Should CFC include the 96 VD?

[carnut169]

Just curious... the RF96 is sort of a car without a home as it's too new for CFC yet too old to be competitive in FC. Should CFC be 96 and back? I think so.

[cooleyjb]

The poll doens't have the correct option.

CFC shouldn't contain any car with that has pushrods front and rear.

The class should not be subjective with a random line drawn in the sand.

Cendiv is the closest with 90 and earlier however there are a few cars that miss it one way or another. 90VD having pushrods at both ends. Aren't the early 90's Crossle cars rocker armed?

The whole 95 and earlier in the SE is a bit silly. The DB6 is quite compeititve at nationals and is a 92 chassis showing that the numerical date classification isn't the right way to do things. Technological classifications make things fair and relatively equal. It works quite well for CF. Why did we mix it up for CFC.

[carnut169]

The whole 95 and earlier in the SE is a bit silly. The DB6 is quite compeititve at nationals and is a 92 chassis showing that the numerical date classification isn't the right way to do things. Technological classifications make things fair and relatively equal. It works quite well for CF. Why did we mix it up for CFC.

Perhaps true, but with fields so small it does not make sense to reduce the number of eligable cars.

Being that it is currently 95 and back (the 95 VD is a 4-shock car that is very close in performance to the 96 3 shock car), I think a larger gap exists between the 96 & 97 than the 95 & 96.

[sarrcford]

I agree with both of you. I would like '97 VDs to be included as well. While most consider the 97 an improvement over 96, the 97 is still not considered part of the latest generation of cars.

Why not let both enter as CFC and give them both a weight penalty?

Rob Poma

[EYERACE]

CFC doesn't exist in the SouthEast Division....due to participation numbers from the 2 years it did exist....however....once a year they race at Road Atlanta in the ARRC....so people in the SE at least watch the rules for CFC....and....the year after the class went away down here, if the entrants with a CFC eligible car had entered that class instead of FC like they did, CFC numbers would have been no problem but FC numbers, at least in several races, would not have been enough to sustain the FC class.

Are some people trying to reestablish CFC in the SE ?

my opinion for including '96 is that the rules can always be changed later.......so when passing such rule include language to include '96 and state that '96 is being included as an "experiment" so it can always be changed later - if it is found after a couple of years that '96 so dominates results as to make it obvious their inclusion was a mistake.

[RobLav]

I also had an RF96. It is a step above the RF95, but the RF97 is a much greater step above the RF96.

But all this is up to the individual Regions - Regional class only...

[Tom Sprecher]

Sean, are you looking at another '96?

[FC63F]

Here in the upper midwest - the rules are 1990 and back which includes various Reynards, Crossle 60 series pull rod cars and the 71 series Crossle rocker/rocker cars, the occasional Swift - both euro and US, and the very strong 1990 Van Diemen. The dominent car in terms of numbers is the 87-90 Reynards and the rest are singles. Over the last three years we have been able to get 10+ CFC cars and a slightly smaller number of FC's. We have been impacted this year by the state of the automotive business etc.

From time to time there are discussions about changing the rules to be 95 and older but so far - just talk - there has not been any real push to change to 95 and older - but you never know. I am open to discussing the options for GLC but I don't have any data that tells me it is a good idea or not.

The issue of 96 and 97 is out there but for it to be dealt with - you need someone running the car to rattle the cage - so far over the last 3 years of GLC we have not seen either based upon my memory.

Someone made the point that regional rules are regionally driven - in my mind if your region has a lot of 91-95 VD cars sitting out and you could encourage them to attend and get them to attend by adding that to CFC - then you should give it strong consideration. But if you have a bunch of 87-90 Reynards that are active - then it may be harder to include if the 87-90's cars will sit out - which is Why we have the discussion annually in Averills Shop to talk it out with as many of the real participants as possible.

David Keep
Reynard 90SF

[rickjohnson356]

The poll doens't have the correct option.

CFC shouldn't contain any car with that has pushrods front and rear.

The class should not be subjective with a random line drawn in the sand.

