stock engine parts will cut costs
"IF", and I repeat IF the engines must be slowed down and governed. AMA superstock rules are the way to go. Just think of how many STOCK PARTS are available. Just that alone will affect engine cost. Every engine builder has tons of pistons, rods and internal parts. I don't think the SIR will work though. We have CV carbs, FlatSlide carbs and Fuel injection. Has anyone tried these three intake configurations? Some fuel injection models now have two 2 injectors per cylinder.
And cutting costs, whatever someones engine budget is will get spent even with restrictors, there will just be more time and money spent on the Dyno and lots of development costs to squeeze every inch of power out of these machines because the SIR is redesigning the wheel. The power that comes from these 1000cc engines is because of the combination that the manufacturers came up with. When Nascar added their restrictors, (to slow them down and run even on a superspeedway), their engine budget almost doubled because of the huge development costs to get a race engine to make power and run good with a restrictor that it was not designed for. So stock parts is the way to go if we need to govern the engines, but what I really wanted was to keep F-1000 engine rules the same as DSR rules so that you could go back and forth to either class, and I wanted all the power I could get!
I dont think restricting the engines either way will let them live longer. Failures occured because something was wrong; oiling, cooling, or preperation issues and miscalculations. There arent many casses when a DSR engine expired because it had reached the end of it's service life. When everything is right, these engines run along time.
The other huge factor that everyone keeps forgetting, a DSR engine is not just an engine, mind you that your engine price includes a transmission, a six speed sequential transmission. In other SCCA classes, how much is the cost of a race engine and a sequential 6 speed race transmission w/clutch?
cheers,
mark
input to CRB: Sept Fastrack - SIR Glossary definition
To:crb@ssca.org
Subject: September Fastrack - item 10: SIR
Date: Aug 23, 2006 8:28 PM
Attachments: SIR input to CRB 08-23-2006.JPG
Sirs:
This letter is written to urge that the SIR glossary definition appearing in theSeptember Fastrack be revised prior to the implementation date of January 01, 2007. as written, the definition is not objectively verifiable and probably not accurately/repeatably implementable. the attached enclosure includes the text of item 10 as it appeared in Fastrack, recommended improvements, and the supporting rationale for the changes. If SIR's are to have any chance of being accepted by the membership the rules must be objectively verifiable and the verification methods perceived as both accurate and reliable. it's my sense there's no chance the rules as written are implemented and verified in the same manner when comparing any two venues.
Arthur E. Smith
artesmith@earthlink.net