Not sure if this the right section to post this in,(and I don't want to start a war) but I found this link for the info on the new SCCA cars on the f2000.com site. Interesting reading -Dave
[url="http://www.scca-enterprises.com/formula_sportsracer.html"]SCCA spec car info[/url]
Mike Andersen
U.S. F2000 Webmaster
Dave-
that is the one - unfortunately I found out today the car will not be on track as planned but a running example will be at the runoffs (not enough time to complete).
Look for it thursday and on.
MM
David, I have been taking care of business and have not followed up on the scca spec formula car ! When did the board approve this new program . How do we again voice our concerns to the scca ? Thank you for your time J B Welch
Current conversion rate puts this car at $25,855. Seems awfully cheap to me, but still don't think it's a death knell for FF. I feel it will be worse for FC. Just my two cents.
I wonder if the SCCA would consider expanding the horizons just a little more. Allow these cars to run in a lower class, minus the wings which will require $ to repair. Run with 6 and 8 in tires which are less expensive, and finally allow a smaller motor to be used as well.
My thinking is as follows: If the cars are out there and can readily be converted up or down a class, based on an individuals budget, then the appeal would be broader. Sell more cars, attract more people and have more fun.
[size="1"][ September 17, 2002, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Ken Glasser ][/size]
Ken,
I agree. A non winged version with smaller tires(treaded to cust expenses even further?) and smaller engine would do for me. Also no $reservoir shocks$. A 4 speed tranny too would be better.
The current $25K pricetage is a little high for me.
$15 to $18K with engine would draw a large following.
Bill
I know this is not the board for this, but Ken's and Bill's posts were calling out to me.
Formula First is a grass roots effort to revitalise an entry level formula car. It is not a spec class to allow for "tinkering types" to have a place to play. Simply stated it is an updated FV. We have been working quietly for the last 18 months and have a car on display at the Runoffs at the moment (on the hill, by the chassis dyno). If all goes well, will have 10+ cars running in FS next year. Speed is about half way between FV and CFF. We use CFF tires that will last 8+ weekends.
Price range is starting from $15k for a complete car or a current FV can be converted for under $6k.
See more info, rules and pics at
[url="http://www.sracing.com/form1st.htm"]http://www.sracing.com/form1st.htm[/url]
and
[url="http://www.geocities.com/formulafirst/ff-home.html"]http://www.geocities.com/formulafirst/ff-home.html[/url]
It's a shamless plug, but it's a better deal than that new spec car "suppository" from Enterprises.
Bill Bonow
[size="1"][ September 18, 2002, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Bill Bonow ][/size]
Earth to Bill.......
Someone in Canada beat you to it by about ten years. FV-1600 is alive and unwell in Ontario. Just another class racers won't support.
Cheers
Len
Porsche River Oaks. Houston
Wes,
Thanks for the compliment. I'm glad you've set us staight. I'll go tell the 150+ people involved, interested or building cars (including constructors; Adams, Caracal, Citation, Laser, Mysterian, Vector and Vortec) that a guy in Saskatchewan said don't bother.
Sorry for trying to add to the thread.
Bill Bonow
Guys,
This spec car stuff won't go anywhere unless it also incorporates driver promotion to real racing teams. Yous are only half way there.
Fran Am is soing this and will do lead races for the two F1 races in the US this year. Talk about driver exposure.
Bill M.
While it's one thing that Enterprises is bringing in these Spec cars, raising conflict-of-interest questions, the part that really annoys me is the way it's being done. I read my new Fastrack a couple weeks ago and saw that the BoD asks the Comp Board to classify these cars in a National class. No regional participation numbers. Still no description of what is being classified. The entire proposal is now open to the "member input" phase. Within ten days I see that they have been classed, are being advertised for sale by Enterprises, and a race series is already being set up.
What is the purpose of my member input? This slam dunk deal with Panoz/VD was done a long time ago. SCCA hadn't revealed a word about what these cars were. The info I gathered was due to the detective work of fellow FF1600 members. Why bother writing to SCCA? It's obvious what they think of my "member input". I might as well address it to myself.