Cendiv is the closest with 90 and earlier however there are a few cars that miss it one way or another. 90VD having pushrods at both ends. Aren't the early 90's Crossle cars rocker armed? (YES they are!- rj)

The whole 95 and earlier in the SE is a bit silly. The DB6 is quite compeititve at nationals and is a 92 chassis showing that the numerical date classification isn't the right way to do things. Technological classifications make things fair and relatively equal. It works quite well for CF. Why did we mix it up for CFC.

using technology differences is the way to classify the competiveness of cars, not the mfg date.

I got the short end of the stick a while back when the 1991 car I had (Crossle 71F -rockers front and rear) was excluded from CFC in SEDIV because the cutoff date was 1990. It was the same configuration as the 1990 car that was legal for CFC.

but, to Rob Poma's (SARRCFORD) point, the older rocker-arm Crossle, in the right driver's hands (Chuck Moran- 1990 Crossle 71F) has been as fast or sometimes faster than Rob in his 96 VD, so should the monoshock cars be allowed to be in the potential revival of CFC in SEDIV? Maybe so, naturally, I would prefer not, but would rather have more people to race with than we have had in the past here in SEDIV CFC.

What is the cutoff date for NEDIV for CFC? It would be really nice to have all of the divisions have the same method of designating a CFC car.

It would potentially make for a better field at the ARRC if we could get more CFCs to attend. Also, it would be a better way to measure the performance of the drivers from all areas of the US who have the older cars.

EYE: along your thought of including the 96, if it became really dominant, the rules could add weight to bring it back into the same level of competitiveness as the earlier cars. The if the 96 cars want to do Nationals, just remove the extra ballast.

[sarrcford]

I have wondered if the owners of 1997 and older cars would be more likely to participate if perhaps weight or head/cam rules for FC or CFC rules were modified.
Given the hassles of a rule change in FC, maybe this should be a CFC change.
For instance, give 1980's cars a 30-50lb break. At the same time, maybe add 10-20 lbs for the 1996-1997 cars. Specifically address the DB-6 and Crossle cars.
I am also curious as to how many owners of older FCs have made the new cam/flywheel mod? Are you going to? Is it keeping you from participating next season?
What about not allowing the engine change for CFC?
A spec tire or mandatory harder compound?
Any combination of these ideas?
These are just some ideas that might increase enthusiasm, participation and keep costs down.

Rob Poma

[rickjohnson356]

Gosh Rob, I forgot about considering the new cam/FW as part of the equation.

My thoughts are to make it easy for people to switch between CFC and FC when needed.

I would think that the new cam and FW would be fairly cheap (<=$1000), so expect most people to do that mod for sure.

Maybe leave the engine out of the picture (but no Zetecs in CFC for sure) and just base the classification on the chassis technology and adjust with weight.

I could go along with spec hard tires for CFC, too, like for CF. However, that leaves the guy that wants to run Nationals too having to have two different (multiple )sets of tires -- way too much expense, when we are trying to reduce expenses as much as possible.

[cooleyjb]

I have wondered if the owners of 1997 and older cars would be more likely to participate if perhaps weight or head/cam rules for FC or CFC rules were modified.
Given the hassles of a rule change in FC, maybe this should be a CFC change.
For instance, give 1980's cars a 30-50lb break. At the same time, maybe add 10-20 lbs for the 1996-1997 cars. Specifically address the DB-6 and Crossle cars.
I am also curious as to how many owners of older FCs have made the new cam/flywheel mod? Are you going to? Is it keeping you from participating next season?
What about not allowing the engine change for CFC?
A spec tire or mandatory harder compound?
Any combination of these ideas?
These are just some ideas that might increase enthusiasm, participation and keep costs down.

Rob Poma

Weight breaks won't help many of the older cars. Heck most of the ones I know of can't get close to FC weight. 50-100 pounds over. Due in part to chassis with extra repairs, going cheaper with steel belly pans, etc.

My 89 with me in it was 1230ish. No way I was going to get 90 lbs off that car as it already had a lot of the lightweight stuff on it as it was.

Take what I say with the knowledge I don't have a dog in the fight anymore after selling the 89. I think it's very much against the intent of the class to have cars that are fully pushrod, LD200, narrow cockpit, current'ish' aero in the class because people 'think' they should be there.

The only way to make a class the right way is to set it up with a technological framework. What we're talking about here isn't the right way. Don't plan a class with exceptions from the beginning, nothing good will come from it.

As for engine stuff, I would keep the same engine rules as FC, even allowing Zetec. Anyone nuts enough to do a Zetec into an older car should be allowed to spend their money.

