Printable View
Utilizing a SCCA compliant crank in the Kent does present a reliability issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by tstrong
Utilizing the SCAT crank eliminates much of that reliability issue, but does introduce the compliance argument/issue.
Reliability is subjective, even with the greatly improved cranks and pistons in the currently common Kent configuration, I still don't see many suggesting they are getting Fit-type TBO with them.
A pro Kent wins every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by tstrong
At Mosport we see some very good Kent engines but none 'get to the front'. So all is not equal. Never has been.
KR.
Apparently, an overwhelming majority believe this is a non-issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
it is just common sense then, that the minority write letters to SCCA requesting the SCAT crank, and required modifications, be acknowledged as legal. Compliance and reliability issues solved very easily.
But what fun is that?
Except in vintage, where there ARE healthy counts and VERY competitive racers.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
And, like sidepods on Mygales, vintage racers decided to do what is so successful in the REST of the world by running Kent engines and treaded tires.
Enjoy fielding 1/4 of the field with the cars on your trailer though.
Scott
Yep. Still nothing in the March prelims. Most Kent racers probably aren't racing SCCA so don't care as their series may acknowledge the SCAT crank as being allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
A clarification would seem quite simple, even if a de facto rule change...but at the risk of getting a "rule is adequate as written" canned response, what do you do? Assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the SCAT crank does meet original Ford Kent AND SCCA dimensions. That sure would suck if someone eventually finds their way to a podium at the RunOffs in a Kent and finds out the crank is not compliant despite its common use.
In fairness that does not make them serious nor more active, which were Greg's descriptors.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott fairchild
Not taking anything away from them, nor their efforts/commitment. Just know their goals are often very different.
Nor does it make them LESS serious or LESS active...Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
How's your car? Oh yeah
This is getting hot.
Pour some water on it.
Kent ,,Honda.
Potato Potatao.
Can we all just get along and drag our cars to local race track///loll
Mate... ...I'm sorry, but you simply cannot make the claim that there is no difference in reliability between an engine designed in the mid 1960s, and one designed 40 years later with computer aided design and engineering. The Kent has done marvellously well for an engine, but... ...come on. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tstrong
You are misreading his commentary. He is discussing reliability with different kent components.Quote:
Originally Posted by alangbaker
He started with "I am not here to argue Kent vs fit,"
Congratulations! I am glad you enjoy your racing. I wish you all the best!Quote:
Originally Posted by scott fairchild
My friends, customers and I also engine our racing.
But that has nothing to do with kent - Honda parity in the SCCA rules discussion.
It lost a couple wheels, other than that it's doing fantastic. A whole lot of fun, definitely more challenging! Thanks for asking ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by scott fairchild
Ken, indirectly brings up a very good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robins Ken
Kents are setting fastest laps and running at the front, but not winning races at very competitive Mosport events.
Pipers, Mygales, and Spectrums are winning the races with Honda power.
Early 90s Van Deimens and 80s Aeros, with kents are not winning overall.
The Pipers, Mygales, and Spectrums, are also presented by Pro teams, and generally have higher budgets.
We would have the same range of car ages and prep/budget levels in SCCA club racing, so how would you assess all these contributing factors if comparing race wins to determine parity standards.
The racers at Mosport consider pre-94 cars as inferior, so created class B. On that premise, perhaps we should be celebrating the accomplishments of James Lindsay (Mosport) or JR2 (Homestead and Sebring) for performing so well with 30+ year old cars, rather than concluding that they are at an engine disadvantage.
Then, my apologies!Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
I apologize for using the terms "more serious' and "more active".
