Hi Eric, there is a correction to my item 3 (only just put upon us!).

We organised the assembly to be distributed by one supplier to assist all but this is not going to happen due to 'cost'. The flywheel must be ordered from Precision (as per the regulations) as the clutch supplier is not prepared to assist here with distribution (without making an additional charge).

Advice is to follow the regulations as far as supply is concerned.

Thank You.

JL.

A few points of note;

1) Schedule F Article 23.1 - all cars are required to have a safety fuel cell compliant with a current FIA standard (FT3). This was signalled in October last year by Championship Amendment hence all should be very well aware of this.

2) Schedule F Articles 5.4 / 23.5 - all cars are required to have a control fuel coupling installed for the purpose of taking fuel samples. These are;

Jiffy-tite female coupling (part # 31606) to be fitted on the side of the fuel flow, Jiffy-tite male coupling (part # 32606).

These couplings are available form Racetech 138 Hutt Road Petone Wellington.

websales@racetech.co.nz

3) Schedule F Article 17 - the control flywheel and clutch assembly is mandatory for this season and shall be ordered from;

Autoclutch Ltd - Auckland 09 849 3737

sales@autoclutch.co.nz Contact person; Neil.

Autoclutch will supply the complete unit to customers in order to make purchasing easier.

4) Schedule F Article 14.7 Important Note - the control pistons have not been introduced for this season (2009-2010) but will be mandatory for next season (2010-2011).

Can you please ensure all your members are aware of these requirements?

With Regards

Julian Leach

Technical Manager

MotorSport New Zealand Inc

69 Hutt Road

Wellington 6008

New Zealand

Hi all, I thought sitting through 5 hours of remits and discussion we had sorted our problems with the stroke of a pen, Motorsport who want us to reduce costs think differently, we obviously know nothing!! and have decided if they make it so expensive there will be very few cars on the Grid, good-bye Formula Ford!

There are a lot of us who, for various reasons, can only run in 2 or 3 meetings, what do we do! Our old LEGAL engines will be out.

All of this has come about by some competitors pushing the rules and very poor control by Motorsport.

Anyway, Cheese has pulled out of the FF Board, John Crawford could take his place? Many say John has his own agender, but he won't let Formula Ford die.

Maybe we should look at what the Pre 65 are doing and running their own meetings so I hear, could be Formula Van Dieman or Formula Stealth. Tough rules, any cheating and you are out for the season!!

That my two cents worth.

John Hartley

Hello all,

I just wanted to say I agree with John, and I'll tell you my reasons :-

I like most of the current FF owners have a car that complies 100% with the regulations and is within the spirit of the series, and it always has been. Because some competitors last season found loopholes in the regulations and exploited them, and MSNZ then signed them off we are now being asked to strip and rebuild our engines, why are we the ones being punished ?

My pistons are already perfect, my flywheel/clutch is perfect, in fact so is my fuel cell.

We don't have the Kent engine for much longer why the extra expense now when we least need it ?

Surely it would be easier to simply enforce the rules we already have correctly.

I am a fan of transparency and would like to see a proper tender process for control parts.

Thanks, Kim

ps. I think JC should take the place of Cheese on the FF Assoc board.

Hi Eric

Thanks for sending John's email.

If you recall (and I know you will as you were present) at Manfeild, we met the Formula Ford competitors and at that meeting it was agreed that several steps would be taken to ensure the costs of competition for a season were bought down to as close as possible to $50k for a season.

Everything that is now in the technical regulations for this seasons championship was mentioned at that meeting.

It was also relooked at again at the recent Executive meeting where it was agreed that we must follow through on the promises made at that meeting.

The sport has undertaken wide and very extensive consultation with Formula Ford competitors so I cannot accept the critisism in John's email as factual.

Regards

Steven Kennedy

Hi all ,

I attended the FF AGM & like many others participated in thrashing out all of the proposals presented with the intention of -1-reducing cost 2-clarifying the rules & presenting remedies with respect to cost.

It should be noted that this included the points presented by Gary Pedersen from TRAC who left the meeting immediately after his presentation& was the only representative of MSNZ.The result of these discussions are documented in the minutes of the AGM, so I find it incredulous that MSNZ have, as yet to adopt these into Sched F ,but instead wish to pursue there own agenda of changes some 2months after the FF AGM & only 3 months out from the start of the championship.

This will only add to the cost of competitors & result in less of them on the grid.

The only changes for 2009/10 season should be those agreed to at the FF AGM as this is the only forum where constructive democratic discussion has taken place .

Regards David Kircher

Hi All,

As a reasonably new competitor I have to agree with John.

When we came into Formula Ford we were told that the Kent engine would be kept for the next 5 years thereby giving some stability to the class.

Last year we built a new engine for Damon's car thinking that it would be good for his 2 years in Class 1 and then for 2 more years for Brendon my other son to run until the end of the Kent era.

The engine was built to comply with the FF rules but now they are changing so instead of just a freshen up for next season it is complete rebuild.

To think that for the coming season we will have 2 sets of rules and then for the last 2 years of Kent the new ones will apply is crazy.

The big budget guys once again will be able to try both sets of pistons on the dyno to see which set is best and the same with the flywheel and clutch.

All this change is doing is adding cost that is not needed for the last 2 years of the class.

If the current rules had been administered correctly last year none of this would have been neeeded.

Regards

Barry Leitch.

Hi Eric

Can you please forward to the complete Executive

Thanks

John Crawford

Subject: Fw: Late rule changes

Dear Executive

I would like to make comment on the proposed changes to FF regs re engines for this year and have detailed my concerns below. Please remember that MSSL continue to run multi car teams in FF and have done consistently for the last 15 years.

