bruce

[remmers]

True, but from what i understand (and correct me if i'm wrong) FST mandates the use of those items. Is a rack and pinion going to be that big of a deal compared to the steering box? Both do get loose over time, after all. I would suggest opening up the rules to allow these changes, but not mandate them. In the case of the disk brakes, I'd say mandate the tire size to the current 5-lug wheel so as not to have to keep two different types of tire around. I'm under the impression that allowing for any combination of those rule changes would just allow for more creative and newer designs, not necessarily make any car obsolete. If it were rule changes that make cars obsolete, why don't you see D13's leading the Runoffs? I propose merely opening up the rules, not mandating changes to current cars. And in particular, try to keep current cars from inherently becoming uncompetitive because they're not brand new.

[rhaynes93]

I think anyone who thinks Vees are antiquated would think the same about FST. I don't think it would help or change anything to "merge" any of the rules.
You can't turn a sows ear into a silk purse.
You could change everything you mentioned and not draw any new blood to speak of.
A lot of people are wannabees and their excuse for not stepping up is FV is too "antiquated" and other classes are too expensive. The first thing everyone asks is "how fast do you go". Most people have NO concept of the big picture.
FV will never again be what it once was. When the current crop finally dwindles away, FV will just go away. There is no circle of life in racing, but there is evolution. FV has had a real good run. In 196? there weren't as many options. Things are different now; street cars have a lot more performance. Tastes have changed
Why don't we all just have fun till the fun runs out.

[Bill_Bonow]

Bruce is semi correct, after taking a trip to New Zealand in 2001 and seeing their FV program, a group of FV people in the midwest wanted to investigate the concept of updating FV (much like your suggesting now). We then hooked up with FV'ers in New South Wales, Australia who had given us the "blueprints" for updating FV to what we now know as FST. This was them presented to the general FV community and it went over like a screen door on a submarine. Being FV people ourselves, we simply didn't know any better and as the saying goes "pressed on regardless". However, there never was any such plan to obsolete or eliminate FV. That part of Bruce's post is simply wrong.

Around '04, we decided to start the pursuit of a separate, stand alone class (the head gets to hurting after beating it against a solid object repeatedly). Everyone (FV and FST folk alike) felt that the market would decide if one, both or none should survive. Another 5 years have gone by and FST has grown on its own into a nation-wide SCCA GCR class (Regional only). I would add that this has occured without harm or damage to FV. Most FST drivers are new or from other classes (other than the original core group) and most of our cars are new, purpose built FST's. Conversion cars do make up about 30% to 40% of our grids, but virtually every one of those cars were garage queens that had been parked for years (cheap purchase).

FWIW, most of those in FST do not want FV to change either. It is what it is.

[Bill_Bonow]

I think anyone who thinks Vees are antiquated would think the same about FST.

You may want to re-think that one.

[SR Racing]

When the FST concept was initially developed it was to slowly eliminate the FV converting them to FST. This was the original 5 year plan. Read the rules closely and you will see just changing the engine after the front beam change is just the start. The FST uses rims with a 4 lug pattern, the FV uses The original rims, 5 lug. This alone requres more changes. The FST allows a rack and pinion, The FV uses a steering box. These seemingly simple changes would most likely require new body work.Then there is the dry sump system the FST uses, many FV's don't have room for the system.

Whether one chooses to switch or not, at least the right facts should be on the table..

There was no conscious plan to "eliminate FV by converting them to FST". To the contrary, 2 purposebuilt FST manufactures were planning to sell complete cars and several are out there. We mainly wanted a rules package that did ALLOW for conversions so that the original FV was not worthless someday (other than vintage). We also wanted to activate some garage queens, which we did.

I don't know of anyone who had to change their body work when converting a Vee to an FST. (You do have to modify for the beam tubes, since the spread is slightly different, but that is a very simple job.)

A Rack and pinion is not mandatory and there is no advantage to it other than weight and that is NO problem in an FST. Most everyone racing FST in a purposebuilt car or conversion requires ballast. Weight is not an issue.

All of the FV's that have converted have implemented dry sumps and tanks. You have to be creative, but we have found vendors making custom FST tanks for us to fit any car so far.

Since we do have a spec tire that lasts all season a different rim is required. But they are similar in price to a 4" FV rim.

Every component on an FST is stronger, available across the counter at dozens of vendors, and less expensive in EVERY case with the exception of the trans which is the same as FV.

Conversion isn't a 1 weekend task and will cost you 3 to 7 thousand depending upon what you do and what you farm out. But payback is fast. (Possibly in one season.)

We wanted to race. Most of us have chased the points and participated in the run-offs, (spending thousands). Now we just wanted to race and have fun for a lot less money. We don't want active FV's to convert unless they have that buring desire.

As far as dropping a 1200 into an FST, I don't think you will find anyone willing to do that just to participate in an FV race. We can race all we want now. <g>

So, I hope the FV fields stay full and the class continues on. However, there is a practical limitation on parts availabilty in FV. (and the prices that are driven by that.)

