Spec Focus Ideas?

[Ted7rns]

It’s that time of year when we’re going to be looking for rule changes for 2007. I would like to make a list before July when we would start to test parts.

I would like to get your input on what rules changes we should look into. I already have a list of things that we should address, but we could have missed something else.

Keep in mind, even if we don’t go with you idea, don’t think we didn’t look into it. We will investigate all ideas. Also, please respect our current sponsors we have and their parts. There’s no need to trash our current Spec Part at this time. Please use the format below. Remember this is not to be a discussion, but rather given ideas. Once I collect everyones ideas I go ahead a delete the thread.

Format

1. Suggestion:
2. Reason:
3. Cost Implication:
4. Performance Change:
5. Other:

[seanmc]

1. Closer alignment with the spec of a competitive IT car.
2. More bang for your customer's racing buck, giving you a significant advantage over other spec classes.
3. More money spent on suspension (and possibly engine for SVT & Duratec), but not sure of how much.
4. Faster car = happy people.

[seanmc]

1. Closer, or more precisely - as close to exact as possible - alignment with Spec Focus rally rules, (not necessarily mutually exclusive to IT rules) particularly in the areas of cage design (attachment points, firewall penetration, etc) and tarmac supsension (could be same as roadrace suspension).
2. Again, more bang for the customer's racing buck - and a *huge* advantage over other spec classes. I'm not aware of any other class that would give you a plug-and-play dual-purpose car.
3. More money on suspension, cage.
4. Possibly faster car, but maybe not - a rally-ready car could very well be heavier.
5. This would be a unique angle for the Spec Focus / Rally, allowing it to rise above the competition. Personally speaking, this would make SF something I'd be interested in. Same sanctioning body, same cars, *similar* spec (but not close enough), Ford backing of both - why not?

[Ted7rns]

Good ideas Sean, but what I'm looking mainly for is specific items and or parts.

But as far as I know the SF cars are simular to the Rally Spec Focus except for brakes, Wheel size and suspension. The question will be will it be easy to switch back and forth...that I don't know.

One thing for sure is we will not downgrade to Spec Focus Rally brakes for Road Racing. I don't think it would work well for Road Racing.

[seanmc]

Originally Posted by Ted7rns

Good ideas Sean, but what I'm looking mainly for is specific items and or parts.

OK. I'd be happy to list dual-purpose pieces part-by-part, but that'd take up a whole lot of space here

But as far as I know the SF cars are simular to the Rally Spec Focus except for brakes, Wheel size and suspension.

Cage design, too. A strong, built-to-the-max rally cage would be illegal under current SF rules. Easily rectified, if the powers that be were so inclined.

One thing for sure is we will not downgrade to Spec Focus Rally brakes for Road Racing. I don't think it would work well for Road Racing.

If they're smaller, they probably won't work *as well,* but they'll work (ie, they'll stop the car).

[sleeperlove]

Never mind they are allowed

[Knestis]

Good job not falling into the trap of waiting until the season is over to start asking these questions. SF is in good hands.

I'd second the suggestions above, as someone who is still looking at making an SF business plan work out. The race-rally connection could still be the most unique thing to hit US motorsports since the advent of the first "spec" car series.

K

[Ted7rns]

If they don't follow NASA's CCR's Road Racing Rules.... Then nothing can be done at it. Those rules we must follow. Those CCR's rules about the cage are hard to change. The safety rules are NOT flexable at all. Even if the Rally cage is stronger, the standard has been set in road racing already. The Cage is a NASA rule, not a Spec Focus Rule.... So, I can't change that rule.

Also if the brakes don't work as well... Then that is not good for us... We're try to have a Spec Car that is more competitive in PT not less.

So it looks like it won't work. But, it was a good idea. just not practical right now.

[JimmySolo2]

Originally Posted by seanmc

1. Closer alignment with the spec of a competitive IT car.
2. More bang for your customer's racing buck, giving you a significant advantage over other spec classes.
3. More money spent on suspension (and possibly engine for SVT & Duratec), but not sure of how much.
4. Faster car = happy people.

Since the 2.3 car isn't allowed many engine mods, couldn't you run a 2.3 car with two difference suspensions to run both series? You might have to wait a year or two for a 2.3 year car to be IT legal.

[BigSandwich]

No because the rally spec is only for the Zetec motor. NASA says this has something to do with the software program fouling the cat on the Duratec motors. Rally cars have to keep the cat because they must remain road legal.

[JimmySolo2]

Any thoughts given to a lower, more racey 'looking' suspension?

[f2focus]

Yes we have the vogtland coil overs on two cars and they work great. We picked up over 1 second in lap times with them.

[PhocusZX3]

Originally Posted by JimmySolo2

Any thoughts given to a lower, more racey 'looking' suspension?

Being an outsider who is working towards competing in Spec Focus, I like the current suspension options. The Dynamic, SVT, and Eibach pieces are relatively cheap which makes entry into the sport more affordable. Plus this also makes replacement cost fairly low when something breaks.

I'd like to see more options for brakes. The Mustang caliper retrofit offered by BAT, Inc. would be a very affordable alternative to the SVT front brake swap.


One more point...could you expand the years to include 2007? Spec Focus is the whole reason I purchased this car.

[JimmySolo2]

Originally Posted by f2focus

Yes we have the vogtland coil overs on two cars and they work great. We picked up over 1 second in lap times with them.

I didn't know they had been added. Are they a true coilover in the rear too? How much do they cost?

Personally I was hoping they would allow the Koni adjustable with Eibach race springs.