[racer27]

I have wondered if the owners of 1997 and older cars would be more likely to participate if perhaps weight or head/cam rules for FC or CFC rules were modified.
Given the hassles of a rule change in FC, maybe this should be a CFC change.
For instance, give 1980's cars a 30-50lb break. At the same time, maybe add 10-20 lbs for the 1996-1997 cars. Specifically address the DB-6 and Crossle cars.
I am also curious as to how many owners of older FCs have made the new cam/flywheel mod? Are you going to? Is it keeping you from participating next season?
What about not allowing the engine change for CFC?
A spec tire or mandatory harder compound?
Any combination of these ideas?
These are just some ideas that might increase enthusiasm, participation and keep costs down.

Rob Poma

In reply to your question

'93 Citation FC here:
- Flywheel, Yes, $550
- Cam no & no plans to install it
----- No it's not keeping me from running car. Hole in side of block and wallett is. Car probably comming back as a Fit Powered FF.
- A spec mandaroty hard tire is always welcomed
- I'd have no issue with any weight equalization or could also run wihtout it.

- I do most of my running with www.formulaproracing.org, we break FC cars down to FC1 and FC2. FC1 is 1997 and older. It seems to have worked out well. I believe they are considering having AU head be an automatic bump to FC2.

[sarrcford]

Thanks Ambrose for sharing your information, especially regarding formulaproracing. I did not know that they had separate groups. It makes sense.
Thanks also for mentioning that pesky aluminum cylinder head. I momentarily had forgotten about it. It is yet another variable to consider for CFC.

Rob Poma

[carnut169]

I have wondered if the owners of 1997 and older cars would be more likely to participate if perhaps weight or head/cam rules for FC or CFC rules were modified.
Rob Poma

Well, there would be one more for sure. I'm really on the fence about my next car. I can afford several on the market right now, and have been considering 2 SE-3 (need to sit in one 1st) and a 96VD. I'd buy the 96 but the whole reason I cut the back end off the last one I had was the fact that it did not have a chance against and equally prepared & driven 98+ cars, which was frustrating. I had to drive the wheels off of it just to keep up w/ you and Ros (97 & Tatuus)!

I'm in favor of a CFC movement, and would also be in favor of competition adjustments- I don't want the same advantage I'm complaining about over an 88 Reynard.

If weight won't help, and since engines are expensive to modify I'm not sure what the answer is... but really think it should be weight. 1190 for 93 & back, 1200 for 94-95, 1220 for 96 and 1230 for 97's could be a possible start.
Morgan's DB-6 needs to weigh 1300lbs. (but if Jim was driving, it would, right?)

I'm not sure a bunch of cars would come out of the woodwork if changes like this were made, doubt it would have much of an effect. I do think it would make it more fun for those who did decide to participate, and I can say there would be 1 more CFC in the SER.

Otherwise, I'll just save my $$ a little longer and buy a 98+ car which would be competitive in FC or FB if converted.

[formulasuper]

You guys need to think about not using the car's year as the cut-off for determining the class. As some of you remember, I had a 85' Reynard (the "silver bullet") with rocker arms on all 4 corners. Since it hadn't been SCCA homologated until 92' (it had been raced in another organization up until then) it didn't qualify for CFC in the SEDIV with the 1990 year cut-off & had to be raced in FC!

[sarrcford]

I don't know where all of the old cars are, but there were at least a 1000 FCs purchased new between 1988-1997. Only a handful of these cars have a realistic hope of competing today on a national level. If you do have one of these cars, do you have the desire as well as the financial resources to compete on a national level? Probably not.
Perhaps there are others like myself that are a bit frustrated with the recent direction of the FC class and would like to have their own regional class. Maybe now is the time for a revised CFC class.
Sean, you have proven yourself as someone who knows how to take an idea and make things happen. I am all for this and will support with my time and entry fees.
And one last thing, I really would like to hear from the people who actually own an older FC or have raced one in the last few years. I think your input would really carry more weight, so to speak.

Rob Poma

[Purple Frog]

It would be interesting if there were an inventory of all those 87 -97 cars, and their raceworthyness. I believe most of them have filtered down to owners that can afford to own them, but can't afford to race them.

