Scca eliminated classes

[Mike B]

If you weren't aware by now, Mazda 'owns' scca; the money they pour in is way more than just the superficial stuff we see on the surface. (I have this direct from a he-who-knows, and it sure isn't hard to believe).
It's not just "at the expense of the open wheel guys", its whoever is after them in the days schedule.
"Fair" or not, we can accept it, or move on. Tilting at windmills did no one any good, ever.

I'm quite aware. And this is despite the rumor of a BoD member telling a Mazda representative that "they need the SCCA more than the SCCA needs Mazda". It's likely that the SCCA is still trying to compensate for that blunder: "We're so sorry, Mazda. We'll do anything you say"

This is going to backfire on the SCCA spectacularly when Mazda pulls a Honda and decides to put their marketing money somewhere else.

[RideMore]

1. I did a fairly but probably not perfect review of each Runoffs race. Two went green to checker (no full course cautions): FF and FV.

2. This may all be my fault. In June I told my local BoD member that the SM and SRF class sessions need to all be shortened by ten minutes due to the extra clean up time they require. In Cen-Div its normal for all the other groups to have their sessions shorten by five minutes to compensate. He knows we run FF.

[Mike B]

He knows we run FF.

And he runs SRF.

[Lotus7]

From November Fast Track:

While confirming that FF is not welcome at Super Tours, they at the same time are clarifying piston diameter;

(fourth decimal place? you can NOT make this s*** up LOL)

[DaveW]

I'm quite aware. And this is despite the rumor of a BoD member telling a Mazda representative that "they need the SCCA more than the SCCA needs Mazda". It's likely that the SCCA is still trying to compensate for that blunder: "We're so sorry, Mazda. We'll do anything you say"

This is going to backfire on the SCCA spectacularly when Mazda pulls a Honda and decides to put their marketing money somewhere else.

Although obviously not a direct parallel, this reminds me of the opioid (fentanyl) addiction fiasco - get used to the reduced pain opioids provided ($ & support Mazda provides), but then get addicted, leading to much more serious consequences.

[John Nesbitt]

From November Fast Track:

While confirming that FF is not welcome at Super Tours, they at the same time are clarifying piston diameter;

(fourth decimal place? you can NOT make this s*** up LOL)

Maybe converted from the OEM mm measure?

We get the reverse a lot up here in Canuckistan - news accounts from the US or UK in odd km or kg amounts, obviously converted from the original miles or pounds.

[reidhazelton]

This is going to backfire on the SCCA spectacularly when Mazda pulls a Honda and decides to put their marketing money somewhere else.

Mike - I think you're on to something. Mazda deciding SCCA sponsorship no longer makes sense might not be all that far down the road. I was at a Mazda dealer about a year ago and it looked to me like Mazda was trying to position themselves upmarket as an entry level luxury car. Nearly their entire product line is SUVs, the Mazda3 and Miata. Less on the Zoom-Zoom and more on the SUVs and luxury branding. Weren't all the pace cars at the Runoffs Mazda SUVs? Seems odd to me to use an SUV and not a Miata as a pacecar, but that is where Mazda's marketing efforts are....

[Matt Clark]

From November Fast Track:

While confirming that FF is not welcome at Super Tours, they at the same time are clarifying piston diameter;

(fourth decimal place? you can NOT make this s*** up LOL)

I had to chuckle a bit at this one...

[Mike B]

Mike - I think you're on to something. Mazda deciding SCCA sponsorship no longer makes sense might not be all that far down the road. I was at a Mazda dealer about a year ago and it looked to me like Mazda was trying to position themselves upmarket as an entry level luxury car. Nearly their entire product line is SUVs, the Mazda3 and Miata. Less on the Zoom-Zoom and more on the SUVs and luxury branding. Weren't all the pace cars at the Runoffs Mazda SUVs? Seems odd to me to use an SUV and not a Miata as a pacecar, but that is where Mazda's marketing efforts are....

All it takes is a single personnel change in Mazda's leadership and the new guy asks "why are we spending so much money on some random club with only 50,000 members?" Eggs and baskets come to mind.

What irks me is that the SCCA is likely confident that we'll all come crawling back because they think they're the only game in town.

[rockbeau25]

I had to chuckle a bit at this one...

I'm not sure which part made me chuckle more, a prominent SRF driver asking to get rid of F/SR classes entirely, or the SCCA saying it is important to maintain F/SR classes with a straight face.

