Not so much struggled, as the car is pretty good on the Motons that were spec'd for it. Really, the car is driveable throughout the 7 clicks of bump and rebound. Happy to share what we sourced. Mark
What he says - time is so short! We will get very limited opportunity to set up at Sebring and we MUST put on a good and SAFE show there. I would really hate to arrive without a clue as to how my car will perform if I have done the obvious and fitted adjustables. The alternative is not leave it stock and just go with the flow....but that's not the Ferrari way !
Gentleman: If you want all of these modifications without any penalty then you will need a little patience. Despite the confidence in this poll, there are 90 members of the FCRA, over 55 that actively participated or intend on participating and I am receiving a lot of residence to this free to modify concept. The idea of free modifications without weight penalty does not have majority support. Not close. Whether you like it or not there are a lot of people with stock cars that do not wish to spend extra money for modifications which are unnecessary. I am not going to chase these people down to run to this poll. So we are trying to figure it out. From my poll of the board at this point the likely decision will be if you do modifications outside of the rules set forth in 2011 you will be subject to weight.
He's probably having too much fun spending his money and time only to get abused on the Internet. Good thing he doesn't have a real job. In all seriousness, though I disagree on the rules, John, thanks for FCRA, sponsoring fchat, and your other support of our small world. Racers need all the friends they can get. I'm sorry if the discussion has been heated at times, I know I struck the wrong tone with Neil.
John is trying to control costs, is attempting to negotiate and hire, and is attempting to do his best. I think John is regretting a lot. As the saying goes, "no good deed goes unpunished" What I'd ask at the silly season as I did last year, is a little patience and trust. After everyone threw up there arms last year, I think I proved I was able to do a few things well. I am going to do my best. It's not going to please everyone and it will not be perfect. But it will make the FCRA better and stronger than the fantastic year we had in 12. In 13 it will likely grow and get stronger again. What I need is support and trust. Racing series are ridiculously hard to pull off as you know from the failure rate. There is often not a conventional wisdom in organizing a series and there is NO consensus, ever, on rules. If anyone has a "how to" handbook on pulling off a brilliant racing series, please send it to me. Alot of people are arguing outside of this blog right now, and i al doing my best. It may get to a point were if we want quick timely decisions a government by the masses is not efficient. I am prepared to make decisions but not everyone will be happy with them. Otherwise, a little patience and trust, please.
That you have. This thread is an example of Free Speech reserved for the Rick Perry voters who with the exception of Onofrio can only vote when they are over 21 and on a date exclusive only to them - when no one cares!
"In John we trust" No, but seriously, I am on a board of a local Ferrari club with over 100 members. You can't make everyone happy. The demands from people are unbelievable. I have to tell members, I have a day job and I do this for fun. I can't imagine what it is like to run a Ferrari racing series. Good luck John.
John, you have done an AWESOME job developing this series the the car count for year 1 FAR exceeded expectations. I only attended one event, but based on that experience and from what I have heard from others, the FCRA offers a unique racing experience; a semi-pro like experience but at a price point that is far more accessible. I sincerely thank you for your efforts. That said, the feedback you are getting here is very much the 'handbook' you are looking for. The rules in question are issues many of us have faced in other series and we have first hand experience about how a rule is written and intended, and then what really happens on the grid. They are almost never the same! Some of this comes from experience as racers and some of this comes from experience as series administrators. To be honest, I feel like you are discounting this experience and fixating on your predetermined position. I mean that very respectfully, just being honest about my own frustration. None of these problems are new or unique and there are documented examples of what is succesful and what is not. For example, the issue with penalizing suspension mods with weight is that no one knows how to do this effectively. Nearly every series ends up dropping this condition because it does not work. We don't have to invent the wheel, we just have to look at what other succesful series are doing. You either allow suspension mods or you don't, there is no gray area that works. I understand the idealistic goal of the weight penalty, but can anyone point to a succesful example of this and than make a recommendation as to how we apply that rule? Idealistic rules will fail if they can not be executed upon, and that's where this one breaks down.