I know where one is... Respecting today's holiday, check out that helmet.

[Clyde]

It is a shame that the owners and racers of the CFC legal cars do not live close enough to one another. Within the BSFCS & FRCCA there is always 3 CFC at each event BUT the races are at the Summit Point Motorsports Park 2 circuits, probably too far to travel for you racers from the southern area. What a shame as there is always plenty of track-time and each weekend host 2 completely seperate races, sometimes even on different track layouts! I agree that you can race just for the fun of it BUT it is no fun to run without at least a chance of winning. Be careful not to let in one car at the expense of losing two.
John Heckman is the guy to talk to for more info, he can be reached via the FRCCA website under independent race groups here on ApexSpeed.

[Dave Woodmancy]

I think there is alot of merit to making CFC 97 and older however I would have some concerns. Mainly, as was pointed out, Reynards seem to be have the largest numbers in the GLC. You wouldn't want those guys staying home to add in the pre 98 VD's.

But on the other side of that argument there are alot of 95 and older VD's that seem to fit in the same catagory as the 96 car. I would think this would be a big boost in the numbers for the class and I am a little suprised that the class is not much bigger in the south considering the 95 and older rule that is in place?

I think that a common set of rules for the class would help as well. The CFF rule is very simple. Outboard vs inboard susp. I personally think there are two options, make CFC rocker arm and pull rod only, or go to the 97 and older option. To allow 90 VD's and exclude the 91-95 cars that are virtually the same is kind of silly.

This is a potential can of worms, but has anyone given serious thought to a hard spec tire for the class? I have to think that if you could reduce the tire costs and keep people more competitive for longer on a set of tires then you could help boost numbers. FFST is growing in numbers, and NEW cars are actually being built and sold, wanna guess one of the big reasons? Yep 20 heat cycle tires! I am not saying we could find a tire that would get 20 heat cycles on a FC but something more that 8 would help. A hard tire may also help bridge that gap from the Reynards to the VD's

Any thoughts?

[rickjohnson356]

while painting the bathroom yesterday i had lots of time to think about this topic and my prior comments.

I have come to conclude that the CFC class really should NOT have 96 and 97 cars. The reason is that CFC should be based on technology, not chronology.

The minute you let modern suspension cars in, you immediately disenfranchise all of the other currently existing cars and make them worthless. The major reason CFC exists in other divisions (not currently in SEDIV) is for the older technology cars.

There are too many rocker arm reynards, swift db3-se3, 63f-71f crossles (well, not many of those) out there that would stay in the garage if a 96vd was allowed in.

If you want to race CFC, get a rocker arm car.

If you want a more modern car, get a 96+ vd.

You talk about weight adjustments if a 96 was in CFC, leave CFC to the rocker arms.

you need to sell your weight penalty concept to the 98+ cars. That is, have the 96 and 97 be allowed less weight than 98+. You certainly are not going to get them to add weight!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would strongly support a hard-compound or spec tire for CFC, like in CF, as a way of making the older cars more equal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sean, don't take this next question too personally. As the main proponent and driving force behind creating the FB class, why are you abandoning it now to go back to FC or CFC?

One of the reasons FB came about, I think, was as a way to reduce engine costs that are in FC by using MC engines. Well, that may have worked, providing that one is willing to put in three $2000 engines per year. Unfortunately, our neighbor Russ is the prime example. Isn't there someone in the Great NorthWest that has had lots of engine problems too?

Then the big guys got involved with the $50-70K chassis and that blew the entire concept of FB as a reduced-cost class.

There seems to be more occurances of fires in FB cars than in other classes, from a casual view, too. I don't have statistics, just what I have seen reported here on Apex.

[Mike B]

Rick,
You're proposal seems to leave out the 90-95 cars. I think lumping the '96 with the '97 is problematic as well, since they're really very different cars. As I'm sure you recall, the weight for FC had been 1175 until around '98/99 when VD came out with the heavy RF98 and competitors that were unable to reach the standard weight successfully lobbied the SCCA to raise the weight. I'm no spring chicken but I had to ballast my RF95 to get to 1175. A weight penalty for the newer VDs, given their performance potential, makes perfect sense.
Having said all that, there are really groups of FC cars:
FC1- RF98 & newer cars
FC2- any pushrod car that isn't an RF98+
FC3- any car that isn't a pushrod car

Your comments on FB engine problems are a bit off and a little dated.
The oiling problems experienced in the '07/08 GSXR engines seems to have been corrected toward the latter part of this season.
There haven't been many (any?) problems with other vintage engines that are installed and cooled properly. There were 106 national entries this season, with around 30ish cars. Mark Jaremko ran some 7 or 8 nationals and countless test days on the same engine. If there was a rampant problem of engine blow-ups, I don't think the class would still be growing. A majority of the problems I hear about are from people that aren't involved in the class.
If I'm supposed to put three engines in my car each season, I'm 5 engines behind.