This is why voter turnout is so low in this country. The deals have already been made, and we count for nothing but consumers.
Remember who listens to you and who doesn't next election.
Article V1 section 6 of the bylaws states: "Conflict of Interest. No officer, Director or employee of the Club may participate in, or attempt to influence any decision by the Club affecting his or her own personal business interests, or otherwise use his or her official position for personal gain."
Subject to some interpretation I suppose. As Slick Willie once said "it depends on what your definition of "is" is" (or something like that)
Keith Connolly<BR>K C Motorsport - UK
Tom
++ I read my new Fastrack a couple weeks ago and saw that the BoD asks the Comp Board to classify these cars in a National class. No regional participation numbers. ++
The BoD asked the Comp Board to classify the two new cars [b]within an existing[/b] class - not its own National class. This is exactly the same route the was taken with the Formula Mazda (FA) and the Panoz GT (GT1). The Mazda had sufficient participation and now has its own class. The Panoz GT is faltering and is unlikely to get its own class. Time and the marketplace will determine the success of these two new cars,
Terry
While I agree with Terry about the market-place sorting out the viability of any new formula class, I also do not like the way in which this was handled by SCCA. Sometimes they get confused between "Club" and "Corporation".
I have never seen a "strategic plan" for the future of SCCA Club Racing. Things like controlling costs, getting present cars out of garages and onto the race track, creating a "ladder" for future stars, promotion of races (e.g., the old CENDiv Showcase series) etc. should all play into the "plan". The implementation of the plan would be the rules changes, new classes, etc. It appears (from the bottom of the food chain) that SCCA is in a reactionary mode instead of following a well-thought-out plan that is ENDORSED BY THE MEMBERSHIP.
On the other hand, consider the success of the grass-roots Spec RX7 series in some parts of the country (I don't understand why it has not caught on in CENDiv). In NEDIV (or should I say the MARRS series), the rules are basically controlled by the drivers. Rules changes are considered and voted on by the active drivers each year. The result -- 30 to 50 cars at each MARRS event (SRX7 has its own race group), entry level costs are about $2,000 to $3,000 and top cars can be had for under $5,000. The over-riding factor in the rules changes has generally been cost. I believe that one of the key factors in the continuing success of this class is the member / driver input - WHAT A NOVEL CONCEPT!!
Can Denver (or is it Kansas City) learn from these grass-roots successes???
PS -- Hope the Formula First effort is as successful as the SRX7 has been!
Bob Lutz is right on. Is there a "big picture" plan for the club?
I would hope that someone in Denver or Topeka have a target number of classes for the club and that in order to add a class some class must go. Otherwise you wind up with many classes with few participants per class.
Does the club want to set aside certain classes as tinkerers classes and certain as spec classes or is the whole world going to spec-car marketing? (Do you want to super-size that engine?)
Speaking of size, as a seriously oversize CFF and FC driver, if the world goes spec-car I'm out of a hobby. There's no way I'll ever physically fit in a spec car.
Bill Bonow,
I've been interested in your efforts. A formula car with the economics of a V but with more performance is appealing! I'm looking for a suitable chassis to hold my abundant frame, and then perhaps I'll join your group!
Try to keep engine costs to something reasonable--certainly below the $9K+ for a new FF, and hopefully less than Noble is getting for a first-class 1200. Your perseverance will pay off!
Larry Oliver
International Racing Products
Tom,You hit on somthing :Members MUST VOTE and we can start with the currant board.Start the house cleaning NOW! In Milwaukee, the County board was tuned upside down, many of the Board members were VOTED OUT of Office and the County Exe. was Dumped.The issue was not much different in principle,it is all about TRUST.
John Vlasis
Lic.#72154
FF-Piper DF-2
This is interesting. RCCA has the Banshee which is very similar. At $12,500 it is a great deal. However it would appear the RCCA car has more adjustability. Perhaps the cars can be made legal to run with each other. You can't beat those VW parts.