My personal bias that young "career oriented" racers spending $80-150K per season by doing 10- 20 events per year in a newer car, are "more serious" or "more active", is certainly an assumption that is unfair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
Serious enough to learn how to change a gear stack themselves, or rebond a floor? Seriousness is a subjective thing. Racing entails more than driving. $80- $150k from a 15 year old is pretty committed though. Most can't mow that many lawns
Actually, our SCCA FF and FRP F1600 champion, Simon Sikes, does not have time to mow lawns. At 17, he started a company to sell karting apparel based on padded shirts that he designed. He needs to sell a lot more if he is to continue up the racing ladder. Any karters out there, may want to check out his SFI 20.1 karting shirts with custom molded padding. https://www.group6gear.comQuote:
Originally Posted by scott fairchild
It's real simple supply and demand marketing.....We all know that if SCCA wants to run as a business, they are really bad at it.
There used to be only 4 primary formula classes FV, FF, FC and FA for a limited number of drivers....supply and demand.....
But no......SCCA added F4, FE, FM, F440, F500, F600 and the spec racer classes to that........but did they do that because the number of available drivers was increasing?...no. Did they do anything to make the lower levels more affordable to draw in more drivers?...no. So they did two things, diluted the fields and made it more expensive to race....
I started racing in 1984 with a Royale RP-3A with a Cortina in it. It got me around the track in regional races in the SE division. I was a newly minted engineer from GA Tech making a whopping $25K per year with $15K in student loan debt....I pulled the car to the track in an open trailer behind my pickup truck. I raced on used tires cast off by the national drivers....I also paid to attend the Jim Russel School at Charlotte Motor Speedway...There were no such thing as track days back then, so that is all the track time I was able to get. But the point is, I was out there driving.......
Unfortunately that driver does not exists in SCCA any more...they got pushed out/priced out....All of the young lower and middle class kids are doing time trials with their tin top street cars and race an have a great time racing a junker in Lemons....they have not got a clue what SCCA sprint racing is all about.
Two things that started FF on it's slow death was the introduction of the Swift DB1-1.....which doubled the cost of racing in the class overnight......and the added insult to injury, the introduction of the FIT.....
SCCA should have realized that it needs a regional entry level low cost formula driver's class and never have allowed such a technology jump with the DB-1. That should have only happened in FC and FA....
As long as the SCCA caters to the trust fund babies who's mom's and dad's can shell out $80K to $100K per year with the faux dream that junior will some day go to Indy, formula racing at the club level will die a slow death. The other detriment to this approach is that it seriously limits the talent pool....with this approach, SCCA is essentially saying that only the silver spoon kids are good at driving....
So whoever at SCCA was involved in pricing the kit to put a FIT into a FF in the first place was just plain stupid........
Those left are the rest of us who were around in the 70's and 80's to get hooked on the sport and have taken our business over to Vintage where a decent CF can be purchased for $15K and run on a set of treads that last a season. There are large fields and there is some great competition.
The day that the SCCA realizes that the majority of amateur drivers live in a three bedroom two bath house with a two car garage.....and they target low coast alternatives for them to come out and race......will be a day that things may turn around and the SCCA may turn into a "club" again.
Anybody else can take their money and start their own pro series....
Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
That's great for a 17 year old kid who still lives with mom and dad and has his overhead covered....
Try that in your 20's and 30's with a job and rent or a mortgage to pay.....
Essentially what you are sayin is the FF is only for teenagers.
Essentially what you are saying is that FF should only be for older folks who race 5-6 hours a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Manofsky
But it's not JUST the cost of racing that has pushed/priced people out. It's MANY demands on disposable income AND demands on time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Manofsky
- Here in Cali the only homes built today with room to effectively work on a car, store a trailer, etc. are custom built my millionaires. And, if they are millionaires they drive with a shop.
- Even kids with parents money drive with a shop because the reality is they will only race a class for about a year. They need to travel to where the series are so a car is no longer an investment, it's rented.
- Track days and Lemons have become 'enough' racing for most kids. It's all they can afford.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Manofsky
You're both right. The problem is the teenagers don't stay. So should a class be designed for the transient customer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
F3/F4 has become the fresh out of karts transient class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
Most vintage events have 3-4 hours of track time, 2/3 of that are sprint races. 4 races per year for most = more than 5-6 hours. How about actually fielding a car before typing. Note, motorcycles aren't cars.