My point being: you guys, for some reason, seem to focus on the few engines that have blown up, conveniently forgetting the dozens that haven't blown up.

Sorry for the thread detour, but Rick started it!

[cooleyjb]

Rick,
You're proposal seems to leave out the 90-95 cars. I think lumping the '96 with the '97 is problematic as well, since they're really very different cars. As I'm sure you recall, the weight for FC had been 1175 until around '98/99 when VD came out with the heavy RF98 and competitors that were unable to reach the standard weight successfully lobbied the SCCA to raise the weight. I'm no spring chicken but I had to ballast my RF95 to get to 1175. A weight penalty for the newer VDs, given their performance potential, makes perfect sense.
Having said all that, there are really groups of FC cars:
FC1- RF98 & newer cars
FC2- any pushrod car that isn't an RF98+
FC3- any car that isn't a pushrod car

As for weight penalites they just aren't going to be a fair thing unless you start the newer cars at 1300lbs. A lot of the older cars are well over the minimum because of years of battle scars have brought them up in weight. Updates to structures, additions of diffusers and so on. People are fixing body panels instead of racing them and weight goes up. You knew my old 89 that was Brad Ellingson's car. That car had all the nice light stuff from TDI and still wasn't under 1225 with me at 175 in my drivers gear. I know of at least one Reynard that's rolling around the SE at close to 1300 pounds and without a major influx of money it isn't going to get lighter. To get my car close to the 1190 weight I was looking at about 3000 dollars for brand new thin bodywork and me losing 20 pounds. Not the most likely of things to happen. At least the weight loss.

If you consider the 90-96 Van Diemens very different from the 97-98+ Van Diemens, that must make the 89 and earlier Van Diemens super extremely different. While the mid-90's cars may be at a disadvantage to the newer cars they are leaps and bounds better than pretty much all of the rocker cars.

By the 95 and earlier ruling it allows cars that are truly competitve in the national ranks. Cole Morgan in the 92 DB-6 and Weitzenhof in his 95 Citation and I think Larue's is a 94 or 95 as well. Would we then have to make specific exceptions for these cars and say they aren't allowed? There's a fundamental problem with a ruleset when you have to have exceptions from the beginning.

We're making the exception for essentially one brand of cars. The Van Diemens. It would seem that the other marques seem to be having no issues running in nationals.

The only reason I've seen so far for letting pushrod cars into CFC has been...... "because"

Because it's not competitive.
Because it's slower than the 98.
Because they should be.

They are all truly subjective reasons. One reason CF has been somewhat succesful is that it has a set of rules that are objective and substantial. No inboard suspensions.


A good ruleset should be uniform, consistent and objective. Right now the CFC rules are anything but that and the addition of newer cars are even further steps away from that.

[carnut169]

Sean, don't take this next question too personally. As the main proponent and driving force behind creating the FB class, why are you abandoning it now to go back to FC or CFC?

Who says I am abanding the class?

I had a RF96 Van Diemen. I had Knapp's Ohlins (rebuilt by Stimola), a fresh motor, a gryodymanics diffuser, trick gears, aluminum tripods, yada yada. I also was VERY involved in testing, recording, tuning, etc. I almost always ran new tires. Always ran the test days. It was an all-out effort.

But it was not enough.

At that point I started thinking about a comment Mr Frog made (sorry Scott, Jeremy, et all- it was Mike that set the wheel in motion) about putting a bike motor in his Tattus... I compared the costs of selling the Pinto/ LD, Bell, etc and the costs of buying/ building the FB. It made sense! My goal was modern FC peformance in an older car... I had to run FS, but would get to race FC's.
Nope.
My car was MUCH faster than the newer FCs. (by the way, I ran a full season on my 1st motor without issue- 8 or 9 race weekends with test days). The the FB movement got under way, rules were discussed, etc. Then came Stohr, Piper, Novak, Phoenix, Speads, and now Firman.