[url="http://www.rcca-1.com/banshee.php"]RCCA Page[/url]
Bob - You have a fascinating series of questions/challenges about how the SCCA functions and what its goals are. In many cases, I would think that there may be some answers out there which would address these issues. I mean, I can't imagine that the Club management is simply disregarding all such issues, can you? You've probably communicated with your Area Director about these issues. What has been the response?
Dale Carter
2003 VanDiemen FE #29
Life is Good
I did have a series of communications with both Steve Limbert (my Area 2 Director) and Steve Johnson (SCCA Pres.) in August 2001 concerning the Formula Renault stuff that was in SportsCar at that time. Steve Johnson was very cordial in our interactions and I believe that he really listened to my input. I had also talked with Johnson earlier in 2001 - in person - after he introduced himself to the members at the Glen National driver meeting (7/01). At that time, he was in an input gathering mode and did not a long term plan.
Well, once SCCA interest in Formula Renault died, I dropped the ball on continuing to communicate with Steve Johnson. You know how things are - too many thnigs to do and not enough time.
I would like to add to this post that Steve Johnson has always been very open and receptive to my input - either by E-Mail or telephone.
Maybe we need to develop a unified front (as several have already suggested) and develop a "vision" and a plan for FF and have several of us take it to Steve (in person) as the "grunts" in FF - Steve will certainly hear from the engine builders and more financially able drivers at the Run-Offs this week.
[quote]Originally posted by Bob Lutz DB-1 #54:
[b]I did have a series of communications with both Steve Limbert (my Area 2 Director) and Steve Johnson (SCCA Pres.) in August 2001 concerning the Formula Renault stuff that was in SportsCar at that time. Steve Johnson was very cordial in our interactions and I believe that he really listened to my input. I had also talked with Johnson earlier in 2001 - in person - after he introduced himself to the members at the Glen National driver meeting (7/01). At that time, he was in an input gathering mode and did not a long term plan.
Well, once SCCA interest in Formula Renault died, I dropped the ball on continuing to communicate with Steve Johnson. You know how things are - too many thnigs to do and not enough time.
I would like to add to this post that Steve Johnson has always been very open and receptive to my input - either by E-Mail or telephone.
Maybe we need to develop a unified front (as several have already suggested) and develop a "vision" and a plan for FF and have several of us take it to Steve (in person) as the "grunts" in FF - Steve will certainly hear from the engine builders and more financially able drivers at the Run-Offs this week.[/b][/quote]
[size="1"][ September 20, 2002, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: J. B .WELCH ][/size]
WHOA ! Too much HP on this site and not enough seat time ! I wanted to agree with Bob Lutz but I ended up re-posting his full post. Well it was very good post and I think we need to develop a unified front and develop a longer term business plan for f ford 1600 .
I'm wondering how a "business plan" would apply in this case. I do understand what a "unified front" is but cannot imagine one truly developing among the 700-1,000 FF racers across this country. And what would be the goals of such a group?
What we have here is basically a hobby class with a great history and a very dedicated group of participants. The class is no longer a major stepping stone to professional racing although it still provides a great place for guys to get their initial experience in open wheel cars. The class is unlikely to grow in any substantial way but it is equally unlikely to just fade away. Current market forces and the nature of the competitor pool determine much of its direction. Fact is, the young people coming along like wings and things but at the same time, they don't know a carburetor from a piston!
As of now, thanks to the initiatives of people like Jake Lamont, John LaRue and a few others, there are a whole lot of key engine parts coming along - being produced by excellent aftermarket sources. Significant rules changes have been made to accommodate these parts. The SCCA has been receptive and, in general, supportive of the changes. Further rules adjustments are in the works.
Breathing life into the class - as far as participants and new special events are concerned - will happen, for the most part, on a Regional level. New spec cars and new engines will happen too - but only in other, new classes and the net effect on FF may not be as bad as some fear. While there are all kinds of theories linking lack of participation with the SCCA's actions or upcoming spec cars, it is more likely that FF cars are sitting in people's garages due to economic forces or the necessities of family life.