[Matt Clark]

I'm not sure which part made me chuckle more, a prominent SRF driver asking to get rid of F/SR classes entirely, or the SCCA saying it is important to maintain F/SR classes with a straight face.

I am curious as to what exactly his letter said, but for sure the reply is almost enough to give a migraine, given the context of the past week.

[cory mcleod]

1. I did a fairly but probably not perfect review of each Runoffs race. Two went green to checker (no full course cautions): FF and FV.

F6 went green to checker.

[Lotus7]

Maybe converted from the OEM mm measure?

We get the reverse a lot up here in Canuckistan - news accounts from the US or UK in odd km or kg amounts, obviously converted from the original miles or pounds.

John, I'm from Ottawa, I've lived the metric conversion comedy.

I just found it amusing to think that someone at scca is spending our membership money looking for and correcting such banal, irrelevant stuff.

[John Nesbitt]

John, I'm from Ottawa, I've lived the metric conversion comedy.

I just found it amusing to think that someone at scca is spending our membership money looking for and correcting such banal, irrelevant stuff.

I am sure that the rumor that Mazda told SCCA to convert the GCR to metric measurements cannot be true.

[Hardingfv32]

Two went green to checker (no full course cautions): FF and FV.

No full course cautions is a feeble argument. The more cars per session, the greater chances of a FCY. If anything larger groups should be allocated more time because of this. High car count groups have contributed more financially to an event and have earned the right to more track time.

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

All it takes is a single personnel change in Mazda's leadership and the new guy asks "why are we spending so much money on some random club with only 50,000 members?" Eggs and baskets come to mind.

How much does Mazda really spend? Is it simply media placement or do they also fund the Mazda classes in someway? The SCCA Mazda classes do not need Mazda to survive. The very large competitor base can manage the class just fine on their own.

Brian

[Matt Clark]

High car count groups have contributed more financially to an event and have earned the right to more track time.

Brian

Bull****.
My entry fee was the same as everyone else. This is a club of members.

[Mike B]

No full course cautions is a feeble argument. The more cars per session, the greater chances of a FCY. If anything larger groups should be allocated more time because of this. High car count groups have contributed more financially to an event and have earned the right to more track time.

Brian

You just described FV and yet here we are...

I don't know how much Mazda contributes but they are lining someone's pockets. This isn't about car counts. It's about getting rid of open wheel cars.

[DaveW]

John, I'm from Ottawa, I've lived the metric conversion comedy.

I just found it amusing to think that someone at scca is spending our membership money looking for and correcting such banal, irrelevant stuff.

Someone decided to essentially "round-up" from/to the specified metric value rather than just discarding the last decimal place (round-down) which someone could have appealed because that would have stated a smaller maximum than specified. Nit-picking for sure, but avoiding that possibility.

[Mike B]

The SCCA Mazda classes do not need Mazda to survive. The very large competitor base can manage the class just fine on their own.

Were you on the BoD around 2014?

[isagoodday]

Wow, just catching up and seeing this. As new to FF (like never run a FF race new), I guess this changes a lot about the upcoming year for my son.

Plans were always to run with FRP, as getting to meet Bob and see how well FRP is run was a HUGE part of making the decision to move out of SRF and into the F1600. My thinking was supplement with SCCA to have even more time to learn the car. It seems to be a shame that the options to run the car have become much more limited.

We live just outside Charlotte, and I am guessing our regional majors will have some events. (CMP is only a 1 hr drive for us) Watching the FF from Runoffs was some great racing and wanted to leave open the option of attending but not sure what that will look like now.

[CheckeredFlag]

From November Fast Track:

While confirming that FF is not welcome at Super Tours, they at the same time are clarifying piston diameter;

(fourth decimal place? you can NOT make this s*** up LOL)

Here's a video of performance engine builder Lawrence "LT" Tolman building a stroker LS he hopes will produce >600hp. He goes out to .0005 on his measurements. So, it's not unheard of. After all, he's building a performance engine.

https://youtu.be/HEmiG6moAkY

[cory mcleod]

F6 went green to checker.

With 22 cars.

[E1pix]

…. and all that was great to see!

[Lotus7]

Here's a video of performance engine builder Lawrence "LT" Tolman building a stroker LS he hopes will produce >600hp. He goes out to .0005 on his measurements. So, it's not unheard of. After all, he's building a performance engine.

https://youtu.be/HEmiG6moAkY

sure, many industries work to four decimals,
my lighthearted comment was merely at scca's idea that they needed to correct a max piston size by .0001

[E1pix]

Proving yet again that racing’s all about the tenths.

