Poll results & how to control power in FB engines

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Ross

Also, I believe that the discussion in this particular thread is centered upon the Club rules. You are obviously free to do anything you want in your new series.

---

I agree that this thread is based on club rules. But, it is my position to keep club rules as close as possible you our pro rules, so that there is an easy crossover.

It just seems to me that if the club simply manadated certain engines to be eligible and the pro series established weight penalties on new engines once they are proven to be superior, that this whole restrictor BS can be put to bed.

SIR single inlet restrictors will not work in FB as many engines still use the stock airbox (which has dual inlets). SIR restrictors can only be policed by stall tacktics. None of the airboxes which I have seen are that complex as to not have any blow by.

It has to be a situation where the club and pro series work together and have certain leeways in how they operate. It's best for the future of the class.

Once the evolution has evolved and there is a new engine established. the club than then choose how and weather to let them in.

Quote:

---

Of course you can't just take a pure power to weight ratio as the basis on weight, as a car with more weight will handle differently in the corners (braking, g-forces, accelerations, etc.)

---

That is true. The place that the additional HP will make a difference will be top speed on the straights because the acceleration is minor compared to the aerodynamic drag.

If a 197HP car and a 184HP car with the same power to weight and the same aero drag came on to the straight side by side and accelerated the lenght of the straight there is no question in my mind who will get to the end first.

IMHO it will take more weight than is required for equal power to weight to equalize the two power plants.You will be penalizing the chassis not the engine. It will create moving chicanes that if driven defensively no one will be able to pass in corners but a car that will then take a hike on the straight.

Quote:

---

Innovation is what this class is all about. This isn't FV or FF. THIS IS NOT A SPEC CLASS!!!

---

FB was never wide open rules like DSR.It has always been in the rules that restrictor plates could be added if there was HP creep.IT was never a engine developement class.The car rules are just as restricted as FV,FC or FF. It is basically a FC with a little wider body allowance and a few additional restrictions. Nathan has said Radon will not build a FB because the rules are to restrictive compared to FC. There will be some developement of the wider body but other than that is a restricted class very comparable to FC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

Weight is the SIMPLE LOW COST SOLUTION. Give it some thought.

---

I just cannot wrap my brain around dealing with a hp problem with weight. It is a hp problem and hp is what needs to be dealt with, nothing else.

You and I both know that there are a lot of cars out there running around at least 50 pounds over weight. A 70 pound weight penalty would be impossibly unfair to enforce.

Does everyone forget that there are a lot more corners on a road course that straights? Sure, the higher horsepower car will have an advantage at the end of the straight. but an over weight car will have a disadvantage in the corners.

Straightline speed is not the end all in road racing. We've beaten higher horsepower cars by being more nimble in the corners.

Weight penalties are used in many forms of racing (WC. etc.) to equalize performance. There is no reason why it can't be used here.

And Wren, those overweight cars aren't winning races are they. Weight assesments have to be made from the actual weight of the car, not the 1000 lbs mark. And I'm not saying that 70 lbs is the mark. It may be much less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1000champ

And Wren, those overweight cars aren't winning races are they.

---

Some of the most successful cars in FB have had a serious weight problem. Both in the early days and recently.

We should be careful quoting costs to run a series. I just called a very reputable prep shop that has won the F2kCS. They said an arrive and drive for the whole season would be ~$115K (7 weekends). And that doesn't factor in any prize money that would be won. Just saying... depends on who you call. :rolleyes:

Hilarious thread is, well, hilarious.

Josh, are you texting from the track? only about 300 laps to go...

Interesting to me, the classes with the most equalized engines have the highest car counts, both in pro and club. Just saying... that might be a clue.

I can't stand the traffic enough to go any more. It takes hours to get out after the race. They do have a service where you can park at the airport and take a helicopter into the track, and that is the only way I would go again. Too $$$ though.

I would not be in favor of an SIR for any SCCA class. And I agree that F3 engines are insanely expensive. My point was that engine restrictions alone do not make for a spec class. It is possible to still have innovation in a class which uses restricted engines.

