FB at 2019 Run-Offs?

[jchracer]

I have not been paying attention lately. Given the dismal turn-out of late, is the FB class going to be invited to the 2019 Run-Offs at VIR?

[Zcurves]

I don’t know any more than you. I think FB will make a decent showing next year with our series running Majors again. I don’t know if that will be enough to receive an invite however. If everyone does their part, I’m optimistic good things will happen.

[John Mosteller]

It won't be automatic according to the GCR but classes may be added .The runoffs classes are supposed to be announced by January 1st. Twenty one classes have automatically made it.Personally I think 21 is to many and wouldn't add anymore unless they were combined with some classes that were already invited.

From the GCR

2019 Runoffs Class Tracking

Per SCCA General Competition Rules (GCR) Section 3.7.4.C: All classes with a combined two-year event average of at least 4.0 participants in Majors and Runoffs competition will automatically be invited to the following year’s Runoffs. Classes not meeting that criteria may be invited as the event format and venue permits. The Road Racing department, in consultation with the Club Racing Board, will determine and announce by January 1 the Runoffs-eligible classes invited to the next Runoffs consistent with the event format and venue. For example: If the two-year period includes 68 Majors weekends and two Runoffs, for a total of 70 events, a class would need at least 280 participants over that period to average 4.0 per event.

Last Events Added: Sonoma Raceway, Motor Speedway Resort Houston, High Plains Raceway
2018 Majors Events Remaining: 0
Total Entries Required to Average at Least 4.0: 284

	2017 Majors	2017 Runoffs	2018 Majors	2018 Runoffs	Current Total	Current Average	Needed to Reach 284
Total Events	35	1	34	1	71
AS	152	30	114	12	308	4.3	Achieved
B-Spec	106	18	85	14	223	3.1	61
EP	233	45	167	19	464	6.5	Achieved
F5	183	38	106	5	332	4.7	Achieved
FA	133	12	155	7	307	4.3	Achieved
FB	101	18	39	7	165	2.3	119
FC	141	14	119	16	290	4.1	Achieved
FE	172	35	114	10	331	4.7	Achieved
FE2	0	0	53	9	62	0.9	222
FF	234	36	209	22	501	7.1	Achieved
FM	112	16	107	13	248	3.5	36
FP	203	42	148	15	408	5.7	Achieved
FV	238	39	227	29	533	7.5	Achieved
GT1	158	17	149	8	332	4.7	Achieved
GT2	235	36	230	23	524	7.4	Achieved
GT3	101	17	80	10	208	2.9	76
GTL	131	26	102	20	279	3.9	5
HP	197	46	129	16	388	5.5	Achieved
P1	120	19	120	19	278	3.9	6
P2	126	25	125	19	295	4.2	Achieved
SM	823	86	779	48	1736	24.5	Achieved
SRF3	892	101	851	36	1880	26.5	Achieved
STL	362	57	273	19	711	10.0	Achieved
STU	184	34	140	10	368	5.2	Achieved
T1	141	22	156	17	336	4.7	Achieved
T2	178	26	189	29	422	5.9	Achieved
T3	131	24	137	17	309	4.4	Achieved
T4	214	40	144	12	410	5.8	Achieved

[ghickman]

I was told by a very reliable source that FB will be invited to the 2019 RO's.

[Lotus7]

I was told by a very reliable source that FB will be invited to the 2019 RO's.

While I have nothing against FB (or any other class), we all agree there are too many classes, and too little runoffs track time over too many days, so what's the point of this scca policy if it isn't implemented? What have I missed?
thx

[Peter Olivola]

While I have nothing against FB (or any other class), we all agree there are too many classes, and too little runoffs track time over too many days, so what's the point of this scca policy if it isn't implemented? What have I missed?
thx

It was explained clearly in the original and subsequent press releases on the subject that it will depend on the Runoffs venue's capacity. That would mean both track length and paddock size. The latter is obvious. The former could constrain class combinations.

[kea]

I was told by a very reliable source that FB will be invited to the 2019 RO's.

You know they have to allow their class, FE2 with it's numbers, and FB's numbers are better (not great, just better).
Once again with SCCA having their own cars to promote, there will be consequences (lucky for FB)

[Peter Olivola]

You know they have to allow their class, FE2 with it's numbers, and FB's numbers are better (not great, just better).
Once again with SCCA having their own cars to promote, there will be consequences (lucky for FB)

FE/FE2, like SRF/SRF3, is a transition situation with a plan similar to the SRF sunset.

