In Defense of CFC

[John Green]

As I am between cars and pretty much decided to re-enter either CFC of FC. (Unless I get a killer deal on a FA)
I looked at some of the past CenDiv results in regional FC competition to see how many CFC's showed and the numbers were pretty dismal.
Did I just look at the wrong races? Can anyone provide actual CFC participation numbers for me?
I just can't see going to an older CFC if there aren't sufficient fields. Maybe a mid 90's V.D. is still the best route.

[BGP]

With the way people are thinking these days, a mid-ninetys Van Diemen will be the CFC of choice.

[LAJ]

You have to think that the 96 and older cars are 10 years OLD and I do think they should be in CFC and if I want my 84 Van Dieman to be competitive I think it can with these cars.John Green has had both and was only .4ths faster in the 94 Van dieman(with a lot more races in the 94 than the 84 at the same track) than the 84 Van Dieman !! I think that should put them in the same class.
Lee

[FC63F]

LAJ,

At least in CenDiv is is 1990 or older is the rule set. Lots of reynards, a few swifts, a two or three Crossle, a couple of Citations and the occasional older Van Diemen and a Tiga. If you were at Waterford Hills in recent years, you would see from 5 to 9 cfc cars for each of the six/seven race week ends. Last year at the WOR games was a bit dissapopinting but two years ago we had 11 or so as I recall. Best I am able to tell there are five or six active CFC's in Detroit, three in Windsor Ontario, four or five cars in Chicago area and another five or six in the Cincy area, two in Cleveland area for a total of about 15 or 20 cars - the key is to have them all show up at one time in one place. I also believe that there are probably 5 or 6 cars out there sitting in garages collecting dust but to determine that will take some research.

As for the 1990's cars - I would think the rule might be extendable to 95 or older VD's, I am guessing there are some advantages to the pushrod suspension and the narrower chassis, but I have never driven the newer FC's. The 96's are much narrower (aero) than anything out there and should be advantaged over the 1980's reynards, crossle, citations, Tigas etc. Perhapse we should follow the VARA example where you have two groupe - 1990 and older and 1995 to 1990 and 1996 and newer sort of CFC1 and CFC2 or something like that.

David

[Phil Picard]

The NER is 95 and older so you can imagine what the car of choice is here.
I’m wondering if that will eventually force the migration of rocker cars out there and pushrod cars over here.

[John Green]

This lack of consistancy from region to region is the problem. With different rules by region, different cars are going to either retain or lose value to the club racer in different geographical areas. Not too unlike what some of the circle track guys face witha particular car legal at one track but not another.
Maybe the situation you describe Phil actually has some merit....all the mid 90's CFC cars go to the NE to play and all the pre 90 rocker arm cars stay in the Cendiv.
If this works in the same way I buy stocks hmmmm....if I get the mid 90's V.D. they will never be legal CFC in the Cendiv, if I get a rocker arm car, that will virtually guarantee the Cendiv allows the newer cars.
Maybe I'll take up bowling instead!

[John Green]

Okay....I'm having another idea.(I sometimes think I'm just talking to myself here)
What if you blend the CFC cars together in a way that would allow both the older rocker arm cars and the pre 98 FC's to compete on a level field, without producing yet another class i.e. FC1 and FC2 and FC.....
Current CenDiv CFC rules remain as they are but include the mid 90's cars in CFC with a weight penalty? Take a 94 V.D. add 40 or 50 lbs and let it run CFC.
I presume the best result of a well thought out CFC class is the incentive to get all the garage queen cars back on the track in a class that is commensurate with both technology and budget.
I have a concern that the disparity between regions regarding CFC will continue to have a negative impact on participation.
Refer to the following e-mail I sent to CenDiv's Bob Burns:

Hi Bob,
I was curious if you could direct me to the right right people to address my concerns.
I have been racing with the SCCA for about 25 years in a variety of classes: FA,FC,S2,ITE,FF,CF etc.
I have recently sold my 1994 Van Diemen FC and I'm looking to replace it with another car. I am interested in the CFC class and have been investigating a number of different cars. However, since there appears to be no consistant CFC regional rules by geograhical area, I'm concerned with making the investment in a car that is currently CFC eligible in the CenDiv only to have the rules change.
The car I would buy under todays rules would be competitive only if the rules stay as written. On the other hand if the CenDiv decides to adopt the CFC rules as written by the NEDiv...my car would be instantly rendered uncompetitive.
Can you help me get a feel for where this CFC issue is heading in our region?


Ok, I'm done...I'm going to bed!

