Any interest in CFC in the S.E.

[RacerDave51]

Is there any renewed interest in reviving CFC in the South East?

[cooleyjb]

Is there any renewed interest in reviving CFC in the South East?

I know the guy who bought my car lives in Florida. It was an 89 Van Diemen. I am hoping he'll bring it out to the ARRC.

[rickjohnson356]

CFC was eliminated due to lack of participation.

While there are folks interested in the CFC class, I don't think there are enough regular attendees at the races to warrant a separate class designation at this time.

[cooleyjb]

CFC was eliminated due to lack of participation.

While there are folks interested in the CFC class, I don't think there are enough regular attendees at the races to warrant a separate class designation at this time.

At all the races I was at this year, CFC elgible cars outnumbered FC cars at more than 2:1.

That being said there were only 3 cars over the 5 races I'm thinking of that had a car newer than 95 and most were pre 90 (the real CFC )

So really the outcomes for competitors won't be much different in the northern part of the SEDiv is my guess as most of the FC cars seem to be CFC elgible up here.

[Bob Coury]

I wish we could get the numbers to justify thereturn of the CFC class. I purchased an 88 Swift SE3 rocker arm car-and the following year when I finally got the car prepped CFC in the SE was abolished.

It still still fun to race it-that is what counts to me. However it would be nicer CFC was still around.

[Purple Frog]

One could petition the SEDIV class review board to create a CFC class. In the petition one would have to define the criteria (e.g. 1999 and older). Then, if accepted the class would have to maintain an avarage of 2 entries per race to maintain it's status.

I have close personal knowledge that the chairman of the SEDIV class review board will most definitely ask what has changed now to make the class viable, that was not true four years ago.

[RacerDave51]

...criteria (e.g. 1999 and older...

There inlies the rub. Some will want '95 & older, some like '97 & older, etc., and we all need to agree before we approach the region. Personally, I like '97 back, but I'm flexable. PF makes a good point--what has changed. Well, we'd be changing the elligibility date from '89 to 'what ever', for one thing. I'd like to see a North-South (sub-series) division rivalry. This may make the numbers easier to meet as well.

JM2cents

[cooleyjb]

There inlies the rub. Some will want '95 & older, some like '97 & older, etc., and we all need to agree before we approach the region. Personally, I like '97 back, but I'm flexable. PF makes a good point--what has changed. Well, we'd be changing the elligibility date from '89 to 'what ever', for one thing. I'd like to see a North-South (sub-series) division rivalry. This may make the numbers easier to meet as well.

JM2cents

Then it's really not CFC if we do 97 and back IMO. The thing that makes CF good is that they are running with technologically similar cars and the split is objective. At least that's what I though. Outboard suspension, etc.

[EYERACE]

96 and older for CFC in the SEDiv is my vote -

.......question that may or may not get someone's shorts wadded up.........allow 96 with one and also if converted to two front shocks ?

....now other small details.......iron head only?...........Pinto engine only?.......what weight? .......i do not favor a spec tire.

[Purple Frog]

Let's face it, no way to make everyone happy. A few examples:

There is a 1991 Swift that runs out of Lighthouse Point Florida that can stroll through 1:26s at Road Atlanta.

I know of a 1995 Citation that might even be faster.

So... in creating a class, if you would spec rocker arms only, you leave out a pile of 90-96 VDs, Citations, etc. I don't think that is the intention.

You might be able to spec iron head pintos only, but then the door is still open to above mentioned Swift (2007 ARRC Winner).

I don't think the lack of a CFC class is keeping older cars off the track. I think the owners of older cars are keeping them off the track.

[cooleyjb]

Let's face it, no way to make everyone happy. A few examples:

There is a 1991 Swift that runs out of Lighthouse Point Florida that can stroll through 1:26s at Road Atlanta.

I know of a 1995 Citation that might even be faster.

So... in creating a class, if you would spec rocker arms only, you leave out a pile of 90-96 VDs, Citations, etc. I don't think that is the intention.

You might be able to spec iron head pintos only, but then the door is still open to above mentioned Swift (2007 ARRC Winner).