Thanks Rob, Please know that I solicited the discussion (for better or worse and against some advice that I'd regret it) because I wanted the input. I have to take this input from all sides (not just the blog) and see how it fits into the framework and principles upon which I founded the series. I have a lot of experience (over 15 years) putting together Ferrari events, and i have had a fair amount if success with promotional based ventures. My track record is very good. Sometimes events fail because because a lot of conventional wisdom over the years tends to be wrong. I founded the FCRA on the principle that after safety we were going to find a way to race challenge cars for normal club racing money. I wanted to establish an arrive and drive series that could be raced for 100k or under a season, or one fifth the price or less that the factory challenge costs. When I wrote the rules, all of the rules, this was my goal. I was told it was impossible, I'd never pull it off, that it couldn't work by a lot if experts. The experts dismissed me and I have few supporters. But I believed in the purity of this vision. And with equal parts arrogance, foolishness, and stubbornness I devoted a stupid amount of time to prove it could be done. And it could. If I appear dismissive of some of the opinions expressed I am sorry. It may be that many racers on the board have a different vision or concern than I do. What i have organized and created was not the ultimate racing series. First and foremost these are Ferrari events. As someone who has organized a lot if successful Ferrari events I believe I have a good handle on the formula (a lot of what makes good events: hospitality was missing this year and will be launched in 2012). It is my judgement that COST was the major reason a Ferrari Club racing series was never launched in the US, despite all of the challenge cars at tracks. The barrier was cost. I believed that if someone could come up with a formula that these cars could be raced economically, then a series would fly. Cost was the foundation. The FCRA when founded had certain by laws established. With regard to rules the by laws are such that we were going to draft rules that allowed modifications to the extent that they made the cars safer or more economical to run. That was THE principle that constrains what we decide as a board. We understood that some cars were previously modified so the cost equation of a rule had to be considered both ways. Throughout this discussion if I've appeared dismissive of suggestions that discount the cost factor it is only because the rules we establish must consider these by laws. I am not willing nor do I think it prudent to re write this founding principle. And I do not believe that we cannot enforce cost related provisions in set up any more than we cannot set cost conscious rules of us not banging fenders. We can all respect rules we make. I believe that. There are many people off line that have called me and argued my ear off about the fear of escalation of costs with modifications. I've had several people tell me that if we abandon our founding principles of vigilant cost consciousness and we allow non weight related modifications they will not participate or drop out. . I've been getting a ridiculous amount of calls, so many that I've gotten little work done on anything else except this issue. I keep trying to remind everyone that any arguments to allow free modifications MUST have cost as its main justification after safety. If its just "we want it", "you cant police it", "the mod is better and it's not THAT much more", "every other series have it", these arguments are fine but they don't fit within the founding principles or by laws of the FCRA. So to the extent anyone has anything further, I'm giving you advice: use cost arguments as a basis, otherwise it is not persuasive. I'm sorry everyone on the blog doesn't agree. I'll be the bad guy fronting the other interests if I must. Please understand this is hard and I don't think we are doing anything in 2012 that we cannot fix in 2013 if proven wrong. But, let me say this , on the flip I am thrilled at the enthusiasim of everyone. It mean you care, and that is fantastic. As a major aside, with all the enthusiasim on the board, can I ask a question? Can we channel that energy into getting sponsors? I could use a director. And you guys could get rid of my micro managing if the series could afford it. The sponsorships are a fantastic way to direct market to 90 millionaires. The details are on the website. Thanks.