What's a guy to do? I can no longer afford to race in FB... converting a 96 probably ain't going to do it. The game has changed. You CAN buy Hill's car for $30kish, almost new Stohrs are selling in the $35k range or buy a new Firman/ Phoenix for $40k+ (I'm guessing). It's difficult to consider a used Stohr vs. a 98+ FC Zetec... hard decision, but I don't want to spend $30k really.

Now the idea of CFC has some appeal. Sure spec tires, great (although that would make the 96 a total dog as it needs (IMHO) to run softer tires up front), don't need the latest parts, can be a bit overweight, yada yada.
While I agree the 96VD is the red-headed stepchild I do think weight could even the playing field, same as a 97 or even a 98+ car.

Maybe CFC should stand for "Cheap" FC, not "club". Allow 98 + cars in at 1500lbs (or whatever). Make competition adjustments to insure a level playing field... isn't that what they do in classes like ITA, or GT1? I want a level playing field!


Guess I'll wait and buy a 98+ car. Decent Pinto powered examples can be found in the 20k range. Saving for another 4 months will allow me to do that and I'll play w/ the FC folks.

Again, in my opinion, it's not thinking outside the box that caused CFC to go away in the SER, and it will probably do the same in other areas as well. My intent with the pole above was really just concerning the ARRC, as CFC is dead in the SER.

[rickjohnson356]

Mike, maybe I just remember the initial problems with the MC engines, and haven't followed FB close enough lately to have revised my opinion on the newer versions. Sorry about that. I like having the resource of all the other members' knowledge here on ApexSpeed from which to learn.

Also apologize to all and Sean about getting off the topic of CFC requirements--

I'm still hesitant about having the newer VD in CFC since the suspension is so vastly different.

How would some official (or a committee) determine the initial weight add-ons? the FC1,FC2, FC3 concept might work, if we could get larger fields on the track.

If we could get all the divisions to recognize CFC in the same way, that would be a large step to getting more cars out.

[Mark H]

I have a strong viewpoint on this subject,
Having driven all of these cars that yall/we are talking about, for myself and others. Then being sidlined by, cash, economy, rules/$4 and a divorce.
And being one of the few that were around at the end of the CFC in the SeDiv.
And, not able/allowed to back up the 04 and 05 championphips, down here, because we were in a "NEWER" '91 71f (non CFC legal back then?).

Ill just say that push rods DON'T cause the speed! I have one now and was faster in the (better tuned) rocker car.

To re start CFC here in the SeDiv a few things must happen.

1) It can't cost big bucks, no not RO's big bucks (even though Ive out ran RO's cars @ the ARRC) but National big bucks. No No No, even that is too much. Or Id run Nationals???Right?
a) HARD spec tire!!! GY 430 or Hoosire 60. ie maybe 2 sets a season. CF can do it right?
b) No high dollar engines. Maybe no ally heads. Maybe no 5.5 clutch. Maybe no racing gas....cost less too? No engine built above the Mason/Dixon line? just keep this one so an engine can last w/o big power loss for a season.

2) CARS that can race...heck we want em all!!
a) Old Reynards..an 84 won the last 2 championships? BUT these cars are fading away. Not two many left!!
b) Swift 3's SWB, no drag, break a lot. Less found everyday?
c) pre 1990 Van Diemens, even less of these. Still keep em in this group.
Above in one weight group OR whatever to give em an advantage.
d) '90-95 VD's. Short wheel base, great at CMP and Barber, Sux at Daytona and RRR vs '98 & up RF's.
I never developed my RF95 and did my SF84 hence the 3 sec. ad. the Reynard had.(clue) work on car and driver!!
e) AHH the thred topic! RF96 If you can get one of these babys to GO you can race! Not much diff from a 95 so let em race.
f) RF97 Rob has one, he's my friend. That said these cars have a hard time at Nats. Whoop butt in Regs...So HMM. They need a place to race. Sound like what we are talking about (have older car will/want to race?)? Add weight or ? run em.
g) odd ball cars 71f , DB6 (got love ? want to race with ya SOON!...just not aginst that FAST son of yours!!.But hey my boy is 12 and wants to race soon as 16 hits so look OUT!), Citations, Pipers, Tatus...Don't let the class fight over, maybe, 10 cars that are floating around the US. Let em run! We need cars right? So what if they ran in a pro race or the RO's? If I had a BA...say DB6 and needed to do CFC well we need the attention too?

