F1000 Rules Proposal

[S Lathrop]

I can also understand why some manufacturers would be reluctant to take what would be the easiest solution to parity by adding weight to the cars. .

Adding weight may slow the acceleration rates and cornering potential of all the cars. But it will do nothing to equalize the performance within the class as you are suggesting.

Some of my Citation in other classes carry as much as 50 lbs. ballast. That much ballast gives one the potential to optimize the weight distribution. Getting the weight distribution optimized and the CG lower can give quite an advantage over the competition. That is fact not speculation.

Leave the weight where it is.

[Ivinsea]

Here's my 2 cents(again)- If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Everything seems to be A-Ok right now.

Brett - I would consider getting a new car to replace my first generation Stohr, but I am reluctant to do so until the engine issue is resolved, specifically the next engine of choice after the 07-08 GSXR. I am not going to order a 2014 chassis with a 2007 engine.

[glenn cooper]

I think that a season of racing is quite good for an engine, and have done just that in the past.

The only thing that keeps us having better (and we have gotten sooooooooo much better over the last 2-3 years) engine life is dumbass mistakes by myself and others, resulting in overheats, loss of oil, loss of water, etc...

Every now and then, and I've not seen it for awhile, a fresh engine will break a crank, but not so much anymore.

GC

[jose gerardo]

Gentlemen,

this is perhaps where we did not want to go, $$15,000 motors, we are almost at the cost level of FA, there is a couple of guys I know who will actually consider it if it gives a competitive advantage (me being one of them) but this will destroy the spirit of the class, remember what we got in this class to begin for please, now if someone limits the output and achieves parity then anybody can enter the class using any engine and at that point it will not just be for power but rather for durability, driveability and such.

sorry if I don't make much sense right now, it is a bit early here

Regards to My FB Classmates

[apextonic]

We are discussing 3 totally separate issues IMO.

1. Engine parity concerning the current ubiquitous GSXR and the newer engines that rev to 14,000 rpm.

2. Engine durability

3. Slowing the cars down.

Item 1. It has not happened yet, but very soon someone will figure out how to make a newer 14,000 rpm engine work and then 99% of current racers will be disenfranchised. This simply cannot be good for the future of FB. This will also cause dramitic increases in the cost to compete. Certainly not good for the growth of the class. The only way these new engines can make more HP is to turn more revs so that they can breath more air in. IMO there are only 2 ways to create parity and that is:
A. Rev limiters that actually limit the revs to a specific rpm, say 12,000 rpm. This will nominally equalize the hp of the production 1000cc engines. this will also help the engines live longer. AN RPM TELL TALE WILL NOT DO THIS.
B. Individual inlet restrictors. This is currently used in multiple SCCA classes and it works and is very easy to police. This limits the total airflow into the engine thus reducing air flow and peak RPMs.

Frankly I do not car whether we use Rev limiters or IIRs. Just do something. Lower cost through longer life engines. This is good for the class!

Item 2. We need the newer engines to keep the class growing. See item 1 to improve durability at the same time as creating engine parity.

Item 3. FB is not a mature class, they will continue to get faster every year for several more years and soon they will be as fast as the FA cars. The top FBs are almost there. IMO the only way to slow the cars down is to add some weight. Let's start with 50 lbs. this is NOT FOR PARITY, just to slow the cars down. Another advantage to adding 50 lbs is that it will bring more racers to the class and will have the potential to reduce costs as well as the potential for safer cars. Just a side note, I like the current minimum 1000lb weight because we can easily make it. However IMO the class needs to slow down and some weight will do just that.

View from a grassroots formula racer with a regular joe job... meaning not a ton of money... Keeping costs reasonable for the average SCCA member would go a long way making the FB class successful and fun (yes... fun) for a wider audience of potential FB buyers. Also, increasing the min weight a bit would open the class up to more drivers that under the current rules have little chance of making min weight. Thus...

1) I agree with Jay's suggestion about weight but I have an additional reason to raise it. Various newer FB's are designed such that relatively tall drivers can fit in them with room to spare. I sat in some where it's obvious that even a 6 ft 4 in driver could fit. So... a tall guy like me get's his hopes up only to be disappointed because I'll never make min weight. Why design these cars with more room and forget that taller/larger drivers weigh more? A 6 ft plus SCCA driver is going to weigh in at 200 or so. Let's face it... all SCCA drivers aren't 165 lbs; there's a lot of 200 pounders. Increase the min weight to get a larger buying audience. I'd buy one right now if I thought I could make min weight. I won't buy one if I can't make min weight.