[Phil Picard]

Your right, I don’t believe adding classes is the answer either. There are too many now. Occasionally I race in a non SCCA organization. Due to subscription levels open wheel classes are mixed deeper than SCCA. FV, FF with FC and while passing practice may be desirable for some, it adds several undesirable elements as well. First is safety, depending on speed differential and the attention of the person being passed. Etc.
Second is quality of racing. How many times have you gotten a little (being polite) frustrated at S2, DSR,CSR when there tossed in with us and interrupt and great dice? Perhaps some prefer that added element?
And visa versa for me in my rocker car, watching out for newer, faster (real) FC cars.

I do believe you are correct about leveling the field in CFC. From the conversations I have had with some of the Guru’s of Formula cars. The difference’s in lap times from 95 VD down to 87 Reynard’s is not that much, and may be as simple as what you describe to correct.

Overall it’s sad to see us fighting for track time as open wheel drivers (well here in the NER anyway) when they just keep adding class after class for the tin top crowd. Ahhh the influence of Bashcar!

[RacerDave51]

Greetings all….

John, I agree with your take-off on how to include mid 90's cars with the added weight.

What I can't understand is why there seems to be universal resistance to weight changes. Most of the older cars (like my ‘89 Reynard) have gained weight over the years with the misc. fiberglass repairs so adding weight to the later cars would only make the playing field a bit more level. Most of the drivers, I would venture the guess, are of a more substantial physical nature (myself included) and that situation added to the pudgy mature of our cars means that we don’t have a snow ball’s chance of getting anywhere near 1190 lbs. In my case we’re talking about +55lbs and that’s with about ½ gallon of post-race fuel and my dehydrated 195lbs. I guess I could go on one of those diets to get down to 140 but then at 6’2” I’d take on that lean and starving look.

At the moment I run a few races in both CENDIV and SEDIV but depending how the rules play out will depend on which division I primarily race in.

In Conclusion: Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!!...

DaveK

[GeoffRain]

For the NARRC, min weight for a 90-95 car is 1225.

http://www.scca-nnjr.org/NNJR_Race/NARRC.shtml#2

[RacerDave51]

Exactly. I suggested that we, in the SE, consider mirroring our CFC rule with the NE rules in an effort to gain entries w/ new blood from the FC guys as well as maybe some guys for up north venturing south of the M/D line. If you follow the forum you know how well that was received.

DaveK

[John Green]

Ok, I'm liking this.
Can we get some additional input from CenDiv FC racers about considering the adoption of the NE rules on CFC?
Living in Columbus, it is easier for me to go to the Glen and run occasional NE events than it is to cross through Chicago to hit Road America (although it is my favorite track)
It would seem likely that a CenDiv CFC rule the same as NE and SE would encourage more cars at all events.

[rickjohnson356]

It would be very much in our collective interest to have a common set of CFC rules not only for NE,CEN and SE DIVs, but the other divisions as well.

However, based on the feedback from the prior thread in July/Aug/Sept there seems to be a major issue of how much competition adjustment (weight) should be added to 1992 & up cars (if any) in order to keep them from dominating over the 1984-1991 cars.

There does seem to be a general consensus (with the exception of 2 notable folks) that the defining years should be MANUFACTURED DATE rather than HOMOLOGATION DATE as currently exists in SEDIV. I think that a change to mfg date will be easily accepted.

Now, it becomes a little stickier when you look at the mfg date for a specific model of a manufacturer. I am sure that there are several examples, but you all know that one is closest to my heart:

If the rules (in SEDIV) are changed to say mfg date of 1990 or earlier, then 1991 Crossle 71F would be eliminated from being classed as CFC. I have a letter from Arnie (at Crossle cars UK) that states that all models (1988-1991) of the 71F were rocker arm construction with minor changes to radiator size. It is also the last year that Crossle made a rocker arm FC car.

What are other situations of car manufacturers whose model numbers would span any selected cutoff date?

Does VD have a certain model year in which thay made both push-rod and pull-rod cars? Is there enough of a performance difference to warrant different weight adjustments?

What are the different major model years for Reynard? (1984-86 and 1987-1991? help needed here from a Reynard person)

How about doing this in multiple steps?
1. Change CFC to allow ANY car mfg earlier than 1992 for the 2006 competition year. (for all divisions)
2. Have a long discussion & on-track tests to determine the best weight adjustment number for 1992 & up cars (maybe different weight for 1992-1995, and 1996-1998 or any other combination)
3. Get the best compromise to be approved for 2007 competition year.

The hardest part of all is, as Richard Pare has said several times, that the real limiting factor is the driver rather than the car when we are at this level of club racing. You could put DW in any car from 1984 & up and he would always be at the pointy-end. However, if I was in any of the cars, including the newer ones, I would not have a major difference in lap times and would be in the middle or end of the pack.

It might be better to do this kind of change gradually so that we can see what the best way to compromise for all divisions.

[Purple Frog]

Going in knowing that whatever is decided the majority is going to dislike the decision...

What if CFC was defined as a car meeting FC rules that is homologated 10 years before the current competition year. SARRC is now competing for 2006 points. So, under this plan all 1996 and earlier cars would be CFC. In 2007 it would be 1997 and before. In 2008 it would be 1998 and before. Easy to police.