[Terry Hanushek]

You know they have to allow their class, FE2 with it's numbers, and FB's numbers are better (not great, just better).
Once again with SCCA having their own cars to promote, there will be consequences (lucky for FB)

And consider the FE2 has about half a year on participation since the cars started to be converted / raced in the middle of last year.

[kea]

I'm just saying.
It's like when SCCA tried to fudge the participation average numbers on Shelby CanAm to keep them a National class, and yet their numbers at the time would have cancelled any other class.
They protect their own.
But, then it's harder for them to deny another class at the same time.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

FE/FE2, like SRF/SRF3, is a transition situation with a plan similar to the SRF sunset.

The question is if FE owners will upgrade or sell? Many can't afford the ~$20k upgrade cost.
They may not get the numbers next year. Then what...

[Peter Olivola]

The question is if FE owners will upgrade or sell? Many can't afford the ~$20k upgrade cost.
They may not get the numbers next year. Then what...

It's still no different than the SRF/SRF3 situation, which had several years to get going.

Of all the issues with the Runoffs and other aspects of the club, this is probably the least. A convenient one to harp on, but not a real opportunity for improvement. When/if the combined FE/FE2 doesn't meet numbers you'll have something to talk about, and past performance is no indicator of future outcomes, but the SRF/SRF3 upgrade indicates that Enterprises has a plan that has worked before.

[Lotus7]

It was explained clearly in the original and subsequent press releases on the subject that it will depend on the Runoffs venue's capacity. That would mean both track length and paddock size. The latter is obvious. The former could constrain class combinations.

I saw that originally and had the same thought I subsequently posted. Why not take the opportunity to pare down the class count if you already have a 'rule' or process that allows it? Just because there's physical room for a certain class doesn't necessarily justify keeping a dying class alive and forcing mixed classes at the runoffs.
(full disclosure, I'm part of a dying class, and looking to move to one that isn't).
regards

[Thomas Copeland]

I sure hope the SCCA is going to do something really reckless that is going to cost them a boatload of money. We have heard nothing will happen in 2019, or maybe ever.

We all know what this about. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with too many classes at the runoffs. How can it be when the plan is not to reduced the number of classes but to remove some classes and just replace them with others?

We know what they are really doing. They are disfranchising some so they can open up the runoffs for their pro series classes (F4, F3) so they can dump those cars into the club part of the SCCA so they don't end up being write-offs.

But apparently its ok to them (or is it really only him?) for the rest of us to write off our cars. This has been the scheme from day one. The fix was in from the second SCCA sanctioned these classes under their Pro Series umbrella. It's dishonest, its corrupt, and they are liable for their actions if they do this.

[problemchild]

Have we seen this dance before? Same SCCA cheerleader, same critics (including myself), just another day .....in the SCCA toilet.

Let's let anybody and everybody race who wants to spend the time and money to go to the Runoffs ...... except of course for those dirty &*$#@*'s with too much safety protection built into their Formula F cars.

[Heel-and-toe]

I sure hope the SCCA is going to do something really reckless that is going to cost them a boatload of money. We have heard nothing will happen in 2019, or maybe ever.

We all know what this about. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with too many classes at the runoffs. How can it be when the plan is not to reduced the number of classes but to remove some classes and just replace them with others?

We know what they are really doing. They are disfranchising some so they can open up the runoffs for their pro series classes (F4, F3) so they can dump those cars into the club part of the SCCA so they don't end up being write-offs.

But apparently its ok to them (or is it really only him?) for the rest of us to write off our cars. This has been the scheme from day one. The fix was in from the second SCCA sanctioned these classes under their Pro Series umbrella. It's dishonest, its corrupt, and they are liable for their actions if they do this.

Right . . .

[BeerBudgetRacing]

It's still no different than the SRF/SRF3 situation, which had several years to get going.

Except the participation numbers (pool of cars) are not nearly the same. SRF is better than 4x FE.
Just saying it's different. The upgrade cost is going to take people out. FE drivers are harder to replace than SRF drivers.
They will need a higher percentage to upgrade at a faster rate.

[Peter Olivola]

Except the participation numbers (pool of cars) are not nearly the same. SRF is better than 4x FE.
Just saying it's different. The upgrade cost is going to take people out. FE drivers are harder to replace than SRF drivers.
They will need a higher percentage to upgrade at a faster rate.

Identifying a potential future problem is one thing. What's your solution?

[Jnovak]

Identifying a potential future problem is one thing. What's your solution?

imo the only way to increase participation is to reduce the cost to race. Imo nothing else will work.

I have been very involved in racing for over 50 years. It is my opinion that racing costs have increased at a much higher rate than inflation for about 20 years.