I don't think the lack of a CFC class is keeping older cars off the track. I think the owners of older cars are keeping them off the track.

That's the problem with adding all the 90+ cars to the class. As you say, there'a 1991 car that is sitting up in the paddock at RA as a genuine contender. The mid 90's cars are very competitive in the SEDIV as regular FC cars at any regional. Any of them can win the race with the top driver.

Allowing the mid 90's cars into CFC is a subjective decision and that's where I see the problem.

FWIW the car that's leading the SEDIV regional points is a true CFC car and just looking through all the results, every single car I looked up that was near the top in points was a 97 or earlier. So if we went with the 97 and earlier paradigm we'd have generally zero FC cars running regionals and all would be in the CFC class.

[Purple Frog]

Hopefully this year's SARRC entry is an aberration. For the most part all the cars that ran in FC would be CFC cars in CENDIV. Rob Poma with his 97 VD didn't show, or he would have walked the fields as in years past.

So, in reality the FC class in SARRC this year was CFC. Not a good position to convince the powers-to-be to create another class.

[Redbone027]

SO ~ who is going to the ARRC @ RoadAtlanta this Fall then ?
Will there only be purple & yellow CFC's there ???

Ardie
'84 Reynard CFC

[John Heckman]

Hi,
We still run them in the Formula Race Car Club of America, but we may be a bit to far North for you. Right now our farthest race South is Summit Point.
John

[Zcurves]

Area 81 Racing will continue to run '87 and '92 Reynards at all VIR and RRR events at least for the next few years. We may also venture to CMP and RA occasionally during that time as well.

Most newer competitors, like Richard and I, can't afford the big $$$$$ for the newer cars. I think the older cars are what makes racing attractive to the masses. Cars are available for less than $15K that are still relatively competitive.

[rickjohnson356]

That's the problem with adding all the 90+ cars to the class. As you say, there'a 1991 car that is sitting up in the paddock at RA as a genuine contender. The mid 90's cars are very competitive in the SEDIV as regular FC cars at any regional. Any of them can win the race with the top driver.

Allowing the mid 90's cars into CFC is a subjective decision and that's where I see the problem.

Initially, wasn't CFC created when the newer pushrod/pullrod cars came into being? I used to own a Crossle 71 FC that is a rocker-arm car. The SEDIV rules specified 1990 & earlier. My chassis was mfg in 1991 and the previous owner to me took two years to build it, getting it homologated in 1993 (still with rocker-arms).

Because it was built in 1991 and homologated in 1993, I was unable to run the car in CFC in SEDIV. However, the suspension technology on my car was the same as the 1990 Crossle 71 that Chuck Moran still owns (and is at the Runoffs with it), and his car would be eligible for the old SEDIV CFC class.

Therefore, I am more in the camp of those using technology to determine CFC eligibility rather than just the mfg year.

Is it NEDIV that uses 1995 as the cutoff year? If so, that would imply that their reasoning is based on technology, since the 1996 VD was a significant technology change (mono-shock).

Perhaps the same reasoning could be applied to use 1997 as the year for differentiating the class, because he 1998 VD was also a significant technology change too.

Using either 1995 or 1997 as the year to determine eligibility would be using VD technology changes as the determining factor. What about other mfg cars technology changes-- are they left out inappropriately?

That is why I am in favor of using a technology change as the criteria. When using technology as the primary criteria, the various years that manufacturers adopt the newer technology becomes a moot point. It doesn't matter what year the car is but rather all cars have similar technological levels.

[RussMcB]

If I remember correctly (a very big if), the first "club" sub class was CFF, and their criteria was: at least one end of the car must be outboard suspension.

Not sure if that's accurate, or how it might pertain, but I'm inclined to agree with Rick. It would make more sense to use technology, not a year of manufacture (or homologation).

But, probably a moot point based on recent history (turnout) of older FC's in the southeast.

[EYERACE]

makes sense to me to have CFC rules much like those in the rest of the country.

and as for car count.........hey if CFC entries saw to it that FC eventually went away in the SEDiv [never happen though] would anyone expect the CFC people to care?