John, Another vote of confidence for you and the Board on the great work you have done and all that you have acheived. I have really enjoyed participating in the FCRA events. The focus on the series being fun, safe, competitive and maintaining the congeniality is something evryone and especially the Board and yourself should be proud of. In regard to the Shocks on the 360's and 430's we are faced with a difficult situation. The stock Ferrari shocks are costly ($8k to $10K per 4 shocks) and require two sets (hard and soft) depending on wet or dry conditions and specific tracks. The non stock option is to spec a brand of less of costly shocks of the same quality. Buying the identical shock from the OEM supplier without the Ferrari brand name is a possible option. If this is not possible research into an alternate manufacturer would require testing before we could use it as a spec mandatory replacement, when the originals are no longer servicable. The last choice is open shocks where adjustables of any kind could be used. The adjustables appear to cost about the same or less than the stock Ferrari shocks that I believe are made by Saches. There is some contraversy in respect to setting up our cars with these shocks and testing them and the costs associated with the testing and the possibility of some drivers having difficulty adjusting them to perform well. I suggest we have the teams that participated this past year research the alternatives and suggest recommendations in regard to actual price, performance and practicality. The Board would then evaluate the recommendations and set the rules and if an alternate set up is allowed possibly try to initiate discount costs for FCRA. We should send out a formal request to the top teams and solicit the alternatives as soon as possible and set a time limit so the rules will not be delayed. If an alternate shock and spring is sanctioned I suggest a donor series typical 360 and 430 be used with a professional driver and team to help test and establish a baseline setup for the product. This would be distributed for the benefit of all. It would also benchmark performance differences over a stock setup which would enable the Board to decide its policy on equalization in regard to weight penalization. It's a difficult situation, cost is important and the cost of the stock Ferrari replacements open themselves up tfor alternatives to be considered. As time goes on and more aging cars will require replacements and this issue will be more important. I have every confidence John and the Board will give it serious consideration and your ruling will be respected by participants in this great series.
if we are serious about cost savings we shouldn't run any dedicated events, we shouldn't run with any pro events like Grand Am with high price tags, and we shouldn't run with existing exotic events that require their entry fee on top of FCRA. if we are serious about cost savings we really need to look at the tires, which are the highest expense of all. I use to get 4 new Hoosiers worth $1,600 a weekend with NASA. tires were the biggest ding to my budget this year because I think all the Hoosier money helped the event costs. if we are serious about cost savings we need more teams involved so there is more competition for racers. teams can compete on cost and level of service. if we are serious about cost savings you need to set the schedule and tracks to minimize the per mile transport charges. just ideas to "race challenge cars for normal club racing money". in reality I don't think most want to give up the cool event weekends, so the only solution to get us back to club racing money is sponsors which our series can attract over most club racing.
I agree with all of these points and am addressing each of them. I am working hard on tires and will have news shortly. The expensive AMLS weekends are optional with the race drop. ( we may have two race drops if we have 6 races, or 1 if we have 5). You need only 4 races to get full points. But these races are offset a bit bc they attract sponsor interest. I am trying to group tracks now (very close to a schedule) You are right Sponsors are key. The uniqueness is that I am doing this for free and we have no promoter taking fees (I can show you lumps on my head and scars from my fights to keep it like this) so 100% of the money goes to the drivers benefit. This is good for direct marketing to the series participants and huge value for Sponsors. So everyone, help us. Call companies that need the director marketing to 90 millionaires. This is huge value for certain companies. I am also within striking distance on a televised TV series for 2012. If I pull that off the FCRA will have a lot more revenue and that revenue with help pay for our costs. That will have a very big impact on affordability. Any sponsor that signs up now gets the benefit of the advertised cost. If I land that deal, advertising and sponsor costs will be much higer.
"we shouldn't run with any pro events like Grand Am with high price tags," The first time you do it, it's fun and cool. The second time, you realize that you hardly get out on track, and when you do it's first thing in the morning or early evening.
