Ideas for a true NA formula car roadrace series

[ChrisB]

I haven't posted in a while, but I know the old "reunification" rumours float around like they always do about this time of year... and I can certainly see the advantages, especially if it were a 50/50 oval-road series. However, I just wanted to throw out some old ideas about going into a totally different direction... not so much thinking the OWRS folks would actually *DO* any of this... but rather to see where other fans opinions are on stuff like this in 2005.

It's all about being a North American Formula-car Road-racing series....

- Drop the ovals. I don't feel like explaining this one anymore. Like I said above.. it would be a road-racing series.

- Total marriage with the SCCA. Even to the point of having a few (formula class) club-level races on race weekends. As much SCCA officiating as possible.

- Drop the name "OWRS" and any reference to "open wheel". That's an Indy/Nascar-centric term. Also drop the name "Champ car". Yes, that's what I said. Break all remaining identity with any of USAC/Indy. The SCCA is the identity. From here on out use the term "formula car".... that's the original (English) term for a purpose-built single-seat race car conforming to a given "formula" of dimensions and weight. It's a Formula Car series.

- The top cars should be called "Formula A". It's historically correct. This is what the top SCCA formula cars were called in the 60's before they changed it to "Formula 5000". The second tier should be called "Formula B". This was the prior name (in the 60's) to "Formula Atlantics".

- Single supplier spec chassis. IMO, the fans place most of their emotional attachment to the drivers or the engine marquee. Nobody really cheers for "Reynard vs Lola". The spec chassis could NOT be physically modified... just like the homologated chassis in the rest of the SCCA formula classes. Only the parameters (springs, shocks, camber, etc) could be adjusted. Individual team development costs go away because there aren't any.

- And since everyone has the exact same chassis.. you can make it whatever you want. More undertray... less wing... more tire.

- Make the chassis more road-race specific: shorter wheelbase, lighter weight. By using gasoline (which has twice the btu's of methanol) a half-size tank (~17 gals) will get the same range as a 35 gal alky tank.

- Formula A & B both use the same chassis. Kinda like Nextel Cup and BGN. Formula A (hopefully) would use multiple competing engine manufacturers (~750hp) while Formula B would use a lower cost 500hp spec engine by a single manufacturer.

- Standing starts. Rolling starts are from oval racing when cars used direct drive. This is road racing.

- It's a North American series. Only Canada, USA, & Mexico. No races anywhere else.

- Natural road circuits should be the priority over street circuits.

- And of course, the Vanderbilt Cup! (which was originally for a road race)

Comments anyone?

[CART T. Katz]

i take it you have seen standing starts in the rain in f1 right? you can't see anything from row 1 back. now, while you couldn't see anything from row 1 back in a wet rolling start, at least there aren't any stalled cars to deal with.

keep the rolling starts. there isn't anything wrong with it and standing starts are too remindful of euroelitist attitudes when it comes to racing. the american concept of racing is the rolling start and if you want to target the north american audience, i'm thinking that the majority of your races would be in this country. standing starts while different wouldn't attract the casual fan more than just watching the start for some sort of devastating starting grid wreck.

[FCYTravis]

There's a reason why the dictionary entry for "SCCA Pro Racing" says "Synonyms: oxymoron."

OK, so that's not entirely fair - the World Challenge is well-run as can be.

But given the history of F5000/Can-Am II, something tells me this just wouldn't work that well.

[Spicoli]

I'd check it out. Beats what we have right now. :(

[racer2c]

DROP THE OVALS!!!!!

:thumbup:

[nrc]

Champ car is a good name. They've made headway in establishing that brand. It would be stupid to change the name yet again.

Stories differ, but OWRs was purely a legal device for purchasing CART. "OWRS" was never intended to be used as a name for the series or organization.

The diversity of circuits was always an important feature of the series for me. Obviously the ovals can only be maintained as loss leader for that purpose, but I hope Champ car will continue to see value in that and continue to pay the bills for it.

[cameraman]

Drop the name "OWRS"

The name is Champ Car World Series, LLC.

[Easy]

$¢¢A

Would the Formula A drivers have to pay extra for a regional license to run those weekends?

[RusH]

The name is Champ Car World Series, LLC.

Every race fan I talk to knows CART.
When I say Champ Car I still get blank stares, I say bring back "CART" at least as the sanctioning body. CCWS can remain series name if they like.

sorry to hijack

[pchall]

As I remember things from when I was a kid (it was that long ago); FA, FB, and FC, approximated the FIA single seater formulae from the mid to late 60s. FB and FC were the closest to FIA regs because there were no American powerlants in those displacement categories.

FA became a hotbed of racing and development because it was decided a 5.0l OHV V8 could be considered the equivalent of a 3.0l full race engine. The less expensive HP of the 5.0l was immediately appealing despite the handling and fuel consumption problems. The torquey OHC engines even seemed more driveable on the US road courses. The only really competitive 3.0l I remember from FA/F5000 is Pete Lovely's Lotus 49. But who knows what kind of POS Champman sold to Lovely -- customers never got first rate equipment from Chapman.

I suppose that a 21st century FA/F5000 might use indigenous large displacement OHC and DOCH V8s derived from stock blocks. Of course, these would have to be actually developed from real production components instead of being the phony "stock block" stuff of the original Formula ********.