The places for new initiatives and new energies to be spent seem to be in the following areas: additional rules tweeking ( flywheel weight, etc. ), spec tires ( maybe ), unified CF rules ( desireable but unlikely ), special open-wheel racing events and festivals, car shows and swap meets. Further thoughts?
Dale Carter
2003 VanDiemen FE #29
Life is Good
As a floater of many forums, I find this topic (Getting More Entrants) is the one they all have in common.
From karting, FF, FC, to FM. There is a lot of talk about how to get more entrants.
The common theme I keep reading is costs are to high, rules need to be better and to many choices out there.
Racing isn't an inexpensive sport no matter if it's local stock car track to a Full F1 team.
There are only so many drivers out there--- with several options available to them battling it out for their dollar.
My question basically is are you sure it's the costs & the rules?
All of those series Karting, FM, FC & FF have been around for a long time. One would tend to believe that the rules should be pretty decent by now and as for costs, Tires & Travel are king.
Is there somewhere else we should address our efforts to help the growth of Open Wheel racing?
I'd like to believe that if Open Wheel racing drivers took more time to accept one another in whatever car they run or choose that the sport would be better off. I certainly believe you should try to persuade others to make an educate decision as to where they race. Just seems like there is to much condescending going on, maybe it's just me.
Hey Guys..
I Agree with John Merriman's Post! In Fact, I think it is one of the best posts to date on this subject! (Good Go John!)
I think any rule to help the reliability of FF/CF should be allowed and are in the works right now. My thanks to those that are making that happen!
And, it would really be nice to have ONE set of rules for Club Ford! Yes Virgina, I do run a CF, but read the posts, you have some right now on this forumn about different regions having different rules (west coast festival - for one)We live on the border of two regions Pa and Ohio, and it is Def N Italy not cost effective for us having two different tire rules.
It would be stupid for SCCA to ignore all of us,(I Know what some of you are already typing (-: ) they must know that all of us are not going to sell what we have and buy a new spec car. so our fate is ours! we do have a class, the more we support it, the longer it stays!
just my thoughts...........
Seeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ya --- Jer
CF # 33, S&C Racing
[quote]Originally posted by Rob Hogenmiller:
[b]
The common theme I keep reading is costs are to high, rules need to be better and to many choices out there.
[...]
My question basically is are you sure it's the costs & the rules?
[...]
One would tend to believe that the rules should be pretty decent by now and as for costs, Tires & Travel are king.
[/b][/quote]Yes, tires are an important part of OPERATING costs. Travel, however, is relatively constant, regardless of what kind of vehicle I strap into, from kart to GT-1; if I want to run regionals, I don't spend much, but if I want to get a national championship, it's gonna burn $$$.
In reality, the cost structure for a new, grass-roots level racer is dependent on three things:
(1) Capital outlay - car and spares
(2) Operating expenses - tires, engine rebuilds, etc.
(3) Competitive component and testing costs
Items (1) and (2) are well known, and have been beaten to death time and time again. Item (3), however, is the most hidden and misunderstood, yet most likely to lead to someone leaving the sport unsatisfied. Club Ford appears, from and analysis of (1) and (2) to be an inexpensive class.
However, considering (3), the open engine rule (by this I mean non-sealed) results in needing a national-class engine to run up front. This is not cheap. Also, shocks are free. Since a good set of shocks is generally not on an $8-10K Club Ford roller and costs easily $6-10K, this is another barrier to competitiveness. Many regions have an open tire rule, leading to further competition expenses, i.e., you can run a GY600 if you like, but you won't win. I can go down the component list further, but I think you can see my point.
In general, people tend to argue for spec classes based on (1) and (2), but the reality is that the real economy that they present is based on (3). To be competitive in a spec class, I can budget for tires, engine rebuilds, travel and entry fees, and know that I'm on a relatively equal playing field with the rest of the class. In an 'open' class, however, I never know when someone's going to develop the exhaust system hat gets an additional 2hp, thus forcing me to either buy one or move further back in the pack.
