Annual FV meeting @ the Runoffs

[brian]

The FV ad hoc committee will hold a meeting on Saturday during the upcoming Runoffs. This meeting is to listen to FV'rs and get their imput and guidence for the upcoming year. Last year we concentrated on engine supply issues and this year would like to discuss other issues on the FV horizon.

Knowing that most of us Left Coasters won't be there, I'd like to get your input to take back with me. The main issues like spec tires and what direction should FV take will be discussed. Should there me a transision to FFirst or should FV continue on it's own path. What upgrades in the cars would you like to see? Should upgrades come with a weight penalty to assure parity with other vee? Give it some thought and make some postings.

P.S. this is not a solicitation for everyone to argue the merits of FV vs. FFirst, there's enough flaming on that subject to fill a library.

[sabre1]

Hi Brian,

Well someone has to go first, so I'll add my $.01!

As an occasional competitor who has been accumulating spare parts over numerous years, I'd prefer that all my spares don't become obsolete overnight. That said, I am truly concerned for the future of the class and as components (pistons/cylinders, backing plates, blah, blah, blah) become scarce, it will obviously affect the viability and attractiveness (low cost) of the class.

So what to do? I don't have any big suggestions, but my one wish is for a PLANNED transition; say a 1 or 2 year notice that the class will allow disc brakes for instance. I don't want a vote that says the disc brakes are allowed NEXT year. Certainly we should be looking at parts availability for the next 5 or 10 years and base decisions on class evolution accordingly.

Perhaps the ad hoc committee could put together a questionnaire that is sent to FV competitors over the past several years; hopefully SCCA would cooperate on this. Questions could include what those competitors want to see and why or why aren't they still racing. I am a bit disappointed that my response here is the first one (though hopefully you have received responses through other means).

Per your specific questions, I'd like to see FV continue as FV, not a transition to FFirst unless it was done on perhaps a 10 year plan. I'd prefer that performance enhancements be accompanied by a weight penalty, but approval of alternate parts like steering racks should be done without a penalty. Keep it simple though. I suspect that the simplicity and general availability of parts are a couple of the major factors that have contributed to the class being so popular for so many years.

Hope this helps, and thanks for tackling the issue!

-Jim

[brian]

Thanks Jim for your input. It seems that our minds are traveling on the same path. As many of you know, the ad hoc committee addressed issues as they came up but we would like to get more proactive. The commitee, in conjunction with most engine builders and suppliers, have sourced and purchased cyl & liners from Germany. It's taken a long time to put this together and the parts are arriving in the country on 9/7 after months of work. In the future, we would like to have done some of the leg work on issues like cylinder heads and backing plates before the issue is in crisis mode. So far, nothing is in crisis mode but I would like all your thoughts on items you would like the committee to look at.

Based on input from the upcoming meeting and talking with folks in the class, we will address the issues of disc brakes, steering racks and other perceived upgrades. But like Jim mentioned, these changes will probably be implemented with plenty of lead time and with effective limits as not to make existing cars obsolete and force unwilling competitors to spend money to stay competitive. Limits may include things like weight etc. thanks again for the input.

[sabre1]

Brian,

I was going to ask where to find out more information on the ad hoc committee, but I think I just found it on the Formula Vee Interchange site (http://www.formulavee.org/) under Committee Chat. Is this the best place to keep up with what the committee is doing or do you have any other suggestions?

Thanks.

-Jim

[brian]

Yes it is. We're all volunteers and the minutes are slow coming out sometimes but everything will eventually be posted there. Maybe I can start posting them to this exchange as well.

[DerElf]

Brian;

Sorry if I sound cynical but it always seems that what the people who are actually competing at the run-off want is what is implemented and the rest of us, even if we send a rep like yourself to speak for us are basically treated like redheaded step children. I will add to this that I don't express my views as openly as I used to since I have not been racing this year and as such my opinion is less valid.

That having been said I will express my feelings and you can take them for what they are worth.

Firstly I too have a large stack of rusty VW parts, doesn't every Vee driver? I don't give a tinker's cuss if they become less valuable as FV parts. I consider racing a hobby and as such said parts are support for it and not an investment. I would rather see actual CONCRETE movement made to salvage the class on the West Coast specifically and in the SCCA in general. If rules changes reduce their value as raceparts they will probably garner a better price at the local Bug-O-Rama with the vintage restoration crowd.

My opinions are wll known to the folks who know me but I will parrot them out once again.

1) Implementation of rule changes-These should take less time than it takes a glacier to move into Los Angeles. Giving a warning that they WILL be allowed in two years is bass-akwards. This is NOT Formula One and there is NO FORMULA VEE CONCORDE AGGREEMENT. The idea is to not only salvae the class but to stimulate as well.

2) Weight Penalty- Implementation of a weight penalty for cars that actually take advantage of rules changes (that do not have an proven competitive advantage) before they even hit the track effectivly eliminates the rule changes. Why is it that when the proposition of an increased minimum weight was put forth the flame throwers came out but now it is spoken of in an almost cavalier manner? Allow the changes and then if a RADICAL unfair advantage then steps should be taken to counter that in a timely manner. This requires the drivers who participate in the class to be PROACTIVE though and they have proven that is not the case.

(OK, now for concrete opinions rather than frustrated ramblings)

3)Disc Brakes- This is really a no brainer. The Prices that were quoted on the interchange for the conversion components were WAY off the mark. In addition to that if the Club were to approach the manufacturer of components and make a deal where that manufacturer becomes the SPEC supplier in return for a reduced price for club members the price would come down as even further.