Also, SCCA racers usually can't hang when they come to vintage. $80k/ year to not be able to managea set of treads on a 40 year old car. There, I said it.
I am certainly not saying that. The cost of serious FF racing (excuse the expression) was there 15-20 years ago. It was that cost of racing FF in the 90s and 00s, that created the market for the FIT. Instead of owning 3 kents, with one always at your builders, and one was better than the other two so it needed to be in the car for the Runoffs ..... you spent $10K on a FIT engine, another 6 on a chassis kit, and went racing at the highest level. That is exactly what happened and why there is a triple-digit quantity of FIT cars racing in SCCA today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Manofsky
Keep in mind, that as a parallel development, people started solving the kent reliability issues, which made the kent much more feasible. As drivers and cars got older, those racers felt less competitive against people spending $50K per year to run SCCA FF (with superkents or FITs) and were wooed by expanding vintage groups.
There are no bad guys or better or worse, in this process. The venom expressed to FIT racers is completely one-sided. There are more senior drivers using FIT engines in SCCA and FRP, than there are teenagers. The racers using FIT engines love the class, but love their 21st century engine package. Unfortunately, HPD's interest has changed, and prices increased, but people are still lining up to get engine parts and newer cars. It is OK if other racers do not understand that attraction. There is no need to lash out.
We are all brothers in this FF/Formula Ford/f1600 class! The engines are very close from a parity perspective, with either engine slightly better at different tracks. BOP is a fact of life in motorsport and creating false narratives is part of the game. But certainly, when that rhetoric is coming from people that are happy in their racing group, about another racing group that is operating in parallel, then it hurts all of us.
We, as a group, need to get the SCAT crank written into the rules as absolutely legal, and we need to solidify the FIT engine part supply process, then go support our organizer/series of choice and enjoy this fine class!
you said it not me....SCCA's management of the formula classes drove FF to become that.......it doesn't have to be that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
Four years ago, I sent a letter to the the SCCA headquarters proposing a spec open wheel class to replace FF. Based on the Crossle 35 chassis with outboard shocks all around. No wings, Hoosier R60 slicks(same compound as the Hoosier treads). Use a DOHC EFI engine. I first suggested the 1990's Ford Fiesta to keep the Ford brand in the game but settled on the 1600 cc stock Toyota 4AGE with no mods. Since Hewland Mk9's don't exist, use the LD 100. This would be a natural progression which, fully modified, is run in FA.
I specifically requested it be a driver's class and not an engine builder's class. Focus on Miata type reliability to maximize track time and learning how to set up a chassis.
Their response was "not interested".
An entry-level / stepping-stone class is designed for the transient customer by definition. If folks choose to stay because they love it, they certainly can, but not a whole lot of room to complain about what the class is/always has been.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Agreed, which is why I'm tired of SCCA types, who are happy where they are, not giving others (vintage racers) respect as competitors and racers. Been going on for the 20 years I've been involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
I did, likely while you were still in diapers.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott fairchild
'82?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
This thread is about SCCA Club racing. It is about Honda parts supply issues, and got hi-jacked slightly to kent cranks, which are at least connected to the SCCA rule making process. Why is anybody even talking about vintage racing?Quote:
Originally Posted by scott fairchild
I even apologized for using the terms "serious and active" which were used in the context of part-time low-budget racers in SCCA Majors events having fewer wins than full season high budget racers. Until you got into a pissing match with Daryl, there was no reference or deference or insinuations toward vintage racers, that I can find as I reviewed the thread from the beginning.
If I have disrespected you, or other vintage racers, in any way, it was unintentional, and I apologize.