[Steve Davis]

sure, many industries work to four decimals,
my lighthearted comment was merely at scca's idea that they needed to correct a max piston size by .0001

My question would be WHERE will SCCA get suitable measuring equipment (and operators) to determine LEGALITY to the 4th decimal place.. which would no doubt also DEPEND on the TEMPERATURE (not to mention the MATERIAL) of the part being measured as well as that of the measuring device being used. I recall quite the temperature variation for Runoffs tear down procedures (generally open garage) over the years - some times it's 90 in the garages.. and some times it could be 30(f).

WOW.
Steve

[John LaRue]

My question would be WHERE will SCCA get suitable measuring equipment (and operators) to determine LEGALITY to the 4th decimal place.. which would no doubt also DEPEND on the TEMPERATURE (not to mention the MATERIAL) of the part being measured as well as that of the measuring device being used. I recall quite the temperature variation for Runoffs tear down procedures (generally open garage) over the years - some times it's 90 in the garages.. and some times it could be 30(f).

WOW.
Steve

The dimensions published were provided by Doug Learned at Fast Forward. I "presume" that he obtained those numbers from the prints to which the parts were manufactured. If this is giving you that much heartburn reach out to Doug or drop a letter into the system and they can pull a decimal point out of the figure.

This post has wandered from its original trajectory...

[John LaRue]

And one other thing, while I am willing to read emails, texts, and posts on APEX and FB, please understand that they really have no impact. The only way to have your voice heard is by submitting your comments to https://www.crbscca.com/
and, regardless of the comments that I am sure will be forthcoming, they are read by the CRB and the BOD liaisons! To date there are 4 letters.

[John LaRue]

See below in red.

That's a symptom, not the root cause. You need to ask "why" multiple times until you get to a root. Why are cars parked in garages? Because it became too expensive.

Why is it too expensive? Run away rules in the early 2000s and 20-teens that failed to contain $20k shocks, trick gearboxes, Honda (say what you will, the inclusion of the Honda made car prices double, if not triple, for a top-level car, and they have yet to come back down), etc, which inturn pushed numbers down as the "back of the pack" entries left. Fewer entries, made higher costs which then pushed out the mid pack entries. I would counter that I don't think you can blame cost escalation on the Honda. The costs of maintenance of the Honda are pretty competitive as compared to a top-flight Kent. I would not disagree that the costs did escalate at the same time but that was also about the same time as the Mygale was introduced. I think the BOP between the two has been proven at this point so one can't use the excuse that the Kent isn't competitive.

Why were there runaway rules - SCCA is always a day late and a dollar short. SCCA is reactive, and not proactive. Very true; that is the nature of the SCCA rule system. As you know having been a member of the FSRAC, changes are normally made via member requests by the volunteer boards. if there were a full time rule czar the system could be pro-active, but even then I would wonder how well accepted those changes would be. Rules stability is the mantra, but with a formula it is always open to improvement and that usually costs money. The alternative is spec racing which is doing pretty well.

Why is SCCA reactive and not proactive like FRP? Large BoDs and governing bodies cannot pivot and move quickly. While there are diverse opinions that help bring fresh ideas forward, it also can be a roadblock when you get someone with a personal-interest agenda FRP certainly has the ability to be pro-active however they introduced radial tires and non-ferrous brake calipers both of which could be said to have escalated costs. Bob has done a great job, but even his numbers are lacking as to what the once were.

Simply blaming people who parked their cars is pointing the finger at the wrong people. It's on SCCA to incentivize and entice those owners back out - not shame them into it. Each parked their cars for certain reasons - often a multitude of reasons that made entering a race no longer worth the cost. That would be great but SCCA isn't really in the business of promoting individual classes. Obviously Enterprises does their own thing which is appealing to many. I point to B-Spec which was on the chopping block a few years ago. With the efforts of Frank Schwartz and David Daughtery that class pulled itself from the ashes. Ultimately it is up to each racer to get out and race which is what BS has done. I personally have been trying to do similar things with the assistance of a few fellow FC racers - we have seem some victories.