If my enjoyment comes from driving, a spec class fits the bill. If my enjoyment comes from car development, I want to be in an open class. Club Ford stands a chance of being a truly low-cost driver's class, but the rules need to be structured to remove the constant development costs. Face it, the chassis are already 20+ years old. Why can't we set some common ground rules based on technology from that period and call it a ballgame?
Marshall Mauney
Oregon Region
Barry Haynie
FC #9 WDCR
You have some very good points there, Marshall. Obviously one of the keys to the longstanding success of FF1600 has been engine rules stability. In a sense, further "research" or innovation has been closed out and so engine prep continues to revolve around the basics of component blueprinting mixed in with the subtleties of head porting and fricton reduction. I've seen plenty of first place trophies taken home in CF by those who do not have National level engines. However, it is certainly true that somebody with the bucks to run Arnie's best stuff can find their way to the front a bit easier!
When a few of us introduced Club Ford in the New England Region in 1984, the simple rules required outboard suspension at one end and a spec tire. Around 1990, amid growing concern that CF was becoming a "big-money" class too, there was a movement to exclude things like racing clutches, aluminum differentials and fancy shocks. $800 exhaust systems were probably being talked about too. If I were writing the rules today, I'd throw in electronic dashboards, data aquisition and radios too!
Suffice it to say the "movement" was short-lived and nothing happened. Part of the problem was that there were too many people who already had all the latest goodies and there was really no way to shut the door and, in essense, require those racers to toss out what they already owned. Maybe there needs to be another sub-class where racers who swear off all those nicities can run for the silver too!?
I have received a few emails from people proposing that a vintage FF class be developed within SCCA. Of course, that will only happen if older cars are upgraded to current safety regs regarding items like roll hoops and fuel cells.
Dale Carter
2003 VanDiemen FE #29
Life is Good
John: Your Club Ford sounds like our Spec Ford class. We require steel shocks on the Club Fords and allow shock upgrades to whatever your pocketbook allows in SF. The CF rules are pretty much the same otherwise, requiring outboard shocks at one end minimum. Some exceptions are noted. If anyone wants a set of rules, I have a few laying around.
gm
maybe this should be in the CF section, but marshall brought up the point of high dollar shocks. Are they really required on a CF? I have talked to several drivers who after spending the big bucks for the top of the line Penskes have said they cant tell any difference and they arent going faster. Are the chassis to flexible for the shocks to make much difference with the high spring rates some are running?
Do the elec dashes and data acquistion make any difference as well? I have both and other then the lap times and graphing of the rpms (shows how high I over-revved on that missed shift,AAAAGHH)I dont know how to use the data. It also helps with driver development showing brake points and steering input.
I agree that the development costs are the high end, but even with the restricted CF rules wont they still be there? As long as there is adjustability wont we keep trying different settings to optimize the package to our driving style?
My main concern on all this is replacement parts. If i were to wipe out a corner on my Royale it might be cheaper, definetly quicker to just by another car.
The other point is seat time at the races. I love racing my CF, but am considering an IT maybe even a spec Miatia, just so I can take part in the enduros. Seems that enduro racing is the up and coming thing at least here in the SE on a regional level. Would be cool to have an open wheel enduro, but pit stops would be often and probably about ten minutes....lol
John
Just so everyone know what we are talking about in the issue of CF rules in the SFR,
my latest copy of the CF rules show that if one were to have any of the following there are additional weight(s) to be added to your car as follows:
CV joint lightened --------------- 10 lbs.
Single 7 1/2" clutch -------------- 25 lbs.
ANY modification to transaxle ---- 50 lbs. (how about a shifter shaft seal? that is a mod.)
Aluminum shocks ---------------- 20 ilbs
ANY externally adjustable shock - 50 lbs (including the old click stop armstrongs from 1973?)
All these weights must be bolted to the chassis between the driver's seat and pedals.
These weight have to be stamped by tech.
So, does this mean if your car is already 25 lbs over weight, do you still have to add another 25 lbs for a F3 clutch? That's the way I read it, it it looks like you are going to be 50 lbs over weight, not 25.