2) I agree with Jay's suggestion regarding engine durability and I cast a big vote for it. I don't care how, rev limiters or whatever. Leaving the class wide open for HP or RPM will result in podiums only for the biggest wallets. Heck, it will be that way no matter what, but restrictors or rev limiters will let other folks have dreams of competitiveness instead of complete fantasies.

[racerdad2]

Heck. Even NASCAR had to make accommodations for the Big & Tall guys - Michael Waltrip. Maybe FB 1, FB 2 & FB B & T.... just kidding.... but do consider the many big guys who'd love to come out & play...

[blewbayou]

from Sportrider, 2012 bikes.

Horsepower- http://image.sportrider.com/f/391470...power-new+.jpg


torque- http://image.sportrider.com/f/391470...orque-new+.jpg

just as an idea on rpm limiting, even limiting rpm, people will complain. The only way to limit rpm, would be to pick a horsepower goal for all, dyno all makes and years of engines and spec out an RPM max for the particular year, make engine. You would have rpm limits all over the place between years and makes., Same thing with restrictors.

[Daryl DeArman]

Gentlemen,

this is perhaps where we did not want to go, $$15,000 motors, we are almost at the cost level of a complete FV runoffs level engine

Fixed that for you.

[racerdad2]

Good one Daryl !

[Jnovak]

from Sportrider, 2012 bikes.

Horsepower- http://image.sportrider.com/f/391470...power-new+.jpg


torque- http://image.sportrider.com/f/391470...orque-new+.jpg

just as an idea on rpm limiting, even limiting rpm, people will complain. The only way to limit rpm, would be to pick a horsepower goal for all, dyno all makes and years of engines and spec out an RPM max for the particular year, make engine. You would have rpm limits all over the place between years and makes., Same thing with restrictors.

All this data is with stock ecus, headers, cat converters etc.

Inlet restrictors limit the amount of air that can flow into an engine and will also limit the functional RPM. All of these modern engines have the same compression ratio, about the same valve sizes so the only way for any engine to make more power it must pull in more air. A restrictor, while not perfect, will limit the air that can flow into the engine thus limiting the HP.

The restrictors that we use on the F600s work very well in that they knock 15+ HP off of the newer motors and also reduce the peak power RPM by over 1000 rpm. They work and they are cheap. 3 different engines on the same chassis dyno on the same day were all withing 2 peak HP of each other. That is parity IMO.

[allof6]

from Sportrider, 2012 bikes.

Horsepower- http://image.sportrider.com/f/391470...power-new+.jpg


torque- http://image.sportrider.com/f/391470...orque-new+.jpg

just as an idea on rpm limiting, even limiting rpm, people will complain. The only way to limit rpm, would be to pick a horsepower goal for all, dyno all makes and years of engines and spec out an RPM max for the particular year, make engine. You would have rpm limits all over the place between years and makes., Same thing with restrictors.

It would appear that the magic number is 10000 rpm.

Any takers?

[allof6]

The restrictors that we use on the F600s work very well in that they knock 15+ HP off of the newer motors and also reduce the peak power RPM by over 1000 rpm. They work and they are cheap. 3 different engines on the same chassis dyno on the same day were all withing 2 peak HP of each other. That is parity IMO.

Jay,
Whats the specs on the F600 restrictors?

[jose gerardo]

Great comments Guys.

Glad to see that everyone get's the point and thanks for reinforcing the idea of raising the
Minimum weight, in talking with Nick Belling last night we discussed the tipping point as far as class car count is concerned with regards to the moment at which SCCA would consider a Rules modification and that magic number is around 200 which is about double what the class car count is at the moment, In talking to a few people about this at the runoff's this number could be reached within five years, meanwhile we need to be sensible to the current situation and employ self control, as one of our fellow racer's mentioned earlier in this post, it would be a lot harder to get the genie back into the bottle once we let it out, let's explore the idea or using the series for experimenting with what we would all feel be a good rules package and move forward.

Many Thanks for all of you who are getting involved in this discussion, Manufacturers, Drivers and Prospective Racers, your opinions and feedback will insure the fun factor remains in this new and exciting class.

[Daryl DeArman]

It would appear that the magic number is 10000 rpm.

Any takers?

That certainly wouldn't make any ZX-10 folks happy....any RPM limit is certainly going to harm those who invested time and money in making the BMW work more than everyoneelse.