4) Wheels and tires-Specify that the cars need to use a standard 4 bolt VW pattern steel wheel and you END the problems with finding wheels, for both 4 and 5 llug wheel users. Those who convert can sell their 5 lug rims to those that do not. Stick with the skinney tires as it will eliminate ANY braking advantage (however slim) the disc brakes bring as the contact patch remains the limiting factor in the braking equation.

5) Wheelbaes and bodylength- MAking the wheelbase longer makes the cars safer and more d**n comfortable. As for a performance advantage, that remains to be seen.

6) Engines- Getting more 1200 pistons is NOT going to make those problems go away, it is just going to extend the status quo. At the same time going to a 1600cc engine is NOT going to make things cheaper, it might make it somewhat easier for a home engine builder to build his engine though. Also porting of the heads was a SOLUTION for the problem encountered in the early years where the guys with the flow benches would find all the heads that flowed best and charged an arm and a leg for them.

Here is where a transitional period would be required and weight penalties implemented (and adjusted).

7) Gearboxes- The rules work, leave them alone.

8) BAll Joint front ends-Another no brainer that I wonder why we are even talking about it. It is it's OWN weight penalty. As for shock placement, keep it external we don't need bellcranks.

Then again, maybe we do...it might just get people to think about their racecars more as something to develop and less like something that sits in the garage next to the lawn mower over the winter and you just drag it out a couple of times a year to drive it around.

Thanks for soliciting input Brian and good luck back at the runoffs. Whatever you say though I am sure that whatever the drivers who finsih on the podium want will be implemented.

[btatum]

disc brakes, at least in the front. The ability to switch to four lug rims.

[Bruce]

I only wish that we were able to use an electronic ignition system. The rest I can live with out for now.

[brian]

I wish there was a better way to contact everyone in the class but there isn't. Topeka's new software may someday give us membership by class but it's not avalable now. As you know, I spend a lot of time at the regionals and have run several around the country this year. I talk to a lot of people about the class and their voices do not go unheard. This year's meeting will have some time to confirm our guidelines from last year and set some goals for the upcoming year. Those of us on the volunteer committee know the process is not perfect but at least it is an attempt to do address the issues for the class.

If there's something you would like to change, like the ignition modules, write a letter to the CRB now for 1/1/07. How the rules are changed is governed by the GCR and requires time for membership input and review by the committees involved. I'm sorry it takes so long hopefully, we can convince some of our 19th century members to join us in the electronic mail world and speed the process up.

[RichK]

Well, I'm not officially an FV guy anymore, but here's my input:

Focus on safety upgrades first. Get rid of the steering box, spindles and (cracking) drum brakes.

Engines are expensive, but I'd leave the engine spec alone because it's well developed and parts can be sourced eventually. The 1600 would require years and money to develop. I think FV would lose many drivers if they suddenly had a $3000 race motor turn into a worthless 60hp lump.

Same with wheelbase - I'd hate to think of how many drivers would quit because suddenly their chassis is obsolete.

So, my basic premise is that the basic FV concept is still GREAT, it just needs modernizing of some components for safety and cost.

[brian]

Thanks Rich for the thoughts and ideas. I have to remind everyone that there are fixes for the safety issues Rich raised. I don't mean to be judgemental, but not one single person has pursued the spindle fix I've discussed. I've talked personally with folks and mentioned on this interchange, about the simple $50 strengthening sleeve that is available and no one has got one. I sure hope you don't hit me when your spindle fails.

[DerElf]

Rich;

How many would quit because of the wheelbase? Well I ask how many have quit for other reasons. Also, considering the amount of "cut and paste" that goes on in San Francisoo region (Including you Rich, and your much lament car). Vee Drivers drop pans, move rollhoops etc.. I think we are losing more drivers to Ennui than we would ever lose to changes in the rules.

[RichK]

If my chassis were suddenly uncompetitive due to rule changes, I wouldn't buy a new one & I didn't have enough time & money to develop my old one into something competitive.

What kept me in FV for 10 years was stability. That stability kept my '91 model competitive for 14 years (and years to come).

My opinion is that gradual changes will work, large-expense changes will not. When we suddenly had to use transponders ($300), everyone bit the bullet and kept racing. When we had to replace belts, same thing. When I felt that a HANS device was necessary, I bought it. Keeping the yearly changes in this range (<$1000 per year of changes) is the best method, IMO.

Rich

[sweenrace]

I agree whole-heartedly with Rich. I dont see why we couldnt set out a plan with the objective of limiting the cost of changes to say $500 - $1000 per year. As an example:

Year1: Allow change to steering racks
Year2: Allow change to disk brakes
Year3: etc

Ian

[DerElf]

Gents;

A measured plan would be best were it not for the intangibles. That is the MEASUREABLE number of people who are dropping out of the class each year.

Rich;

I am NOT convinced that an increase in wheelbase would make ANY CHASSIS OBSOLETE. The wheelbase issue is more a question of comfort (and safety) for the driver than of on the track performance. An increase in wheelbase MIGHT make a chassis more stable in fast areas but that would be more than compensated for by the fact that it would be less nimble in the corners.

Yes, the rules have been stable for almost two generations, and the dinosaurs had a nice stable enviroment to live in too, then there was this COMET...

Once again though I am going to personally temper my comments by saying since I have not been running this year I have less of a say in all this.