As far as rules changes. We also have very little creep. We added the dry sumps for reliabilty. Other than that all changes have been made only for clarification or to allow more parts into the supply line at better prices.

As far as someone thinking a FST is antiquated..... Yep. Just like most every race car under $40K. (Looked at a FF?) But FST is a 20 year step, and maybe it will go another 20 years.

As far as dropping a 1200 into an FST, I don't think you will find anyone willing to do that just to participate in an FV race. We can race all we want now. <g>

So, I hope the FV fields stay full and the class continues on. However, there is a practical limitation on parts availabilty in FV. (and the prices that are driven by that.)

As far as rules changes. We also have very little creep. We added the dry sumps for reliabilty. Other than that all changes have been made only for clarification or to allow more parts into the supply line at better prices.

[billinstuart]

Seem like in the '80's some guy qualified a Formcar for the runoffs to de-fuse the same "older cars are not competitive" argument. Been going on for decades. I suspect you put Stevan Davis or any of the other really great Vee drivers in a decent car with a good engine and they'll STILL be at the front.

I'm afraid RHaynes is correct..it's been a great class, but the writing is on the wall. I remember 3 hours seat time in my Vee at Atlanta. Huge fields of Vees. Sadly, the tide is turning. Too many door slammers and enduros. Too many classes. Too few parts. The entire nature of SCCA is changing (has changed?) and not for the better.

I've thoroughly enjoyed my 3 decades of involvement with Vees. Still check out every one of them on the rare occasion I visit a track. Unfortunately, my last visit to Moroso there were 2 regular vees and a couple vintage ones. Sad, but understandable.

Changing the rules won't combat the 30+ classes that SCCA insists on running. We're still gonna be put in with Spridgits and Sports Renault (oops..the new Ford crap), Atlantics and other open wheel stuff that instantly appear in your mirrors, who knows what else. As a matter of fact, ALL open wheel stuff is disappearing.

Well, there's always vintage.

[SR Racing]

For me, the disc brakes would be welcome from a maintenance standpoint. Adjusting brakes would just be one less thing to think about. The transmission FST uses is still a swingarm, so that's not much different other than they have one set of spec gear ratios (it's basically a FV Long Box). Not sure there is a big difference in the performance of the two styles of beams either other than parts for the balljoint version are more common.

Yes disc brakes are wonderfull. One of out renter cars has about 20 weekends on it. Pretty soon we are going to have to change the $10 pads.

Since we are allowed to cut the towers off the FST Ball joint beam there is the cosmetic change. Our unsprung weight is more than an FV and that might hurt a little bit. Yes, our beams are 30% less in price than a Link Pin with a lot less slop. Our camber stays within 10 degrees and our toe stays within a few inches, unlike a link pin. Also all our beams have needle bearings unlike most of the available FV beams. We also adjust camber(or caster) in about 20 seconds, vs, 20 minutes.

But there probably is no performance advantage. It's all price and availabilty and maintenance time.

[Bill Carroll]

There is potential solution to the demise of the class in SCCA. This year I started running with the FRCCA (F for Formula Car) No Fenders, No Sports racers, only open wheel cars! They follow the GCR are well organized have all the required things in place to sustain a group such as the FV. They run Pocono (North and East), Summit point (Main and Shenandoah), may have a NJMP race later this year. They will give us our own session if we can get a few more cars. A weekend costs $300 and I get 150+ miles of track time. They are also involved in an event in September at the Trans Am race in KY with posssible TV time a lot of Vee's, and they're looking at the Glen and other tracks soon. A mid west group is considering an FRCCA Franchise that could open up nearly 1/3 of the country. They are willing to work with us to build a series for our group. I can't speak for them but I see the future of FV with them as a real option. FST are welcome too and they already have that class listed too. Contact them at: http://www.frcca.com/modules.php?name=Contact_Us
and give them a try, I'll be at Summit Point in July.
Bill

[Dmclellan]

I don't know the tech details or cost, but would rev limiting reduce cost?

[brian]

In the late 80's, about 87, Bob Cornish from SF qualified and ran Petunia, an original Formcar. He finished 9th. Can't recall if he ran the fan belt.

I'm not going to get into this debate, but will state that while I was a CRB board member, there was a written proposal sent asking that the two classes be merged over time. So guys, don't piss on my leg and try to convince me that it's raining.

[brian]

Doug, a rev limiter may reduce failures, but overrev damage is more significant on early downshifts and a limiter would do nothing to prevent that kind of overrev. Our cars have their own restrictions; aero drag and induction systems, to limit rpm in 4th gear.

[remmers]

IMO, having both Vee and FST will do nothing to improve the popularity of either class. Look at what happened to the CART/IRL schism. One could argue that open wheel racing in the US was a dying style before, but there's no denying that splitting very nearly killed both.