Best post of the thread. I can run this series and spend $100K or I can race the same Ferrari in NASA for $20K, yet we feel a a couple thousand for shocks will turn people away? Are you sure we have 90 millionairs in this series? Mark McKenzie and others have made strong points that running an after market system is LESS expensive than running stock. John, I don't think you have addressed these points about cost that are contrary to your position? Safety trumps cost, correct? How are you going to safely ballast enough weight into a car to offset shocks? I guess 50 or 100 lbs is easy enough to do, but that's not an effective penalty. Onofrio will still give me a beat down and Jerome will still give you a beat down. And Mark will still beat us all. And the people talking your ear off will still complain about losing the arms race. If it's a token gesture, why bother? I would hate to see any of the guys running shocks muck up their car for no reason. My position is that you can not safely ballast enough weight into the car to correctly offset the performance gain AND FAVOR the stock drivers as you said you wish to do, at least not in a cost effective manner. Am I wrong? Before you answer, consider that I have about 200 lbs of lead in my NASA GTS3 Porsche. In some classes that would not pass tech, but it does with NASA. I think I spent more money on lead, installation, corner balancing, and tuning than I did upgrading to the single adjustable Fox Racing shocks in that car. The folks talking your ear off don't really understand the 'hidden' costs of racing, we should be trying to educate them not bow to them. I am doing my best to hit your priorities head on and give real world examples. Mark has done the same with his experience running with mods. All I have heard back are your goals and priorities, which are great, but missing is an effective plan on how these proposed rules actually achieve that. John, I am honestly trying to help. I see a disconnect between your plan and the output you desire. I see rules that hurt competition without a cost benefit. I am certain I will spend less money by copying Mark's modified 355 set-up and learning from his previous testing then I will trying to re-engineer the stock system and starting from scratch. Those talking your ear off won't spend money under either scenario. Again I ask, where are the savings?
John, are there set sponsorship programs and a rate card developed? If so, please share and we can all mine our contact lists for potential matches. Happy to try and help ....
I was going through some old stuff and found this from 2002 when I was the Spec. RX7 class admin trying to promote the class. Kinda fits in with this thread. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Rob Let me try to be polite and measured in my response. I am not being contradictory. I may disagree with the logic of your agreements but I am not being contradictory. Cost and safety are the factors, if you have a response coherent argument to that effect we are all ears. Ron you've made every argument for shocks that I've seen. Respectfully of you read these arguments they are not all consistent with each other or the principles of the FCRA. First it was ok which are cheaper. Then it was, let me have them and take weight bc its the same, but no one else will chose the expensive option. Then it was I want shocks even if you put 100lbs. Then it was shocks make no difference so allow them. Then it was everybody on the blog wants them. Then, you have to allow them bc they are such a gain that to equalize with weight is impossible and unsafe. Ive heard all the arguments and I do not agree. I am sorry. Rob, the only consistency I see in your arguments is that you desperately want adjustable shocks. You've expressed every argument you can find for them regardless of consistency. What I've asked politely for is for the argument to stick to how this increases cost conservation. I understand how badly you want them, but please respect the integrity of my principles. There is a point were one needs to understand that they simply are not pursuading anymore. I do. But let's not slip into pulling the safety card and suggest we are going to created death deals or destroy the series if we agree with you. We are not going to have all of the modifications people want without penalty. The question is how we are going to deal with it. I'm sorry of you don't agree.
John, we are all very thankful that you actually did what so many people have talked about for years and that you are bringing old Challenge cars out of garages and getting them on the track. Don't let all this bench racing bug you. I think we are all just frustrated during the off season. FCRA is a great concept and will prosper, I'm sure. But, I'm still perplexed by this Shock drama? It seems like there's an irrational fear of 'Adjustable' shocks? They really aren't that big a deal. Are you saying that aftermarket or re-valved shocks are ok, as long as they're not "adjustable"? Recognize that these really are MORE expensive to race competitively, than adjustable would be. What is pertinent is to recognize that almost all FCRA 430s are not truly Challenge legal. (I think Rob Metka's is an exception) While some, like mine, may still have stock shocks, almost all have replaced the crappy factory bushings which is illegal. Are we going to add weight for that? Moving down the grid, I would say there isn't a single 360 or 355 or 348 that is fully Challenge legal. Are you proposing that cars with non-factory bushings or brake pads receive a penalty? So, rebuilt and/or re-valved shocks are ok as long as they're not "adjustable"?? I don't get it. Mark
Why is everyone so upset about aftermarket shocks? What's the big deal? Do you think a Penske Shock is going to make the difference? I say, No way. Have at it. Waste your time trying to figure it out. I'll be racing. Bottom line is, the drivers are shining in the series and no upgrade is going to help them win. John, Rob Lay made a good point. The Hoosiers tires are really expensive. What the heck? It would be nice to have a discounted price. Also, do you have a sponsor package we can direct someone too?