And just as an example of the shock thing, my latest Truesports catalog show that the cheapest shock that would be suitable for FF costs $325, but has external rebound adjustment and has an alloy body. Oops! that's a 70 lb weight penality. Ok, so we look for a steel body shock. Ah, here it is, but it costs $500 and is still is externally adjustable. That's still a 50 lbs weight penality and will cost an extra $700 to boot. I thought we were trying to keep the costs down. Of course, one will probally have to have the shocks re-valved to match the heavy springs you will have to buy to hold up all that extra weight. More $$$$ (echo. I thought we were trying to keep the costs down.)
Maybe there should just be two classes, FF and Spec Ford. The spec ford class in SFR is pretty well aligned to what CF is in the rest of the country. We could just do away with the current CF altogether, rename Spec Ford to CF and there would be no problems when racers went to other regions or racers came from other region to SFR. It sure would simplify things.
Doubles or triples external rebound canisters are really just shocks guys, that happen to be very adjustable, so if someone states that they feel they are the same as their "old" shocks maybe they are! They are no advantage unless worked with or you got lucky! Jim :rolleyes:
Keith Roberts
teamrobertsracing@gmail.com
I know you guys hate for me to wave the FM flag a bit, but Marshall hits it on the head when you speaks of the costs.
The concern is not only the cost of the parts to be used/tested but ALSO the cost of using them on a regular basis. Open gears= more time spent looking for the proper set, Open or high tech shocks= more time spent on set ups, together it all comes down to more time spent on researching what it takes to get the most from the car. Yes, I see the benefits of this, but again its not about who's the best engineer, rathter it's about driving and racing.....
Marshall good stuff.
I'm sure this isn't going to be the most popular response, but I believe the structure of racing was there long before any of us joined a class or racing series. We DEFTINITELY need to keep on top of the rules to help further the sport, not what will benefit us now (obviously a very tough job).
However I think if one's goal is to win in racing then they should choose a class that they can afford to win at not worry to much about the rules. Racing is expensive on any level that I know of if you want to run up front. It really doesn't matter what class or type of vehicle it is.
Well my own posts inspired me to put up a another posts, lol.
I believe if you wanted to develop Open Wheel racing more in the US, we should let loose on the rules more. Open them up, we seem to be thinking that spec is the way to go and that will help solve some our issues.
When I first got into racing I wanted to win so I was in favor of spec too. Now I just want to reach the top and I've quickly realized that winning isn't all that important to achieve that. I figured spec (close rules)would be the best for me to display my talent. Which I believe is true, however I don't believe it's good for the sports growth.
I believe Money follows Money and it also creates a nice trickle down effect opening more doors for more people. Open Wheel racing seems to be getting away from this theory in the USA.
The most common thing I read is that Nascar is so popular because there are American Drivers that the American public can relate to. I say not true it's the Money, the money is following the money. It's the money why Nascar is so popular not the drivers.
Let's stay on the topic on 'spec car'. The conversations about club ford are fun, but this topic was supposed to be about the Formula Ireland chassis the SCCA is trying to force down on us. I saw the car at Mid-o thursday, and it may be a nice alternative to the tanks known as FM, it will never replace FF. The most outragous thing about this is that the SCCA (stands for 'Sorry, Can't Comprehend Anything') is going to sell these cars. Don and Justin did a great job of 'breaking through' the marque battle, but what chance do you think he has selling a car for $30k as a roller when the SCCA 'is' going to make money selling cars for $28k complete for a class it will create to meet it's own needs. The club is not a club if they are going to make money selling cars.
Please stay on the topic of this spec car. Do not go off into a different direction. It does not make easy reading going through all the other stuff to talk about what this post is supposed to be about. If you want to talk about other classes, start a post for it. If you need to say something to me, my e-mail is in my profile. Don't make people read it here.
Dave Weitzenhof
[quote]Originally posted by Jon Horgas:
[b]The club is not a club if they are going to make money selling cars.
[/b][/quote]Hasn't the SCCA been selling the Spec Racer Ford for a while(I don't know if that is true)?