Further, the cost to enter one race a year when you factor in all the fixed costs is pretty astronomical. If you've been out for a few years you will need, at a minimum, new belts, helmet, flagtronics, rain light, fire system, HANS recert, physical, membership and club dues, maybe even a truck and trailer if you sold them. At a minimum, you're looking $3-$5,000 just to get the car current. Add in the entry fees that are nearly double the of of what it was when those who parked their cars did so 10 years ago. So telling people to "just go run one race a year" is financially nonsensical.

I have no solution, and as SCCA is constituted today I don't see a solution. Other than the spec tire in FF, I have seen no SCCA effort to contain costs. When I was on the CRB I cannot count the number of times someone said "what's $500 in the grand scheme of things and an annual racing budget?" One, it's $500. That's a day's take home pay for a lot of people who used to make up SCCA. Second, just because your racing budget is $80k/yr doesn't mean others are not scrimping by on $5,000/yr. Third, say "what's five hundred bucks" ten times and you just doubled to cost of a the person running the H prod car or the 84 Van Dieman. I can't say that I disagree. Good spec tires have (IMHO) certainly helped FF and FC however others would adamantly disagree. I can't off the top recall any requests other than the spec tire which have been aimed at reducing operating costs. At least as regards formula based classes those types of constraints are difficult to implement. The real cost increases for FF and FC appear to me to be related to entry fees, travel/lodging, and fuel.

It would be interesting to compare the cost escalation between FF and FC with SRF3 and FE2. I would "guess" that relatively speaking, FF and FC have seen a much lower rate of increase but I could be mistaken. Both SRF3 and FE2 have seen recent engine and gear box upgrades that came with a significant price tag. Despite the fact that the previous versions would be hung out to dry without any BOP adjustments there was very little complaining to be heard.

Reducing the opportunities for cars to run (FF, FV, F6) will only further reduce numbers. Sometimes you have to make an investment in a class for it to grow or re-build. How much track time did SCCA give FE/STU/STL/etc. when they first brought those classes out at the expense of other classes and look at what happened. SCCA is putting a ton of eggs in the SM basket and I worry that because those cars so easily cross over to literally any other racing organization, sooner or latter SCCA SM drivers will notice there are some really neat things happening at new orgs like GridLife and the various endurance racing groups. Then, what will SCCA be left with? FE?

In total, SCCA is toast I hope that isn't the case.

(RideMore - this is more a general post, not a post targeting you. Your post just got me thinking.)

[swiftdrivr]

No longer racing but if suddenly I was able to, the costs that would stop me [that haven't been mentioned above] include RV and trailer, Storage for the RV [or other tow vehicle if it isn't your work truck] and trailer, insurance for those vehicles, and replacing perfectly good belts and fire systems on a regular basis. [I actually think the helmet rule is reasonable.] The other thought that stays in my head is that everyone agrees we have too many classes, but to eliminate a class from SCCA dramatically reduces the car's value, so reducing classes requires asking someone to sell a car at reduced price and buy a car for another class at suddenly inflated value. I don't think we'd see many volunteers for that.

With dwindling fields and not expecting a sword for the Gordian knot, I had looked into vintage, but didn't find much in my tow range. FRP is another great option, but I am way to slow to play in that arena, and again, mainly out of my tow range. Still, maybe going where you are wanted makes sense, or more sense than trying to revive SCCA OWR. Adding numbers to either vintage or FRP increases the possibility that they will survive and eventually be able to expand their range. Unfortunately, this may not work for anything but FF/FC and FV.

SCCA has been a huge part of my life since I joined back when I was a kid, but it's not the organization that made me renew each year, it was the people in the paddock and the competition on track. If they move to a different series, well, I don't care as much about what the shoulder patch reads. SCCA or FRP or SVRA, whatever. A long as the people and competition are there. Consolidation may be the best chance for growth too, as thin fields don't draw in the young kids we need, but full, tight fields might.

Short of coming up with enough money to advertise our classes during an F-1 race, I see no miracle cures. Open trailers and participation in car shows to generate interest have been suggested. I tried to get media coverage in my local paper for the 50th with no luck. Maybe someone with contacts could do better, but it seems the bottom line is cars on track. SCCA won't have any trouble marginalizing us unless we can put cars on track, and I don't see that happening without consolidation, in SCCA or somewhere else.

[Craig71188]

Further, the cost to enter one race a year when you factor in all the fixed costs is pretty astronomical. If you've been out for a few years you will need, at a minimum, new belts, helmet, flagtronics, rain light, fire system, HANS recert, physical, membership and club dues, maybe even a truck and trailer if you sold them. At a minimum, you're looking $3-$5,000 just to get the car current. Add in the entry fees that are nearly double the of of what it was when those who parked their cars did so 10 years ago. So telling people to "just go run one race a year" is financially nonsensical.