Tire rule, AS MANY CARS AS WE CAN GET, and a BIG trophy at the SIC!!!!! and a program at the SIC showing all of the former SeDiv CFC winners! Hey Purple Frog will like that 1!!!!

SP check and Edit later!

[jim morgan]

done blowed Up, why no love for the old Swift?

[carnut169]

Mark- I never thought I'd say this, but well said!

[Mark H]

Jim ...I love ya man!! and cuttin ya off! sorry about that?
Sean I loved racing with/behind you!
And all the guys I / we met and raced with, just 4-5 years ago.
Just more reasons that CFC needs to re start down here!
And there are 1000 more reasons....the good times we had and can have again!



And to give this little man (not anymore) a place to race in 3 years!



Remember its not so much the car, its the prep, track time and racing aginst other guys that makes an outfit quick! All of that, I had to help me out in CFC.
It used to be a wide spectrum of drivers and cars. From an 18 yr (?) old Richard M., on the way up to PF (age ?) a driver that just wanted to go fast in this class!
A great stepping stone up OR a great place to find compitition on a sportsman level.
I think that word should be the battle cry...SPORTSMAN racing.

[Purple Frog]

In a discussion with Richard Pare today, we were talking about how much faster these older cars are now going as compared to when they were designed and built. For instance DB1 Formula Fords are lapping like 10 seconds faster than in 1985. And the chassis, rod ends, and suspension members are unchanged. Yet the loads are much larger. The single biggest reason is the improvement in tires.

So maybe I should change my stand against a hard tire rule for CFC. Not.

It probably would bring some parity between all the chassis types in the mix. And it could save money if one was willing to run a lot of sessions on old tires.

As a racer I hate hard tire rules. I want to go as fast as I can afford, with the correct compound for the session.

[andyllc]

Frog
Speaking of hard tires...
I hate hard tires, dont want hard tires, disagree with hard tires (just me personally)
With that said one would have to look at the Walter Hayes Trophy in England. Brand new cars can compete with old cars and are all still competitive. Joey Foster a few years ago won the thing in an old Reynard. On 'hard' tires.

[Modo]

tires & engine for the 10 seconds Mike E.......ford used to be 95 then 103HP, now 115HP, yea no improvement in the Alum Head.....always shrugged when someone said cfc just because of numbers or turnout...maybe better in the SE.....and then look at Moran in his crossle and we have a guy with a 96 running 56-57's at the Glen and if 10 Nat'l cars show up that may place him 6th in Q1 and maybe 3rd or 4th with a good race

[Purple Frog]

I smile when i think of Cole in the 91 DB6, Chuck in his Crossle, and DaveW in his 95 Citation... all of them potentially racing legally in the CFC class at the ARRC.

[jim morgan]

With all disrespect accepted i once knew a guy who won in a 1991 db-6

[Purple Frog]

Disrespect intended.

[BruceRace]

I currently drive a Reynard SF90. I have found it to be very competitive against newer(95-2000) VanDiemen cars. I have also talked to many drivers who bought newer "Push-rod" cars and had trouble going as fast as they did before in the "Rocker" cars. How about this for rules....Torque to weight! I recently talked to a NASA driver, and thats how they keep it competitive.......just a thought....Bruce

[FC63F]

Bruce,

Explain your concept further - I am not sure I understand the idea. I did note that Steve's 89 set the track record and I think that includes 95 and older in his case.

David Keep

[BruceRace]

Hi Dave....I guess my point is that a constant rule of power to weight is a better equalizer of the car than the year. Steve proved that with a good older car, and good driver, good engine, we(they ) can compete with many newer cars. Trying to decide which cars to let in "By suspension", may never find a common ground. I guess there should be a year/power-weight criteria........just kickin' it around!!! Bruce

[Tom Sprecher]

Wow! That picture helped remind me of some good times. It must of been one of the rare, nice Feb regionals at Rd ATL. Was it '04 or '05?