This is a class(SRF) that competes for dollars when people look to get into racing. I don't see how things have changed at SCCA. This is something they have been doing and now they have expanded their product line.
John is right.SCCA should not be selling racecars that it can classify where ever it wants.SCCA has circumvented the rules by mandating the comp board to classify this car.I saw the car and maybe
it could be built and sold for 30k.I believe it will be subsidised by Don Panoz.This car has not even had the 2.3 liter Duratec engine fitted to it.So the club has bought this without any guarantee that it works.The car has had many engines fitted to it but not the Duratec.In Ireland it was fitted with a 2.0 Zetec and it sold for 25000 LBS which is roughly $40k.So somebody is not telling the whole story.This is not a car that the mainstream Go-Kart community will want to afford.If it fails to sell Enterprises will go deeper in debt and if it does not sell Enterprises I am sure will screw it up,and if Enterprises does not screw it up,Don Panoz will get tired of subsidising it and put the price where it ought to be and then it will be closer to Formula atlantic pricing.But in the meantime countless prep shops,parts retailers,Formula Mazda owners,Formula Ford owners and Formula Continental owners will see their investments dwindle and the car counts will fall off all so we can have Enterprises be successful and have something to do.I would just as soon see every member add an extra $15.00 to their membership dues and payoff the debt that Enterprises owes SCCA club racing.If this car moves forward many thing in SCCA will change as well as the number of classes.I think I can deal with 26 classes and 10 minute qualifying sessions and 50 plus cars on the track at a time, how about you?
This is an interesting link showing the development of the European version of the Sports racer using a similar 2.0 aluminum Duratec.
[url="http://www.sports2000.co.uk/pro_series_engine.htm"]www.sports2000.co.uk/pro_series_engine.htm[/url]
These two links are chassis being fitted with a Duratec and Zetec
[url="http://pub34.ezboard.com/fsrccsports2000frm1.showMessage?topicID=59.topic"]http://pub34.ezboard.com/fsrccsports2000frm1.showMessage?topicID=59.topic[/url]
[url="http://pub6.ezboard.com/fs2racinggeneraldiscussion.showMessage?topicID=638.topic"]http://pub6.ezboard.com/fs2racinggeneraldiscussion.showMessage?topicID=638.topic[/url]
*Note...you may have to type in this link as sometimes it "drops" off the word "opic" when I cut and paste.
Regards,
Gerry Dedonis
Kansas Racing Products Inc.
[url="http://www.kansasracingproducts.com"]www.kansasracingproducts.com[/url]
PS...I have located a handful of the 2.0 liter Duratecs. Somewhat rare in the U.S. as the application is only in Europe. The 2.3 is the American version.
[quote]Originally posted by Mike Sauce:
[b]I would just as soon see every member add an extra $15.00 to their membership dues and payoff the debt that Enterprises owes SCCA club racing.If this car moves forward many thing in SCCA will change as well as the number of classes.I think I can deal with 26 classes and 10 minute qualifying sessions and 50 plus cars on the track at a time, how about you?[/b][/quote]Seems that would be the better way to go to help avoid the conflict of interest to the other members in other classes, but the ball is already rolling so I think that options is out.
As for the class I thought it was going under the FA class, so it shouldn't effect track time. However that seems like a big disparity concerning safety speeds.
What is the normal process to get a car approved by SCCA for a class? or where can one read about how that is done?
[size="1"][ September 23, 2002, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Rob Hogenmiller ][/size]
Here's some photo's that we took at the Runoff's of the Car. I found it very hard not to get my picture taken with it (or sitting in it) wearing my (now collectable) FFU T-Shirt :D Dave
P.S. Why are they putting those crappy Bilsteins on it? To me thats not very appealing IMHO.
[url="http://tool15.homestead.com/files/Side.jpg"]Side Photo[/url]
[url="http://tool15.homestead.com/files/Front.jpg"]Front Photo[/url]
[url="http://tool15.homestead.com/files/Shocks.jpg"]Front Cover off[/url]
Mike Andersen
U.S. F2000 Webmaster
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