Prior to getting back into now CF after a 20 year haitus.... I started on a 4 man Lemons team in California where I drove an NB Miata and built a Toyota MR2(spit on the ground..the engine is beautiful, the car sucks)....I then moved to VARA with an 1991 NB Miata where I became rookie of the year and pints winner in my class. I also started the Sealed Spec Maita class in Cal Club SCCA and won both the points championship and the PCRRC.
I restored a Porsche 914 that I was going to race in VARA and also a 1984 Reynard FC.
I then bought a basket case Lola 540E and finished restoring it when I moved to North Carolina........ I also bought and have mostly restored a Lola 342. I sold the Porsche in Ca, and the Reynard in NC.
I have the Lola 540E and the 342 because in my core I am a FF driver....period. It is my sport because James Hunt and Niki Lauda are my hero's, I am a mechanical engineer and a motorhead, and I suck at golf.
What I learned from lemons is the baseline for inexpensive racing..........the world changed forever when they auto industry moved to DOHC EFI 4 valve per cylinder engines.......I have built both Miata and Toyota 4 AGE motors and they are beautiful pieces of machinery. Essentially Japanese Cosworths. You can take a $1500 NA Miata, add a roll cage for $2000, and a $400 fire system and you have a VERY cheap VERY RELIABLE car for the beginner for tons of fun and TRACK TIME. Fuel cell is not needed because the stock gas tank is forward of the rear axle centerline.
When I am asked by young people how to get into racing, I say...."GET A MIATA"....the guys/gals in SCCA Maita racing have already figured this out...that is why there are so many of them. Market forces moves all the drivers tot hat class and the SCCA is now the "Miata Club".
>>>>>>WHAT IS NEEDED IS A FORMULA VERSION OF THE MAITA TO KEEP THE FORMULA SPORT ALIVE<<<<<Even if it takes a company to have Crossle 35 frame reproductions made in China for $2000 a pop..... A Formula car for the masses for less than $15K out the door....I am a design engineer. I build and make things to sell.....it can be done....
I continue to fail to understand that the way we grew up with the sport no longer exists.
We romanticize about the past, the 50+ car FF fields, Run Offs at Road Atlanta, all the while failing to realize that the world has changed. There weren't a lot of FF teenage drivers when i was growing up in the sport (yeah, there were a few) - most were guys who loved the sport, had a job, rented a crappy townhouse with a girlfriend/wife who was understanding enough to tolerate that POS formula car in the single car garage and the incessant noise/smells/expense that comes with it.
Many of us burned through that girlfriend/spouse partly due to racing :). Then we did it again, and some of us, again and again.
In the late 90's, I was running NE Division on my way to my sole attempt at the runoffs. I don't remember ever driving against a teenager, let alone a 15 year old one. But I do remember older guys spending in excess of US$100k in a year to try (and fail) to win the Runoffs. There wasn't anywhere near the same call for a 5 car team to exist at the FF level as there is today.
But now in my hood we have BritainWest, Brian Graham Racing, Rice Race Prep and many, many others running real businesses with the FIT. 4,5,6 car teams at every race I race at, running young drivers with the dosh to pay for it (and I am friends with David, Brian, and Greg - I have nothing against them for doing so!). There is a real probability that if the FIT didn't exist, their businesses as they exist would be very different, and not in a way that would positively affect my Kent-engined B car or my ability to race economically (well, that last part is a bit of a stretch!).
In part, I blame my continued ignorance on my own envy. Where the frig do these teenagers get off doing what i scraped and saved (and divorced) for, prancing around in their new rides, wiping off corners with frequency and aplomb. Cripes, I can remember when taking off a corner could end my entire season from a financial POV. I continue to tilt at these teenage windmills, while steadfastedly refusing to deal with the reason for the decline in my fave sport. Which is.......