I am an ow fan and the only 2 ow classes that make any economic sense are FV and F5. The rest of the ow classes make no sense imo.

My only ide on helping this is to figure out a way to reduce costs to build cars that people will want to race.

Imo FV is great but too slow to bring new racers into the class

Imo F5 cars are simply too small to attract new racers but they are fast enough. I think a restructuring of the F5 rules to make them more appealing and bigger might help but my last idea to make F600 cars a seperate class with bigger was not approved and F6 was merged into F5 and the numbers do not look great.

I would still like to see F6 a seperate class with it own rules to make them bigger and more visually like other OW cars. The club has no interest in this concept. I will start another post in the F600 forum on this subject.

[Bernard Bradpiece]

[QUOTE=Jnovak;571944]imo the only way to increase participation is to reduce the cost to race. Imo nothing else will work.

I have been very involved in racing for over 50 years. It is my opinion that racing costs have increased at a much higher rate than inflation for about 20 years.

I am an ow fan and the only 2 ow classes that make any economic sense are FV and F5. The rest of the ow classes make no sense imo.

Jay,
You are missing the renaissance in Formula Ford (that is "Ford" not "F"). As SCCA oversaw the demise of Formula Ford, the market has found its own solution. Across the USA there are regular meetings attracting 25 to 50 Fords, usually on control tires to dramatically reduce tire cost - eg. the Hoosier vintage tread tire is relatively inexpensive, does not go off, will easily last a season and is fast and controllable. Thanks to Ivey et al the engines do 50+ hours, with modest maintenance if properly installed and regular oil and filter changes and valve clearance checks. Its brought Formula Ford full circle to the low cost club formula it was intended to be. All those derelict Club Fords have/are being dusted off, refurbished and out racing to join the stalwarts that kept going during the SCCA open wheel demise.

So a set of tires a year at around $750, an engine refresh every 3 years around $3,500 is really economical for the family man. Of course everyone has the cost of chassis maintenance, gas, entries etc, and any potential damage cost.

There are successful series on the East, West coasts, in the center and in the South. In fairness its not so attractive for the 16 year olds - they are better off running the F1600 or F4 races, but its ideal for the low budget weekend warrior.

FB is a wonderful formula but was always going to have a limited market - it needs engineering ability only a few have and competes with a plethora of open wheel formulae created by SCCA, in its infinite wisdom, which have diluted an already limited market place. There are no winners other than those the SCCA has a financial interest in - and even that has its own limitations.

There should only ever have been FV, Formula Ford, FB and none of this would have happened, but here we are - 22+ classes at the runoffs?

BB

[LenFC11]

BB

Well said..

I kinda think FV FF FA but the idea is definitely limited classes

[Daryl DeArman]

Cut a bunch of classes. Let people decide if they are attached to their class or the club. If the club provides the experience, they'll find a class/car to race. If they are attached to their class, they'll find somewhere else to race. Trying to be all inclusive has just resulted in some severely diluted racing classes.

[Jnovak]

Cut a bunch of classes. Let people decide if they are attached to their class or the club. If the club provides the experience, they'll find a class/car to race. If they are attached to their class, they'll find somewhere else to race. Trying to be all inclusive has just resulted in some severely diluted racing classes.

i think you are correct Daryl

[Thomas Copeland]

So it's official now. We're in.

SCCA just announce 2019 runoffs classes today.

[Zcurves]

Everyone dust off those cars and let’s go racing in 2019! Hopefully this news will bring many on the east coast out of hiding.

[jchracer]

Everyone dust off those cars and let’s go racing in 2019! Hopefully this news will bring many on the east coast out of hiding.

Yes, good news. I for one, plan to run the FB this year after an absence from the class for a while. It is such great class, I hope that it can regain some of it's past popularity. You cannot go faster for less money....period.

Who else is planning on running FB this year? Can we see a show of hands?

[JerryH]

Thanks Joel..... you will like getting back in the car.......bring your young protege with you!

Everyone else........call every FB owner know and encourage and/or help get them to some Majors races in 2019.

There are at least 70 or 80 cars in the country......and if they come out, we will have some good numbers.<br>

Jerry Hodges

[Thomas Copeland]

Now that I have my own wheels I can't wait to get back on track. Having my first run in the car this Friday at Thunderhill. Hopefully later back East with the NAF1000 for the entire season. Lets see if we can break a few entry records next year.

[Mike Holland]

Is there anyone that is qualified for the Runoffs? I doubt that there is anyone that will enter the race even though there is a class.
This will only reinforce the BOD decision to bump it into FA.