[Daryl DeArman]

Jay,

Engine A: 200HP @ 13000 peak.

Engine B: 185HP @ 12000 peak.

Engine C: 175HP @ 11375 peak.

You clip engines A & B with same sized restrictors so that they now each produce 175HP @ 11375 rpms you leave engine C unrestricted.

Now all peak numbers are the same, but what happens to the shape of the curves on engines A and B that have been restricted given the requirements to run stock camshafts while exhaust system design is free?

[blewbayou]

I just put the dyno sheets up as there a guage. I looked at all their dyno tests from 2007-2012 They really only vary a couple HP. some lost RPM, some gamed a little. The BMW gained the most since it came out, about 5 HP and more RPM.

You can find them here; http://www.sportrider.com/dyno/146_s...s/viewall.html



The CBRR1000 has the lowest at about 147 HP, so if you were to try and balance things out, you would have to base it on this and bring down the other makes to this level, which i know wont go over big in order to level the field so to speak.

The other thing would be one to raise the minimum weight 50 pounds to help some of the cars that have a hard time to make weight, then as in other classes for example like FA where you have to add 25 lbs for sequential shift, 25 for carbon tub etc., instead, using some type of formula based on weight, HP, torque and what ever else is needed to figure out how much weight to add for the various engine out there in order to balance things out and make it more competitve. I know it wont help as far as longevity goes, but i dont think you are going to be able to please everyone. This would be the easiest and cheapest way to go.

restrictors would be fine, but you would have to basically dyno and test every motor from all the manufacturers used in the class every year or engine design cycle in order to make sure no one is getting an advantage.

Just a thought

John

[Thomas Copeland]

Jay,

What would you think would be easier to implement, and provide better parity, and would be easiest to police, rev limits or restrictors? I'm always thinking what would be easiest to check and police.

After reading your post I'm inclined to agreed with you.

Three things need to be done:

1. Aftermarket or open ECU's for engine development.

2. Add weight to slow cars down for safety.

3. Rev limits or restrictors for parity.

[jose gerardo]

the number I have heard is around 11-12000 for GSXR engines, since the maximum of 80 Lbs/Ft of torque is reached at 11k RPM, the 12K was discussed as a way to increase engine life, I think the restrictor idea is a good one to explore, George Dean has made some experiments and him and I had a conversation with Mike Beauchamp about the size and specs. of the restrictors and it looks like there is a good chance of parity.

[Jnovak]

Jay,
Whats the specs on the F600 restrictors?

The specs for the F600 restrictors are as follows:

1. a sharp edged flat plate orifice. .060" thick. 32.0 mm id.
2. Placed between the rubber intake manifold and the cylinder head.
3. Aluminum sheet CNC machined by Piontek Engineering
4. $50/ set of 4.

We have dynoed this combination on many different engines on at least 3 different dynamometers. Peak Hp is at about 14,000 to 14,500 rpm. The normal rev limit of the GSXR 600 engine is 16,000 rpm. The engine will still rev that high in the lower gears but it simply quits pulling about 14,500 rpm.

We tested 3 different engines on the same chassis dyno on the same day at VIR.

The engines were:
2005 Honda
2007 GSXR
2009 GSXR

all engines made between 100 hp and 102 hp on the chassis dyno. One engine was remapped while on the dyno and it did not improve the peak HP but did slightly improve the peak torque.

I know of at least 5 or 6 other GSXR 600 engines that have been engine dynoed and they all make about 108 hp to 110 hp on an engine dyno with the IIRs in place. The peak power of the late model GSXR 600 with race headers, stock intake system including air box but WITHOUT intake restrictors and with a remap was about 126 hp at 15,800 rpm. So it is pretty clear that the restrictors knock about 16 to 18 hp off of the newer motors and about 8 to 10 off of the older motors. This keeps the revs down and the engines just run, run, run.

No one, to my knowledge is having ANY problems with engine performance. Most guys are not even using a new ECU map but are reducing fuel pressure until the Air/fuel ratio is about 13:1 and this works fine. Throttle response is great and the motors run sweet.

I am certain that this concept would work equally well on the 1000cc FB engines. However it would require that the Suzuki give up about 5 to 10 hp (just my opinion)

I am not sure what the restrictor size would be if placed between the cylinder head and the rubber manifold but the 32mm restrictor in the F600s is about 4mm smaller than the width of the intake port on the Suzuki.