This year Chuck would love it. Next year Rob would love it. In 2008 Defer and Jordan could cross over to the dark side.

I'm against weight penalties. Some of us that raced in CFC in the past were still trying to win a group overall, or at least beat all the FC cars in the group. Weight penalties kills that fun, especially in small fields.

[John Green]

Quote:
The hardest part of all is, as Richard Pare has said several times, that the real limiting factor is the driver rather than the car when we are at this level of club racing. You could put DW in any car from 1984 & up and he would always be at the pointy-end. However, if I was in any of the cars, including the newer ones, I would not have a major difference in lap times and would be in the middle or end of the pack.

I both agree and disagree! While driver is a huge part of it, level of engine prep, tires etc. are also determining factors. I have always contended that an older car operated at the same level of prep and budget can run at the pointy end with a good driver.
Point in case, The DB-6 at the runoffs and DaveW anywhere.
The bottom line is that racers with adequate budgets tend to buy newer equipment and the guys that are budget challenged tend to operate older cars.
I think the problem is partly psycological...how many guys do we know that won't bring their older cars out to race because they can't win.
If you have a well established program to embrace the older cars with competition adjustments to help level the field you can encourage older cars to participate.
This shouldn't be too hard a concept....we just did it for the Zetecs!

[rickjohnson356]

Please see the SEDIV CFC rules discussion in the 'Rules & reg' section...



Like you guys, I am not enamored with weight 'penalties' either. Just trying to accomodate John Green's approach in the 'In Defense of CFC' thread for getting common CFC rules in all divisions.

If you notice, the rules I was presenting did not include weight penalties for 2006.

As everyone can see from the replies so far, the concept of weight penalties is a major can-of-worms and would be hard to get a consensus for any time in the future, much less than in one year.

That is why the change I put forth was SIMPLE:

1. use manufacture date not homologation date.
2. Cars manufactured prior to 1992. ( this eliminates all the 'competiton adjustment' objections associated with cars from 1992-up)

Chuck: it sounds like you are re-considering your opposition to the change from homologation date to manufactured date. Is that true?

Also, thanks about the reminder of needing to go to the SARRC committee. We can still discuss this at Jekyll though.

Both Tyler and Mike are leaning in the direction of using same rules as NEDIV, that's ok with me too and easy to remember for any number of years in the future. It is also closer to having consistent rules for all SCCA CFC, which in my opinion is good.

[RacerDave51]

A question came to mind: Which rules formula works best—what division has the best participation in CFC? That seems to me that the class group sizes are going to tell which rules work best (if participation is what we’re after). The CENDIV and SEDIV are about the same with regards to rules and we in the SE, at least, haven’t been doing too well. Numbers are dropping from two years ago and that’s one of the reasons that I, as a CFC driver, have been involved in getting some input for a possible change. Bear in mind the rules as they are as good as it gets for my car and if I had a decent driver I could mix it up with Mark H but we need more cars so I fell the need for speed… no, that's something else…I digress. I feel the need to look at a rule change & IF we could get all Div on the same rule we could, I feel, increase the numbers.

Tyler (different thread) http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...6&goto=newpost & PF have an interesting point of view and with an added, say 40 lbs, might be something I could support. However, this idea on the face has total disregard for the older cars that will be relegated to mid/rear of the pack. Not to mention destroy their valve as a CFC. Those cars will become garage queens of move the some other series so car counts won’t increase—just be newer cars. I ask again what is wrong with the weight alternative? None of the arguments against it seem leak proof yet. And, it works in the NE. If in fact it does—how are their car counts??

The debate goes on… Ain’t it Fun?!

DaveK

[JPZ]

CFC rules in NEDIV allow cars up to 1995. 1990 and older cars have a minimum weight of 1190LB, the newer cars 1225LB. Right now these rules are only for the NARRC series and are not division wide in NE. The weight penalty doesn't appear to be a big deal - most cars don't get near either one. The class champion the last two years (Doug Rocco) drove a well prepared 1995 VD with an Elite motor. On my good days I could keep up with him in my 1989 VD (pushrod front, rocker rear).

We allowed cars up to 1995 to encourage bigger fields but this year only 10-11 different guys participated with only 5-6 CFC at any given race. This is somewhat disappointing when 50-60 spec Miatas show up to race. Even with the extra five year allowance car counts here in the NE are not that great.

I don't know if I would want cars newer than 1995 let in but up that point it does not appear to be a big deal. The above weight restrictions also don't appear to be a big deal and will encourage older cars to participate which is the main thing.

A uniform rules package across the Southeast, Central and Northeast divisions could only help. I would go to MO for a regional in CFC and I'm sure some guys would like to try the Glen. I'm a little tired of racing on the same old tracks. We ought to try it and see if it stimulates entries and car counts. Its better than watching the class die off.

