Originally Posted by
Shep
Late to the party, and with an argument that never fully gelled... Against my better judgement, I'd like to post the thoughts that I finally expressed to the CRB/BOD on the Honda Fit proposal. As wandering as it is, there's an element of this note that I still think is crucial to FF regardless of the BOD's decision... Feedback appreciated.
Is it human nature that people want to jump to proposing "the solution" to a problem before they even know what the problem is? It's funny, I see it at work all the time – people want to "start making progress" and they sprint off to design a solution thinking, "I know what this program needs!" without really understanding what the core needs and critical requirements of the program are. But then we all suffer shortly thereafter, trying to first find, and then tie up, the loose ends.
So, here we are talking about what we need to "fix" Formula Ford... "I know, throw a modern fuel injected engine in there! That'll fix it! While we're at it, let's make it an all carbon fiber chassis, with carbon/carbon brakes, and beryllium calipers, and a 7 speed sequential hyper-drive transmission! Yeah, that's the ticket! That'll add some sizzle!"
Against what criteria can someone convince themselves that the above is viable for Formula Ford? I've been trying to think of how I will phrase my input to the CRB regarding the Honda Fit engine proposal (yes I know - am I too late yet?). On the surface of it, I'm inclined to say "shame on us - there's a golden opportunity being presented to Formula Ford, and we are not currently in the position to take advantage of it - reject the proposal and take some time to put our house in order. When (and only when) it is, pray that another golden opportunity appears shortly thereafter". To be honest, it makes me sick to think such a seemingly rare opportunity would be lost.
For the record, I'm not passionately for or against the Honda proposal. There can be no denying
the allure of a modern, low maintenance engine with increased longevity and decreased
replacement cost. For me personally, I don't believe it would be any harder to convert my Tatuus from Kent to Fit power than it was to convert it from Pinto to Kent power. (That's not to say it was easy -- 2 years were lost in the first conversion. Another year minimum would likely be lost installing the Fit -- not exactly what I had in mind when I said I wanted to "go racing".)
But my problem lies with the rationale by which people are saying that the Fit solution is crucial to the survival of FF. And how by throwing the nearest bright shiny object (e.g. carbon fibre, sequential transmissions) into the class, new FF racers will instantly appear.
The path forward for Formula Ford, and for amateur racing in general for that matter, is a complex systems engineering problem if I ever saw one. This isn't a design problem - this isn't about designing a new widget to stuff into the place of the old one - this is about understanding the entirety of amateur open-wheeled racing and determining what Formula Ford racing needs to become to keep its spot in the lineup.
What is Formula Ford? What are the fundamental objectives of the class? What are the
critical requirements and constraints? Once the community locks down the answers to those questions, then you can measure a proposal against them and see whether it fits. In my opinion, until the community centers up on the key requirements, proposing "solutions" for the class will be nothing but disruptive blindfolded dart-throwing. And then we all suffer.
So, rather than getting caught up in the minutia of 112 vs 114 hp, or .0011" clearances versus .0018" in production motor. I'd like to ask you all, what is Formula Ford meant to be? On ApexSpeed, on the arguments for and against the Honda, and especially in the spec tire discussion, you'll see a common thread peek through, and I think THAT's where we need to start...
In my opinion...Formula Ford is...
• A *drivers class* that emphasizes skill and/or hard work over technology and
pocketbook (now, "skill" can be the result of exhaustive testing or novel
interpretation of what I hope are tight rules, but I'd prefer that it's the best
driver in the end who wins in this class)
• A non-wing class that emphasizes mechanical grip and balance
• A class with strict constraints on a robust race-worthy motor so that the
emphasis is placed on driving and setup, not on frequent maintenance, or on a
spending war to find additional power
• A class that minimizes/disallows the use of blatant aerodynamic aids (yes Richard! Definition required, lol), but still encourages a clean aerodynamic design
• A purpose-built racecar that allows freedom of chassis and suspension design,
but is of a construction that can be built equally well in a home garage (albeit a
well-equipped one) or in a race car factory
• A class where the act of shifting (changeable) gears is required
• A class to introduce a racer or a crew member/engineer to the basics of
chassis set-up - wheel rates, corner weights, roll centers, spring rates, damping,
rake, ride height, camber curves, bump steer, anti-roll bar changes, optimal gearing,
etc, etc.