We need more drivers, and they are going to have to be older than they used to be when entering the sport in the 70s. Period. End stop. The economics of modern life (housing, student loans, etc) pretty much dictate that. The FIT helps that, even if only from an exposure level (but I believe there is much more to it than that). Vintage is a HUGE help, as are things like the B Class in the Toyo series. We need to be asking ourselves different questions than in the past, like what are we doing to convert track day drivers into open wheel racers, for example?
All I care about is increasing the number of feverishly addicted FF/FFord?CF/VFord racers. Get the numbers up a lot over time, and a lot of our problems go away
Cheers,
BT
PS. Just last night, I told David Clubine that if I had the coin for a Superkent (whatever that is) I'd put one in a Mygale and go after it (I don't have the talent to get "it", btw). He told me that was a stupid idea, that it made no financial sense. I had no counter, no thrust to his parry. Yet, the idea appeals to me. A LOT.
When threads like these start getting a bit testy, and people start suggesting how things 'ought to be', I find myself thinking how interesting it would be if each members identification box on the left of the screen indicated the date of their last event ...Quote:
Originally Posted by scott fairchild
(mine would be last week at COTA).
"....The FIT helps that, even if only from an exposure level (but I believe there is much more to it than that). "
The point I was trying to make in my previous post is that the FIT is not the end all...All the DOHC EFI 4 valve per cylinder engines are pretty much the same when it comes to economy and reliability.
I think the start of reinvigorating the class is to standardize on one of those engines without having to have a $15,000 kit just to put it in a car.
So a driver would choose between running a vintage car vs a new car for the same amount of money...
That's why I said F3/F4 are the stepping-stone classes from karts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
FF 'may' be a regional stepping-stone for those with smaller budgets, but today it's 'was', not 'is/always been'.
FF and FC are sustaining classes. Get a few, lose a few.
From a lowly mechanics point of view working on a FF FIT is like kissing your sister. Biggest excitement I have had is when Johnny Rotten' trashes the clutch. Otherwise it's don't touch anything.
It's annoying at T10 (Mosport) watching a 3 car gap open up before the starter stand with the best Kent trying to hang on.
Other gripe is the rain light on a sunny day followed by a front running Spectrum on fire at 3R.
I'll save vacuum tests and harness legality for another day.
I never said that I believe all engine builders are crooks, I am appreciative for all they do for the sport, I believe the dyno can provide a great baseline but side by side racing is the ultimate measurement device and the numbers you mention of active FIT cars tells the story. If you go back 11 years when it was introduced Kent drivers complained that they could not compete off the corners with the FIT cars, despite requests for adjustments nothing was done. When a racer cannot win they generally stop racing or move to a series where they can compete. That explains the numbers, the Kent cars were either parked or they moved to vintage with a few still competing, but by straining their engines well above the recommended RPM's for a cast crank. I have numerous pictures I can share of Kent blocks with large holes and shattered cranks for those claiming there are no reliability issues. And in regards to the non-compliant SCAT crank, we have made CRB well aware of the need to fix the verbiage, but like everything else it has fallen on deaf ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
By your comments I figured you were still in diapers until you were at least 6 or 7 years old. So yes, started racing in '89.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott fairchild
I just laid out simple math for someone who has quit the sport, but still wants to be relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman
My last 3 seasons of auto racing were vintage racing. I didn't see any disrespect tossed towards vintage racers in this thread at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
I'm confident that there are a few talented folks at the pointy end of most any sanctioning body. I am also confident there are wankers that race with both types of groups as well. Neither group has a monopoly on either type.
For some reason people will use words like many or most followed by an accurate generalization (like you did) then somebody will get triggered and come up with a situation where man bit dog believing they somehow proved you wrong.
I couldn't give two ****s whether or not you believe I'm relevant. I don't believe I'm relevant. That doesn't mean my experience doesn't provide some insight worth considering. If you want to dismiss any/all of my opinions because I'm not currently active feel free to do so. Should be quite simple, really. The forum even has an ignore user feature.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott fairchild