John, the cost data is all in this thread, you simply remain fixated on the cost of parts versus the costs of IMPLEMENTATION, which includes set-up and testing. Using previously tested aftermarket parts with ranges of adjustability will be easier to set-up rather than attempting to work with the factory pieces. I would probably choose Motons over Penskes to take advantage of Mark's testing and the fact that my current shop has extensive experience with them, lowering implementation costs. In fact they can rebuild them on site, in a about 1 week! I don't have to ship them off and wait until February. Here is a summary of the budget I created for myself: Overhaul factory system: Rebuild existing shocks $1600 Shraeder valve $160 2 days set up/testing labor $1760 2 sets of sticker tires $3600 TOTAL $7,120 for one set of shocks. The rules allow me to also run with a second set of shocks that are valved differently (factory had two part numbers) so you could then double this and add the cost of buying a second set of shocks and springs. I think we are now over $20K in this scenario under your rules proposal. Put in Moton Club Sports: Shocks $3,880 Springs $400 1 day set up/testing labor $880 1 set of sticker tires $1800 TOTAL $$6,960 So John, where is the cost savings? Even if you debate the set-up time issue, I'll counter my ability to run the second set of stock shocks when conditions merit the change. Do you have a direct response to this data? You do a fantastic job planning entertaining events. You do a fantastic job getting sponsorship. You do a fantastic job filling out fields when the rules don't matter (2011). However I don't think you have enough experience to understand how racers behave in the real world when rules are applied and tech is enforced. If you want to make the transition from the wild west of 2011 where it was anything goes to a series with a defined rule set, please give an honest listen to those who have been there before you. Surely you must have noticed a very CONSISTENT message from those with experience telling you that your proposed rule will not save costs?
I NEVER said shocks don't make a difference. Here is what I have said: 1) After market is cheaper 2) If you impose a weight penalty EVERYONE should be given the option to choose that 3) If you set the penalty correctly then no one would choose the more expensive option (including me) 4) I doubt your ability to accomplish #3, as I think the magic number is somehwere around 400 lbs 5) I don't believe I could put hundreds of pounds of weight in my car safely 6) The numbers in the poll speak for themselves, your position is in the great minority Can you point out which statements are contradictory in nature? John, your posts are very consistent. You say one thing, I want to keep costs down. What your posts lack are any substance explaining how your proposed rules do that. You go deadly silent when asked to address the other points people are making to you, all you do is repeat your plan again.
Not only does Rob have a strong point but just changing to a second pair of stock revalved shocks to a specific track is not cheap. It takes hours to change shocks and reset rideheights and suspension alignments and it is not a fun job. I have done it many times. I do not see a huge advantage in performance one way or the other without lots of testing or driver development skill which would already translate into driver skill on stock shocks to be a front runner anyway. Therefore, perhaps a smart thing for FRCA to consider is that "modifications" in general should be "open" when the cost of those modifications are nearly equal to OEM Ferrari in cost. This way the cars are "upgraded and developed" for the same cost. There are always those willing to play the "arms race" even for a plastic trophy. Then there are others who race for a different agenda who have cars way underdeveloped for the current rule set. I don't think John/FRCA has anything to worry about. I think allowing aftermarket shocks is in the spirit of what makes FRCA successful, low cost. Shocks are also value added for the series allowing modifications that real racecars have. Owners can go either way and vote with their wallets. Everyone wins.
I think with the words per post count getting way up there at this point I need to lower my average... lightening and power increase should be more of a concern than shocks, both of those can easily be monitored with weight/HP ratio. with Rob having a light and overpowered car I don't expect him to lead that battle, so I will.