[Bill_Bonow]

In the late 80's, about 87, Bob Cornish from SF qualified and ran Petunia, an original Formcar. He finished 9th. Can't recall if he ran the fan belt.

Cornish qualified 10th and finished 8th in the 1983 Runoffs in Petunia, a highly modified Mk 1 Formcar originally built by Don Cheesman and John Baker (editors/writers of the "Vee Line"). He did not run a fan. This action was based on his previously running a Caracal D and people complaining that old cars were no longer competitive.

I'm not going to get into this debate, but will state that while I was a CRB board member, there was a written proposal sent asking that the two classes be merged over time. So guys, don't piss on my leg and try to convince me that it's raining.

This statement is absolute BS. I have kept every corresponce regarding FST in my records going back to 2001. The first Formula First Drivers Association written proposal directed at the CRB and BOD was dated 9/27/07 (long after you were gone from the CRB). There were posts, emails and correspondence between various individuals talking about the idea and the possibility, but never a written proposal to the CRB.

Besides, who cares. FST is a separate, stand alone GCR class.

[Bill_Bonow]

IMO, having both Vee and FST will do nothing to improve the popularity of either class.

Again, you may want to research this a little bit more. For the past 3 years, FST is the fastest growing non-spec open wheeled class in SCCA (Source: SCCA FST Homologations issued).

[remmers]

How do they determine fastest growing? Was SSM the fastest growing prior to that?

[Bill_Bonow]

remmers,

Your answer is in my post, "fastest growing non-spec open wheeled class in SCCA". Spec Miata (SM/SSM) is pretty much a closed wheel class.

[remmers]

Woops, missed that. But what was the fastest growing prior to FST? I'm curious.

[billinstuart]

Thanks for the clarification Bill. This "competitive" issue has been around for a long time. But, I remember seeing the first Caracal D at Atlanta and thinking "is that legal"? Well, it wasn't with the deflectors in front of the rear wheels.

Now, a class that died overnight from progress was Formula ford. First Swift showed up and immediately relegated everything else to last place.

[rhaynes93]

First let me apologize for helping this post get off topic.
Your original post asked if allowing SOME of the FST "technology" in FV would would help grow the class while not creating performance gains that would require everyone to make the changes.
At least I think it was.
On the 2nd point, you are probably right in that if one made just the changes you mentioned (don't mess with engines,carbs,intakes or tires and wheels), the performance potential would not be changed.
On the 1st point, I think MAYBE it MIGHT in a handful of cases draw some "new blood" from the realm of tinkerers/mechanics/car building individuals that want to find an venue to race and experiment. I don't think it would necessarily hurt either class. I don't think it would draw people in significant numbers.
Right now there are two good choices; FV or FST.
A few years ago one could run in FS with a "hybrid" car and negotiate with the stewards to run with FV. Can you still do that?
As you can see this is a volatile topic. Both sides are capable of seeing this type discussion as an attack on their class and can be very protective.
There is a committee that is willing to look at specific changes one at a time that are improvements.
They just looked at dry sumps. Proposed changes require input from members and apparently this is hard to get.

[rhaynes93]

One question. What do you mean by IRS in the back of the car? There is essentially no difference in the type rear suspension that can be used in FV vs. FST. Am I wrong about this?

[remmers]

The reason for the IRS is because just mentioning swing-axles dates the class. The IRS suspension is not on either, but I personally think it should find it's way onto the cars eventually. It would also allow for people to use leading arms, trailing arms, and A-arms. This one I threw in there because elsewhere on the forum when talking about promoting the class someone brought up that we don't even have IRS when most cars people own nowadays do. Making them (in some people's opinions) antiquated and technologically backwards.

[Bill_Bonow]

First let me apologize for helping this post get off topic.

I don't think it got that far off topic, most of the suggestioned changes reflect directly on FST.

As you can see this is a volatile topic.

At this point in time, most of the tension between the classes is gone (compaired to 6+ years ago). But as with most in any class, when rocks get thrown, people get protective (on both side).

A few years ago one could run in FS with a "hybrid" car and negotiate with the stewards to run with FV. Can you still do that?

All cars must to be homologated for the class they will run. I.E., you can't just show up and race. However, I would suggest that this is the best way to go. The FST "committee car" did just as suggested. It was a hybrid (built to what became the FST rules) that raced in FS. Because our division had no real FS cars racing, we negotiated with the steward on a race to race basis and got FS moved into the FV race group. In fact, to this day in CenDiv (and because there still is no real FS cars to speak of) FS is always in the same race group as FV.

In order to get really serious about promoting ideas for possible FV rule changes, someone is going to have to do the above (build and run a car in FS). I say this as a simple lobby effort will most likey yield a large goose egg (based on my observation over the past 30 years of FV and now FST history)

I guess the only thing I don't understand about the concept is, why would people want to spend money to upgrade their FV and not have any increase in performance?