While not specific to this group, the shortened "spoilage" dates on safety equipment along with the additional "must haves" does certainly impact the "run a race or two each year" crowd. When you amortize the costs over maybe 2-4 total races before needing a fire system recertified as opposed to 5-10 races, or belts, well...

Also, SCCA's membership + license + physical vs. many crapcan groups one time $50 - $75 membership (only) and many young budget racers get snapped up into these organizations rather than SCCA. Yes, I know there are concerns and differences, but having driven with both groups, the crapcan folks are much faster to react and "clean house" when someone is a problem on track. In some ways these other organizations are more like pro racing in that the administration is the same group at each race who you get to know and are CONSISTANT.

Overall, SCCA seems to have a business plan for road racing that has been challenged and in many ways is losing to newer players in the market. Their (IMO "half hearted") effort to try and appeal to the participants in these other organizations (most of which offer NO open wheel options) leaves the current open wheel groups at a disadvantage to the fendered groups.

[Ed Womer]

And one other thing, while I am willing to read emails, texts, and posts on APEX and FB, please understand that they really have no impact. The only way to have your voice heard is by submitting your comments to https://www.crbscca.com/
and, regardless of the comments that I am sure will be forthcoming, they are read by the CRB and the BOD liaisons! To date there are 4 letters.

i have no insider info on this but it does say the liaisons read the letters. OK so if they do open the and possibly read them, then what? Most of us feel that is the end of it. Due to past experience most feel it is fruitless to even respond, since the outcome seems to never have any commonsense result, or the boards only hear what they want.
It is also hard to use the website and find any useful info let alone find something unless you have (insider info of use) on how to use the site.
In this info time why doesn't every rule change proposal sent to everyone who has competed in the affected class/group notified? Great idea Ed! Oh wait, it seems the boards don't want any input but have decided already that it is good for the few or the club no one cares about the majority.
Whine all you want but MAKE IT EASY not hard!
47 year member, Ed
PS A few years ago I was attending not racing at the runoffs at VIR. I went to the board meeting for the classes and went to the one for open wheeled groups. I brought up the new rule on length of exhaust pipe in FV which had become a hot topic, and provided a much better way to write the rule. Guess what the response was? Write a letter to us. Are you F kidding me? The board is right there and minutes are being taken and I have to write a letter? Oh, so the liaisons can read it and then toss it since doesn't fit the existing rule.
You wonder why we feel left out?

[924RACR]

And one other thing, while I am willing to read emails, texts, and posts on APEX and FB, please understand that they really have no impact. The only way to have your voice heard is by submitting your comments to https://www.crbscca.com/
and, regardless of the comments that I am sure will be forthcoming, they are read by the CRB and the BOD liaisons! To date there are 4 letters.

Sorry John, no disrespect intended, but.. circular logic is circular.

Synopsis: "Your voice won't be heard if all you do is post here, so use this form instead... so your opinion will be heard. And discarded."

Just hard to come away with any other conclusion, after the last year or two of letter-writing.

So, goodbye SCCA.

[Garey Guzman]

And one other thing, while I am willing to read emails, texts, and posts on APEX and FB, please understand that they really have no impact. The only way to have your voice heard is by submitting your comments to https://www.crbscca.com/
and, regardless of the comments that I am sure will be forthcoming, they are read by the CRB and the BOD liaisons! To date there are 4 letters.

You're right, email/letter sent.

[John LaRue]

See below.