The other alternative that would be just as effective is a flat plate restrictor near the top of the throttle body as is done in the Zetec and MZR engines. Works fine too.

These restrictors really do work and this should be considered. The only downside IMO is that you must take the manifold off to measure the ID of the restrictor. The top mounted restrictors can be measured by removal of the airbox.

On another note if the restrictor is small enough you slow the class down without adding weight. This means that the Suzuki also takes an HP hit but less than the newer motors.

[Ivinsea]

Rilltech assures me that they have broken the BMW ECU and can supply an engine with a stripped down racing harness and ECU ready to go for $15k. Yep 15, that's what the man said.

For the record, I look at current engines costing $2500 for a core plus $2500 minimum for a rebuild = $5000. Of course reusing throttle bodies, wet sump pan, harness, fittings etc.

This afternoon my brother and I took out my old engine and started prepping a documented 600 mile 2008. Clean as a whistle! Brandon Dixon and Glenn Cooper saw it at the Jon Lewis (sorry for bringing up his name!) NJMP race and said it was like new. I paid $3100 for the car kit which is not happening any longer. My 2011 season engine cost $1200 and ran great for a season. I am sure people in the class longer than me have many examples of great junkyard engines....those days are behind us unless we embrace new engines......

[AEA_Team_Lotus]

When will the SCCA finalize the FB/F1000 Rules for the 2014 GCR? I see other classes specifically SR-1 & SR-2 have already been released in a preliminary form.

[Nicholas Belling]

At the moment their may be Zereo changes for the 2014 gcr.

If you have an opinion as a competitor please write the crb.

[allof6]

Thank you Jay,

I missed Appendix F in the GCR.

[glenn cooper]

For the record, I look at current engines costing $2500 for a core plus $2500 minimum for a rebuild = $5000. Of course reusing throttle bodies, wet sump pan, harness, fittings etc.

This afternoon my brother and I took out my old engine and started prepping a documented 600 mile 2008. Clean as a whistle! Brandon Dixon and Glenn Cooper saw it at the Jon Lewis (sorry for bringing up his name!) NJMP race and said it was like new. I paid $3100 for the car kit which is not happening any longer. My 2011 season engine cost $1200 and ran great for a season. I am sure people in the class longer than me have many examples of great junkyard engines....those days are behind us unless we embrace new engines......

Man that thing was a beaut!
Yep - Those days are pretty much gone, but ya never know...

Man that thing sat for awhile - I'd look into a way to pre oil the engine before spinning over/crankin' up. Pretty easy to pressurize an oil feed through one of the galley plugs on the side of the crankcase...

[Ivinsea]

Man that thing was a beaut!
Yep - Those days are pretty much gone, but ya never know...

Man that thing sat for awhile - I'd look into a way to pre oil the engine before spinning over/crankin' up. Pretty easy to pressurize an oil feed through one of the galley plugs on the side of the crankcase...

Glenn,
Yes that is good advice.

Rilltech suggested an easy way to prime the oil galleries:

While the engine is upside down (Harbor Freight engine stand works great for this) and oil pick up removed, pour some oil in the intake port and turn the engine over by hand, repeat a few times until 1/3 quart or so has been circulated.

[Mike Devins]

Gentlemen,

this is perhaps where we did not want to go, $$15,000 motors

My point was not to eliminate the BMW but that it costs more to convert the stock ECU than to use the aftermarket stuff. BTW the wiring harness is DIY with the halltech, a modified stock harness.

[KenT]

I know this is a typical post runoffs convo to update the class for some competitors concerns, however, be careful what you wish for.

FB has done extremely well this year from a participation standpoint. Thanks F1000 series! The participation chart has not been updated, however, seeing the entries for August I would expect to jump a couple places from its July rankings. Then go down and search for DSR and CSR. The talk for the last year has been that the class was too expensive so they needed to combine DSR and CSR and make a new low cost class to bring out those that may not race due to the expense. We'll see if that actually happens but the impending rules change has seen some leave the class prior to the 2014 implementation. I believe that is how FB got Loshak. Both classes are near the bottom and Runoffs participation was weak to the point of on the verge of not crowning a champ. Perhaps people will say the drop in participation had nothing to do with impending class changes and provides proof that a change needed to happen, but we'll see.

My point is if the series is growing a healthy pace and is becoming more and more popular, there is a danger in changing it now just as its gaining. How many people are not truly jumping in because of the weight is 25 pounds too low for their tastes?