[sundialracing]

Guys,
I really don't think we are being politically correct by suggesting SF mods that are not supplied by Ford Racing. Remember its a two way street, they(Ford Racing) need to sell parts to support our series. If you want to make any changes to SF open the FRPP catalog and make your choices from there.
I personally don't agree with the coilovers at this point even if they are #M-3000-Z3 from FRPP. I'm assuming one of the driving factors in the coilovers is the wheel/fender gap. Leo and I put some 225/17 Hankook Z212's on the #68. It took all of the gap out. Actually they might even rub! I have a picture on my phone, PM me if you would like me to send it to you.

[JimmySolo2]

F2 is running coilovers and LCR is running Hankook tires. Was this all just in testing or was it under race conditions?

[sundialracing]

Actually,
Hankook screwed up at the race before the Nats at Mid-Ohio. They only sent 3 tires!! I never got to try the Kooks on the SF, but I've tried them on my 3.

[68 Touring Car]

Originally Posted by JimmySolo2

F2 is running coilovers and LCR is running Hankook tires. Was this all just in testing or was it under race conditions?

This will always be part of any good racing series. I think it is great that NASA and Ford Racing listen to competitors and keep a open mind and try things that do not hurt the concept of the Spec Focus class. Them by trying and testing items at test days they can verify what is best for the series. I myself do not see any major changes in the rules for 2007 other than maybe a couple tweaks that do not add any hardships to the beginner or cost to the series

[airforcefocus]

1. Suggestion: Lower springs w/increased rates and matched dampers.
2. Reason: Reduce CG, better handling in transitions, reduce body roll.
3. Cost Implication: unknown
4. Performance Change: Faster laps
5. Other:

[Ted7rns]

Originally Posted by JimmySolo2

F2 is running coilovers and LCR is running Hankook tires. Was this all just in testing or was it under race conditions?

It can be both. It's always good to test new items during race conditions. It's good with NASA because we can test these items in the PT Class or in Enduro's if we want too.

Like Leo said. I don't expect any major rule changes for 2007. There's still some cleaning up of the rules, but no major spec part in the future right now. One item we are looking into is having a cap on Horsepower and Torque (to keep the cost down on high price motors). But I don't see that happing in 2007.

[BUR_ZX3]

Originally Posted by Ted7rns

One item we are looking into is having a cap on Horsepower and Torque (to keep the cost down on high price motors). But I don't see that happing in 2007.

This rubs me the wrong way. Either its spec, or its not. Placing a HP/TQ limit should be fine, if you allow open parts (within reason).


I for one do not at all support the mantra of "Well we should only allow Ford Racing Parts" because that doesn't support the purpose of minimising the cost. Basically it gives Ford carte blanche to charge whatever they want for parts... can you say anti-competetitive?

On certain points (Cylinder Heads, etc...) I can see the need for a spec part and restricting the PnP job, etc. But on things like race headers, wheels, etc... I really honestly in my heart of hearts, see it as the Sponsors saying "You use our parts or we poo-poo the series"

I still believe that the stated purpose of minimising the fiscal impact on the racer can be had by saying on things like suspension that you can opt for a coil-over setup with adjustable dampening and spring rates not to exceed XXX is perfectly fine within the realm of "Spec." Why not say "17x7 inch wheels weighing no less than 23lbs" instead of "Ford Racing Wheels Only"? If I can find a less expensive wheel that weighs 25 lbs, and I'm willing to take the penalty in performance because it'll save me $150-250 on wheels (for a set of 8) then so be it.

[f2focus]

Well this can be a long long conversation piece, but I see the point everyone is making here. But either you make it open or not.

It is awesome to see Ford Racing support this and I think we need to support them as much as we can. We need ford racing to make this a national success. When I built the first car last year we talked about a lot of things and one was how to make this series successful. The first thing was having ford racing back this series. NASA really did not need F2 to make it successful but it did need Ford Racing.

I find funny that we sometimes hurt ourselves by what we do and say. We complain that Ford never hears us and then when they support a grassroot program we don't want to buy parts from them because of the price or fear of the high price! Well last time I checked racing is very expensive...no matter how you try to cut corners. This is just what I think.......

[airforcefocus]

"On certain points (Cylinder Heads, etc...) I can see the need for a spec part and restricting the PnP job, etc. But on things like race headers, wheels, etc... I really honestly in my heart of hearts, see it as the Sponsors saying "You use our parts or we poo-poo the series"



I don't see it this way. I see it as them sponsoring the series and if FR parts are used then they will continue to sponsor the series, manufacture and supply parts, and be able to afford to do so. I don't forsee ANY aftermarket company support the series in a fashion that even comes close to what Ford Racing has done so far and will continue to do if the series is successful.

[BUR_ZX3]

I'm just putting in my $0.02. I know it'll hardly change the minds of those that matter unless I offer more money than Ford to make the rules my way. Thats fine.

Chris, you yourself want more participation. Restricting people to use parts that are still not available (Ford Racing Duratec head) doesn't seem like a way to get people to participate.

And again, I thought that the testing that had been done by Ford etc to try and determine which mods will "level the field" for all the different engine classes... and now to talk about HP and TQ limits? I thought the parts being specified was to serve that purpose?

I REALLY want to get in on this... really REALLY..... Ted knows this, and I'm trying my damnedest to get the ball rolling. But its really an uphill roll.... And the little stupid things like having to go out and spend money on redunant parts that I already have (header, etc.....) makes the hill just that much higher. In the spirit of getting more participation, and lowering costs, restricting wheels to one or two vendors doesn't make sense to me. Cuz if I can find some used Rotas or Centerline 17"s that meet the weight requirements, why shouldn't I be able to use them if they're gonna save me $250? That extra $250 is one more day of track fees.