i have no insider info on this but it does say the liaisons read the letters. OK so if they do open the and possibly read them, then what? Most of us feel that is the end of it. Due to past experience most feel it is fruitless to even respond, since the outcome seems to never have any commonsense result, or the boards only hear what they want. You have been around for a long time so most of this, I am sure, is already in your knowledge bank. The letters are routed to the advisory committee (AC) by staff. Usually they get it right but when they don't, the AC Chair will redirect the letter. The AC reviews the letter, makes a recommendation on the matter, and sends it to the CRB. At that point the CRB will read the letter, discuss the AC recommendation, and make a recommendation to the BOD. Non-rule changes are published, rule changes go the the BOD for approval. The BOD liaisons sit in on CRB meetings and are expected to be conversant on the letters. They answer questions posed by other BOD members if and when the letter is discussed at the BOD level in advance of a vote. Occasionally I will sit in on a BOD meeting and provide information on a matter. Usually a rule change is instituted by letters from the membership or Staff, occasionally the letters are generated by a committee, or the CRB is asked to undertake a matter by the BOD and will generate a letter. Race Memos are different. I too was very skeptical of the process and those involved in it until I was recruited and spent time working on the FSRAC and CRB. There are lots of moving parts and many issues to consider that sometimes are not readily apparent to the general membership. I have come to the conclusion that the system developed over the years is actually very good, but it is complex and takes time to understand. If you have questions, call or email and myself or someone else will respond. You might not ultimately agree with the decisions (I often do not myself) but you will be heard.
It is also hard to use the website and find any useful info let alone find something unless you have (insider info of use) on how to use the site. Please let me in on the insider information; I too find the website difficult to navigate.
In this info time why doesn't every rule change proposal sent to everyone who has competed in the affected class/group notified?That information is available on Fastracks; there is a process for rule changes. Great idea Ed! Oh wait, it seems the boards don't want any input but have decided already that it is good for the few or the club no one cares about the majority. That might be your take on it, but it is BS. If that is truly your belief then I can't help.
Whine all you want but MAKE IT EASY not hard We are all volunteers who spend countless hours working for what we "think" is the betterment of the organization and racing. We are "trying" to pay it back, but I am sure we don't always get it right. Topeka can hire more professionals and staff, but I would anticipate an increase in membership or entry fees to cover the additional salaries. BTW, I started tracking time I spend on emails and calls by placing SCCA into my office management system this summer and will post the time spent at EOY.
47 year member, Ed
PS A few years ago I was attending not racing at the runoffs at VIR. I went to the board meeting for the classes and went to the one for open wheeled groups. I brought up the new rule on length of exhaust pipe in FV which had become a hot topic, and provided a much better way to write the rule. Guess what the response was? Write a letter to us. Are you F kidding me? The board is right there and minutes are being taken and I have to write a letter? Oh, so the liaisons can read it and then toss it since doesn't fit the existing rule. Yes, the letter system is the Holy Grail; it creates a method of tracking a matter and is strictly followed. But, I suppose you are correct; one of the CRB or FSRAC members could (should?) have taken the time to transcribe your ideas and concepts into the letter system. Of course they (we) also had every other class meeting to attend that week so I am guessing it was lost in the mix, I really can't say. I attended all of the town hall meetings at VIR Runoffs and spent 90% of my time in that room under the garages "trying" to help out. Sorry we didn't get that one through the goal posts. All the best, John.
You wonder why we feel left out?

[Jonathan Lee]

Not the end of the world, but it looks like local SCCA events and FRP is the way to go for us...

BTW in the SCCA announcement, it said that for classes like FF and FV, the SCCA will pick "select" regional events to award major participation points, since they are no longer allowed at the Super Tour.



I have seen that when enough people write letters to the CRB, it makes a difference and the SCCA will try to adjust accordingly.

At the end of the day, SCCA looks at the numbers of participants and the feedback that they receive.



I will listen to Mr. Larue, and send my letter (why small bore formula car classes are unique in a world dominated by tin-tops, and an important part of the club racing ecosystem)

In my letter, I will also recommend a group containing - FV, FF, FC

https://www.crbscca.com/

[Matt Clark]

In my letter, I will also recommend a group containing - FV, FF, FC

https://www.crbscca.com/

I would not recommend having FV & FC in the same group. There are more than enough cars to make a decent group with just FV & FF, and FC is too fast everywhere to be safe with FV. Having driven & crashed both, the thought of being in a FV hit by a FC is rather scary.

Lets not forget, that the issue is not really low turnout in FF/FV, it's literally stated it was because you cannot combine the eliminated group of cars safely with others.

[J Weida]

For many years ff and FC were grouped together and there isn't a problem. Central division national races were grouped this way.

[Apexcarver]

I would not recommend having FV & FC in the same group. There are more than enough cars to make a decent group with just FV & FF, and FC is too fast everywhere to be safe with FV. Having driven & crashed both, the thought of being in a FV hit by a FC is rather scary.

Lets not forget, that the issue is not really low turnout in FF/FV, it's literally stated it was because you cannot combine the eliminated group of cars safely with others.

Meanwhile, F6 has very compatible speeds with FF, just saying.