But if the racing product was supposed to be true to the FA concept, how would the formula be made "equivalent" to the coming F1 regs? I don't see how the size and weight of an equivalent engine could be the same without going to a small displacement turbo.

[oddlycalm]

Champ car is a good name. They've made headway in establishing that brand. It would be stupid to change the name yet again. . It would be suicide to change the name again. Whatever it is matters less than whether it changes yet again. Marketing 101. At some point you have to establish a brand and going from Indycar to CART to Champcar in a span of 10yrs is two name changes too many. Futher confusing it are the Canadian and Oz races where Indy is still used. Kill that with the organizers whatever it takes and establish the Champcar brand.

While a lot of what Chris B proposes appeals to me personally, but my take on the business success/failure aspect is that it would have SCCA/ALMS sized crowds. That said, oval races on Saturday afternoons clearly aren't the answer.

oc

[extramundane]

While a lot of what Chris B proposes appeals to me personally, but my take on the business success/failure aspect is that it would have SCCA/ALMS sized crowds. That said, oval races on Saturday afternoons clearly aren't the answer.

If CCWS had been drawing ALMS-sized crowds at Mid-O, RA & Laguna, they might still be running there...

[oddlycalm]

If CCWS had been drawing ALMS-sized crowds at Mid-O, RA & Laguna, they might still be running there... I understood that the problem was the size of the sactioning fee they were asking for, not that the crowds were smaller than SCCA or ALMS events. A crowd of 20,000 isn't necessarily a sin unless you're asking for a $1 million fee for it.

oc

[dando]

If CCWS had been drawing ALMS-sized crowds at Mid-O, RA & Laguna, they might still be running there...
MO did not have attendance issues like RA or LS. Attendance did drop off the last couple of years, but that was mainly due to a lack of promotion after Miller stopped sponsoring the race. In fact, the last year saw a resurgence @ the track, with attendance estimated @ 50K+.

-Kevin

[NismoZ]

I sure enjoyed F-5000. Mario points out that his '75 car was faster than his F-1 car of that same season. (Cosworth/Parnelli?) I know...that was THEN, but it sure made me feel good about what I was watching. Didn't strike me that I was watching anything "low-tech."

[stroker]

I sure enjoyed F-5000. Mario points out that his '75 car was faster than his F-1 car of that same season. (Cosworth/Parnelli?) I know...that was THEN, but it sure made me feel good about what I was watching. Didn't strike me that I was watching anything "low-tech."

Ditto that, Niz.

I don't see why you couldn't use a GA-type equivelency formula. However, I disagree with the Spec chassis. Part of the fun was seeing the technology improvement over time. The old F5000 fields were surprisingly diverse.

The only thing I really disliked about the old series was the 2-heat format.

[Beevis]

I think using the Formula A name is a great idea. It would tie the series back to its karting roots since Formula A is also the highest form of karting competition world-wide.

[FCYTravis]

I suppose that a 21st century FA/F5000 might use indigenous large displacement OHC and DOCH V8s derived from stock blocks. Of course, these would have to be actually developed from real production components instead of being the phony "stock block" stuff of the original Formula ********.
I disagree with requiring production internals, and here's why: Such a rule invariably ends up being more expensive than allowing the builders to go with full-race internals.

Production car bits just aren't made to withstand the rigors of racing. You'll end up blowing up more motors and costing the teams more money than if you just let 'em use mass-produced racing engine parts.

Everyone and his brother makes parts to make small-block Chevies go real fast. They're not exactly expensive.

[ChrisB]

Thanks guys.... I really haven't had any time reply to this thread, but here's a nice webpage on Formula A:

http://www.oldracingcars.com/f5000/


Also... notice the TransAm website:

http://www.trans-amseries.com/


See how Champcar is listed as a "related series"? That's how I'm trying to describe the relationship with SCCA... privately owned, but "related" to the SCCA using SCCA marshalls, licensing, etc... If Kalkoven/Forsythe simply changed the name from "Champ Car" to "Formula A" (and dropped the ovals) they could sorta have that right away. And then get to work on a new 750hp car design. (but no airboxes, please!)

[FCYTravis]

You have it backwards. The Trans-Am Series trademarks are owned by the SCCA and *licensed* to TAR LLC, part of CCWS, LLC (I think.) That contract is up for renewal and... I wouldn't count on it being renewed.

[L1P1]

Given the confusing nomenclature of the various series', I think this would be a great move for SCCA to take forumlaes B & C. Then designate the A series from year to year based on their assessment. Whether that's F1, ChampCar or IndyCar - well, that's their choice.

It would be a small thing, but I think it might give them a small place at the table. I don't think 'Formula A' would be a ticket seller in and of itself. In my time on these boards there has only been one name that's really inspired me upon reading it: "V8 Super Cars". Typically Aussie, it's about power. Brutishness. F-You BTCC, we'll do it with twice the displacement and half the refinement.

That's how I've seen Champ Cars vs. F1. The brutish American counterpart of the european Grand Prix car.

[stroker]

"Formula A" also has the ring of being an abbreviation for "Formula America" which I wouldn't mind very much, either.

[ChrisB]

The Trans-Am Series trademarks are owned by the SCCA and *licensed* to TAR LLC

That's what I meant.... SCCA owns "Formula A" (I think) and licenses it to the Amigos, LLC.

And yes, Formula A does vaguely sound like it means "Formula America". And that's good too.