1 Firstly FF association has spent a huge amount of time discussing and presenting you with fix ups to solve the problems that arose last year due to the bad wording and exploitation of rules over the last few years, In the majority at little or no cost to the competitor . Whilst we have not seen the rules as yet now only 4 months away from the first race I presume that all of the suggestions have been adopted .

2 These are hard economic times and it is for sure that grid size and budgets are going to be of great concern !!

3 Whilst I have no problem with the shock rule change as this comes at no added cost and would bring stability to any development.The piston change is a direct cost and and for most would mean stripping and changing perfectly legal and competitive engines. At approx double the cost of the existing pistons that are already readily available .{ WITH NO ACCOUNT FOR LABOUR} Maybe $ 6K The same goes for the flywheel as all current engines will have a flywheel and clutch and the majority are legal and comply to the new rule as suggested by the FF assn.

4 Any changes that may be optional in the rule is not reality for the competitor, It only enables them to try both and decide what is the best {MORE COST}

5 Major component changes should be done with a notice period so competitors can phase out engines and plan for the future ... I thought that you had decided to change the engine in the near future ? These rules are there as of last year. Why then are we changing part in the Kent and spending competitors money only to throw it away so soon?? I am not awere of any technical issues from last season that involved clutch plates or pressure plates? SO WHY ARE WE BEING MADE TO REPLACE THEM ? We have seven lease engines and clutch assemblies in stock as many other competitors also will have. These costs will only make it imposible to provide a service to competitors or extra costs to the privateers.

Lastly I believe that it is better to administer the rules with a pen and make changes to the rules that fix problems without adding cost to the competitor. This will continue to give the class the stability that it needs to continue. We are already seeing drivers that wish to move up to other classes considering coming back to FF because of cost in the other classes, lets not scare them off .

On a different note.

Why has there not been a tender process for these proposed parts changes as surely this is the only fair way to establish the correct pricing .

It is fair to say that I and many others are very pissed of about this. It makes a mockery of any dialog that has been happening between the FF assn and MSNZ and as one of the largest teams in the business we were not even given the curtesy of any discussion.

I have set out prices for components available as of now and wish to present these to you .

Lease engine For championship with no rebuild cost $12.500

Pistons STD Ford piston with pin and rings $133.95 + Gst each IN STOCK

Fuel cell now, made mandatory {Another extra cost having to be paid for by most competitors } $1900.00

Control piston supplied by MSSL , To correct cc and weight with pin and rings $ 229.00 + gst each

Control flywheel on exchange at a reduced weight $ 350.00 +Gst

Please consider my thoughts carefully as I am sure that I am not alone with this and will distribute this to all competitors for their comments

I look forward to you clarifying your position and getting back to FF at a reasonable cost.

I am available ,as is the FF assn to work thru the issues should you wish to discuss at any time .

John Crawford

Director

Motorsport Solutions NZ Ltd

643 3493600

Eric

Regarding the below email from Julian Leach I have spoken with the members of the Technical Committee and subseqently with Julian Leach from MSNZ. We need to let our members know MSNZ's intentions with respect to these three items and therefore please forward this email in its entirety.

I will address each of the points in order as in the email from Julian Leach below and I suggest the members read Julian's email first (see below).

1) Dampers - MSNZ intend to regulate the dampers used by only allowing one set to be employed on each chassis per race meeting. This will be accomplished by identifying (sealing - possibly by way of marking paint) each set of dampers to the chassis. The seal may only be removed by a MSNZ tech officer. However the dampers will be able to be serviced etc between race meetings subject to following the correct protocols for seal removal.

2) Control piston - MSNZ intend to introduce a control piston for 2009/10 with the existing piston able to be "run out" for 2009/10. That is the control piston will be optional for 2009/10 (and possibly the following year if competitors lobby for this). The new piston will be a forged unit with a "control crown" which will not be able to be machined. CC volume will be achieved by machining the block top face. MSNZ estimate that most existing blocks will be usable as the gugeon to piston measurement will be less on the new piston than the existing part. Estimated cost of the new piston set approximately is $1300 per set including rings. MSNZ have indicated that the new piston will have a longer life than the current parts.

3) Control clutch and flywheel - MSNZ intend to introduce control parts for 2009/10. The cost of these items will be approximately $600. Apparently some engine builders already employ the proposed clutch.

The above proposals from MSNZ technical have been passed by MSNZ Executive and will be included the Schedule F for 2009/10. I have been told that the rational is to lower the long term cost to competitors and I presume also to ease technical scrutineering.

Regards Grant Campbell

Hi Eric, as you may well know the Sports Executive met at the weekend and one of the agenda items was the approval of the above Schedule. As a result of their discussions the following was passed;

A restriction on the number of damper units authorised for use during a meeting/season. This will mean it will not be possible to overhaul and change adjustments within units between events or have a number of different units able to be fitted to the car at any time.

Introduction of a 'control piston' which will be a complete unit with rings, pin and clips. There will be no allowance to machine these pistons. Volume (compression ratio) will be achieved by milling the block.

Introduction of a control flywheel and clutch (centre and pressure plate) with a controlled minimum weight. We are currently working on the logistics of implementing these amendments. It is probable that the control piston and the control flywheel/clutch will be optional for the coming season, hence all existing regulation will stay in place.

These items are in addition to the amendments detailed in the last copy sent to you (which reflected the items voted upon at your AGM).

I will further more information as it is available.

Regards

Julian Leach Technical Manager MotorSport New Zealand Inc 69 Hutt Road Wellington 6008 New Zealand Phone: 04 801 9559 Mobile: 0274 467 582 Fax: 04 801 8558