Hey guys.....how did SIR's creep into this.....they will not work.....but IIR's will. I base that on the work Jay has done on the 600's and on his post on the subject in the past. Weight can work, but it's difficult to quantify the actual effect on cornering speeds, etc. Equal HP (even with some minor torque curve variations) will result in much closer performance potential.....and as the Frog said.....the most populace classes seem to be the ones with the tightest engine controls.

Jerry

One more tech and one non tech comment and then I am done with this discussion.

1. This forum is a PERFECT example of why nothing is ever really accomplished. You can simply NEVER make everyone happy an frankly it's hard to make 2 people happy with any decision. NASCAR makes it work by edict and they stick with it until it does not work. I respect them.

2. Fact: TOP SPEED is not the most important thing about straightaways. The most important thing is ELAPSED TIME on the straightaway. I know this for a fact because many engineers including myself have spent hundreds of man hours analyzing lap times and segment times for many race tracks. Now if you think that elapsed time is not affected by weight you have your head in a very dark place. For example look at F1 and see which team often has the slowest top speed but who have won the most races for several seasons.

I have to actually go RACING in 3 weeks at Mosport so that is more than enough for now. I suggest that all of you keep up this BS discussion so that your cars are not complete and are not properly prepared and thus make it easier for us to win.

Jay Novak

If there were 10 racers in an elevator, two would want to go up, three would want to go down, and the remaining five wouldn't want to move.

It's been this way since the beginning; racers are ruggedly individual and trying to get them to move in the same direction at the same time is like trying to herd cats.

Thanks to Jay for the data and insights into the engine-regulation dilemna. It's critical that good decisions be made here, and made quickly -- before lots of dollars are spent (potentially for naught) in the haze of a very loosey-goosey (we'll decide later!) rule book.

I would ask everyone to step back for a moment and consider trying to arrive at a set of rules that doesn't give you personally a leg up... but instead only insures the future health of the catagory. From this, all will benefit.

Here's my analogy:

I'll write proposals to:
- Make it mandatory for anyone running a Stan/Rennie or Nathan wing to tie wrap a brick to the bottom of it because it is an unfair advantage, makes too much downforce and/or makes the cars too fast.

- Anyone running with less than XX square inches of frontal area must be forced to run a "wind restrictor" perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the car in order to equalize performance.

And I'll write my proposals to make them ex post facto.


I'm outa here too. I have a car to finish.

Ok. I will go ahead and mark Rob down for completely missing the point. Anyone else?

There have been multiple threads for people to present any positive thing that could come out of allowing the new engines in without restriction. We have gotten lots of personal insults, insane conspiracy theories and reasons that it would be good to have restrictors.

I'm writing my letter now in favor of it. Also, since people seem to care about these things, I will be doing it while the machine is running off parts so no time will be wasted.

I was discussing this with the Captain last evening. It boils down to a philosophical debate. There are those that want to go as fast as they can within a certain formula, and there are those that want close racing in a large field.

The original Can-Am, and IMSA's old GTP class in the early 90's represent those that want to go as fast as possible in a certain formula. What we have seen with that philosophy is that the lead cars get very expensive, and it becomes even more expensive to try to beat them, and the fields evaporate. e.g. Gurneys Toyota GTP car. Small fields make it very hard for event organizers to hold events, whether they be SCCA Club, or a pro series.

SCCA knowing there are some who like to play the as-fast-as-possible game developed the FS class for those competitors.

F2kCS and F1600CS represent those that philosophically want close racing in a large field. And that has proven to be done with restricted engines.

Rob makes a good point (thou slightly tongue-in-cheek) that one could just "spec" every part of the car, and in theory have the closest racing. That has been tried. The downside of that philosophy is that the parts, because of lack of competition, become expensive, and it does kill designer incentive.