• A class that is accessible to middle-class (say arbitrarily, a $50k household
income) weekend racers with busy work weeks,
• A class where close racing is as much of the experience as getting to the
finish line first
So, what's my point and how does this relate to the Honda proposal? Well, if you use my impression of the FF fundamental requirements (and I’d rather use the amalgamation of everyone’s instead of using just mine) above, one gets a sense of what's truly crucial, and what's nice to have.
What *is* necessary to meet the goals? Well, a robust, cost effective race engine that is legitimately competitive for a price that meets the middle class racer constraint is one component. That it could be installed in the car and almost forgotten about for a full season would be a huge bonus, but is not strictly necessary.
So, is the Honda Fit engine compatible with the philosophy of Formula Ford (ignoring of course the fact that it’s not a Ford…)? Yes, it would appear to be on the surface (and based on the assertions of Honda). People have raised legitimate concerns about the Honda proposal on the ApexSpeed forum however. The most critical of those concerns being the (fully understandable) desire of Honda to be perceived as the preferred FF engine solution for marketing and investment return reasons, and the accompanying threat of subtle engine changes in future production runs to make it happen. There can be no denying that Honda would have a greater incentive to differentiate its engine relative to the baseline Kent than would Ford who would be pleased with a “Ford” in the car either way. It is this simple fact that disqualifies the Honda as a legitimate FF replacement engine option since the process of jockeying between engine options to pick the hottest of the month conflicts with the spirit of the class.
Qualifier… If by some miracle, absolute parity can be established between engine options AND the SCCA holds full control over the specification of each FF engine option (such as is the case with the Kent currently), the Honda option should be included. However, I do not believe that absolute parity can be achieved between options, nor do I believe the SCCA has the bandwidth to manage the parameters to ensure parity throughout the future of FF.
A few additional thoughts:
Please consider the inputs of Formula Ford participants current and future with more weight than outside observers. It appears, at least on the ApexSpeed forum, that there are several people with loud voices who do not race FF, have no intentions of running FF in the future, but still feel compelled to “fix” FF for the rest of us. I joined the SCCA to race Formula Fords and intend to do so through the foreseeable future. I am now a national license holder and have competed in an average of 4 races per season over the past 5 years. I am not “on the fence” for racing FF – your
decision will impact me directly and immediately.
The assertion that a competitive Kent costs $14000 as has been bandied about on the ApexSpeed forum is intentionally misleading... In 2003, a local engine builder fully rebuilt the engine in my first Club Ford for approximately $4500. It made regional-level power at best, but six years later it's still running in the car (now Mike Green's ), still with a stock crank and only a minor refresh as far as I know. (Which brings up another point – the Kent is a robust motor, not the hand grenade Honda proponents want to make it out to be. ) This past year, I had Jay Ivey massage an already solid Schulz shortblock with all of the upgraded parts. The result was what I believe to be a national-class engine for a price all-in for both engine builders of approximately $12k. This included twice the shipping costs and an additional break-down / rebuild cost that would not have occurred if I’d had the engine built by only one builder. Point being, a competitive motor can be built for much less than $14000 and the cost distributed over several seasons is not un-palatable.
Additionally, the assertion that the Kent engine is the problem or obstacle in Formula Ford is flawed. I feel that the price I paid for the Ivey engine represents a good value, and I look forward to several additional seasons with only modest rebuild costs now that I’ve made an investment in the solid foundation. The engine is bolted in the back of the chassis, I start it, it runs, I race. I don't care that it's a Ford, or that it's carbureted vs. fuel injected. I only care that I know that my engine is competitive relative to the guy running next to me. By far, the seasonal expenditure on race tires is much more frustrating to me and a larger problem for the health of Formula Ford.
In closing, I respectfully urge the Board of Directors and Competition Board to take a holistic approach in making a final decision on the Honda Fit engine proposal. While the proposal is attractive at first glance from a cost, longevity and present-day-technology standpoint, there are some significant pitfalls that must be avoided to ensure that the Honda solution is compatible with the spirit of Formula Ford. Make an compelling case for engine parity and I say allow the Honda solution. Otherwise, please allow Formula Ford to remain a “Ford Kent” class with the potential of more modern solutions from Ford in the future.
Said another way, this decision isn't about which engine is chosen, it is about the process by which the chosen engine is made to work for Formula Ford.
.....my faith in the SCCA and its' proccesses is improving.
Reply With Quote