I am not sure how the whole thing would be coordinated.

Just my 2 cents.

Jerry Zaluckyj

[Phil Picard]

While I agree at our level, with a few exceptions we all should just “shut up and drive” (I know my car is faster than I am.) In the NE the majority of CFC are 92 -95 VD and would be eliminated based on Rick’s suggestion. That would make it great for me, but, if the goal is larger groups in CFC , I believe that would hurt it. I don’t think they (92 -95 VD) will stick around to run as FC. Typically the current NE FC cars are 97 and up VD, they are faster. From my LIMITED understanding of Van Diemans (help from the VD guys here please) if you forget a moment about the 96 monoshock , the difference between 95 & 97 is measurable. 98 even a little more, (wheelbase, aero etc). Then 99 stressed engine and so on. I haven’t looked at results out by you guys but how do the 95 VD’s do against 97 and up? The 10 year rule would work up to 97 then some sort of performance adjustment might be inevitable. Can you imagine a 98 VD vrs. a Reynard without adjustment.
Frog, I have a lot of respect for you opinions, I’m not sure how your suggestion will keep things “level” or perhaps I’m missing your point.

What’s that about bowling?

Jerry, youd do better against Doug if you would stop hitting him in the pits!
call me I left my # on your 7516 machine

[rickjohnson356]

Phil: the weight adjustment amount seems to be a real sticking point here in SEDIV. By limiting to earlier than 1992 for the current racing year, I am trying to get SEDIV closer to the overall consensus. Then SEDIV could approach NEDIV with questions about weight adjustmentst etc.

If 1995 is the year, that's fine with me, just pick a year and go with it. ( other than 1990--lol)

If the NEDIV rules are working with cars up to 1995, and the drivers don't seem to be upset, perhaps the SEDIV should consider the same rules as NEDIV for one year. If it works then ok, if no then go back??

[LAJ]

I am sorry here but didn't someone just put a rocker DB6 somewhere near the front of the FC Runoffs field ???
Lee

[John Green]

Lee,
Don't screw up this dialog with facts!!!!
I vote we all adopt the NE rules with the added weight for the 90-95 cars.

[RacerDave51]

Man, Is my diai-up at home S-L-O-Wwww. I may have do the edit thing--reason: Merlot

Anyway, Rick I'd be cafeful not to muddying the water. I don't think Tyler or Mike accept the NEDIV totally--the NARRC has a weight restrictions. Cory of NARRC rules below:

CLUB FORMULA CONTINENTAL (Class Designation = CFC)

Compliance is the responsibility of the class competitors.

Cars must conform to all specifications and rules applicable to regular Formula Ford 2000

per the current SCCA GCR – with these exceptions.

1. Only Formula Ford 2000 cars homologated prior to 1996 are allowed.

2. Minimum weight limit for 1960 and older cars – 1190 lbs. with driver.

Minimum weight limit for 1001 – 1995 cars – 1225 lbs. with driver

Racing slicks are free; there are no spec tires.

Rain tires are free; there are no spec rain tires.

Bodywork is free, provided it conforms to GCR specifications for Formula Ford 2000.

Chuck, you mentioned to the K.I.S.S. method earlier, which I totally subscribe to, by the way. What could be simpler that adopting the NARRC rules?

And then there's CEDIV--do you guyz want to add weight. Again, who's rules are working best now and should we all align to them?

[rickjohnson356]

Dave:

Do they really use homologation date rather than MFG date? I thought we were past using an artificial date like Homologation date and had generally agreed on using manufactured date. What would NARRC have to say about that difference?

Please fix the dates in your post so that we can see what they really are--- thanks.

IS THERE SOME WAY WE CAN COMBINE THESE TWO THREADS, I'M TIRED OF POSTING THE SAME STUFF IN TWO THREADS.

ARRGH-

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!!!!!!

[Rick Kirchner]

You guys shouldn't get hung up on year designations, either homologated or manufactured. It's really rocker vs pushrod, and that leaves someone to make a decision on the handful of cars that have both.

[LAJ]

Yea !! It's like 3 degrees here and my roadrunner is slowing down!!!
I am going to see if they will let me in club roadrunner !!! lol
Lee

ps.Santa wants 95 and older to be CFC RULE EVERYWHERE

[Phil Picard]

ok,, Lets end this I say we vote on NEDIV NARRC rules adoption..................................sooo who knows how to set up a poll?


Maybe something like this?

1) Adopt NEDIV NARRC rules for all div.
2) Adopt CEDIV rules for all
3) " " SEDIV " " " "
4) aw screw it, leave it all alone!
5) Whatever (my wife)

Only CFC guys should vote?

[EYERACE]

eye will not vote as per my prior post - i think the vote should be only those in a CFC car right now