So, every event organizers strive to find a balance. Unrestricted engines run maxed-out tend to have short lives, thus adding expense to stay in the hunt. While I have seen wing packages last on pro cars for multiple seasons, engines have a shorter duty cycle. Shortening that duty cycle even further raises a mandatory expense for teams. We saw engine expense basically kill the F2000 Series in the late 90's, then the advent of the Zetec (a controlled/restricted engine) revive it. Also, changing out a wing package is usually less expensive than rebuilding a chassis for a new make engine.

Anyway, that was what the Captain was saying last evening. Just kind of depends on your philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

Anyway, that was what the Captain was saying last evening. Just kind of depends on your philosophy.

---

Penske or Morgan?

The Purple Man's got it... it's a philosophical difference. I also agree that there must be a balance between GTP type vs spec type. It seems we (FB) are somewhere in between.

My biggest issue, and the one which I will not compromise on, is the ex post facto part. We have a set of rules to build to. You expect rules stability, especially given all the verbosity on this issue. So you build to the rules. And then people want to change the rules after the fact. My engine is heavy. My car is heavy. I am getting along in age and not one of the fastest out there anyway. My rear wings are vintage 1980's. Since we have a set of rules, I decide what to prioritize. In essentially (re) building the newest FB out here, I chose to go with a more modern engine package, unlike last time I did this.

Reminds me of the US Constitution concerning no ex post fact law. That is my philosophy, and I will not compromise it.

Technically, this isn't a rule change. The possibility of a restrictor has been in the rules since day 1. You knew that when you chose to go down the Kawasaki path.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobLav

My biggest issue, and the one which I will not compromise on, is the ex post facto part.

---

Two things.

1. This is not even a rules change. The rules for restrictors has always been there. The CRB is being nicer than they need to be. They could implement restrictors for everyone with the publishing of the new fastrack, no request for input and without going to the BOD. It has been common knowledge since the 09's came out that the CRB would not allow hp to increase beyone those levels.

2. I am going to have to add "ex post facto" to "collectivist," "cartel" and others as a word/phrase that you do not understand what it means. An ex post facto rule change would go back and retroactively punish people for breaking the rule when it was legal. For instance if the SCCA were to change the rule and then go back and invalidate race results from 2011, that would be an ex post facto rule change. Changing a rule and then enforcing it would not be an ex post facto rule change. None of that really matters since this isn't even a rule change.

Well, if crazy conspiracy theories that were demonstrably untrue, personal insults to people who weren't even involved, rants with words used that made no sense and not understanding the rules of the class weren't enough to convince people that restrictors are a bad idea, that tidbit will definitely convince them.

Josh, I think we can stick that fork in this thread also. It appears to be done.

3 pages and the only coherent argument against restrictors has been advanced by the people in favor of them. That is the argument that the SCCA cannot effectively implement this.

Sorry for the late post. I was away for a long weekend and posted the response below Jay's quote after reading the first page of this thread. After reading the rest of the 100+ posts , my opinion is unchanged.

Thank you Jay for your insight and work in this process as it pertains to F600 as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

I am not against the concept. I am against a process that cannot be properly implemented and managed.

---

Which is the reason I am against competition adjustments and the use of restrictors.

From the outside i see little input from one of the most involved engine builders, George Dean. On another note, since we all use ECU's now days, how about George coming up with an ecu program where all balances are made with the ECU, and if that is the case, a protest could involve simply sending the ECU to George, or even a "claimer" rule on ECU's. If i were not happy, i could pay my $50 and we could swap ECU's. I bet reliability would also be improved as well!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Oppel

From the outside i see little input from one of the most involved engine builders, George Dean. On another note, since we all use ECU's now days, how about George coming up with an ecu program where all balances are made with the ECU, and if that is the case, a protest could involve simply sending the ECU to George, or even a "claimer" rule on ECU's. If i were not happy, i could pay my $50 and we could swap ECU's. I bet reliability would also be improved as well!

---

I don't know much about motorcycle ECU's, but if there anything like Automotive ECU's (as far as programming goes) This could work. A tech inspector could simply use a laptop and check the calibration code that's in the ECU and if its not a predetermined set of calibrations the competitor is DQ'd.