[Mike Devins]

Ken, The CSR/DSR to P1/P2 has hurt participation, it may help in the long run we will see.

Evidence - I had a customer drop off a car in late 2012 for some work to get it ready for 2013, new rules announcement and now the project has been on hold for almost a year. He is still debating how to proceed waiting for definitive answer on restrictors in P2. Fo the naysayers it was not for lack of money or lack of desire to race, he went out and bought a car to run different class until the rules are sorted out.

Rules stability is important!

[ghickman]

I personally have lost 2 car sales this year because of all this talk about changing the class rules. No telling how many others are out there that were waiting on the sidelines that are now gone for good.

Potential buyers don't want to hear of any instability what so ever. We need to leave this class alone and let it grow.

[blewbayou]

I for one am on the side lines. As i mentioned before i have been following the class since its inception and i am very interested in the class. It seems every year and even during the year there is talk about changing this or that. instability is no doubt my hesitation as i personally would want to invest in a new car. Over the past 30 years of racing cars and bikes i bought used and had issues in some form or another. Thaht being said, even if SCCA came out and said there won't be any rule changes for a year or two would go along way in helping people make decisions.

I research everything i put alot of money into and if i don't feel right, then i won't do it. I have looked at other options, FA for example, unfortunately no new cars will be built, parts will be harder to get. It leaves only 2 options, FB or order a new Pro formula mazda for just a little more the a new FB costs and run it in FA. True, it may not be competitve with FA cars, but i am in it for the fun.

John

[Jnovak]

It is my opinion that if we have any rules changes they will be very minor and will be focused on controlling costs and not aimed at changing the class.

FB is working very nicely and needs stability and I am certain that the FB ad hoc committee is well aware of this.

[Jnovak]

I personally have lost 2 car sales this year because of all this talk about changing the class rules. No telling how many others are out there that were waiting on the sidelines that are now gone for good.

Potential buyers don't want to hear of any instability what so ever. We need to leave this class alone and let it grow.

There has not been a single rules change in FB since it's inception. There have been a couple of minor clarifications but that's all.

If you had potential customers who were that worried about rules changes, where did they get the idea that there were major changes coming? Who told them that there would be changes coming. This sounds like customer BS which I have seen much of in 30 years of building and selling race cars. There are thousands of excuses to not buy a car. It is always hard to get that deposit check.

[S Lathrop]

There has not been a single rules change in FB since it's inception. There have been a couple of minor clarifications but that's all.

If you had potential customers who were that worried about rules changes, where did they get the idea that there were major changes coming? Who told them that there would be changes coming. This sounds like customer BS which I have seen much of in 30 years of building and selling race cars. There are thousands of excuses to not buy a car. It is always hard to get that deposit check.

I will second the statements that Jay has just made. Any changes in the rules will enhance the class. Believe it.

[Daryl DeArman]

I believe there is some confussion about what type of stability is healthy for a class.

Rules stability and Package stability can be polar opposites.

You can continue to change the rules so that the desired package stays stable (trying to keep the genie in the bottle) which can be frustrating and discourage development.

You can keep the rules stable and let the engine/chassis/aero/cost war escalate.

In my opinion NEITHER ONE is healthy to the long term health of any class.

If you want to sell cars, some confidence that what I buy this season will be reasonably competitive the next couple of seasons is needed.

[ghickman]

It's threads like this one that scare people off.

You and I may think it's going to enhance the class but someone looking to move to this class will see it differently.

It doesn't bother me one bit I'm just telling it like it is.

[ghickman]

If you weigh 250 lbs. and 6'-4" you'll fit the 2013 Phoenix and make minimum weight.

[Tony Moore]

I for one am on the side lines. As i mentioned before i have been following the class since its inception and i am very interested in the class. It seems every year and even during the year there is talk about changing this or that. instability is no doubt my hesitation as i personally would want to invest in a new car.

John

Perfect example of this post potentially discouraging entry into FB.
Maybe some of you haven't seen this in your discussions.

Tony Moore

Thank you John!

[Wren]

There are always going to be people coming up with an excuse not to do something or saying they will join a class if something gets changed or doesn't get changed. The people who are going to do it go ahead and do it.

If people on the internet talking about restrictors or adding some weight to the cars makes people not join the class, they weren't serious anyways. Adding restrictors wouldn't even be a rule change, it is already in there.

[glenn cooper]

He's right, ya'll...

[Mike B]

I personally have lost 2 car sales this year because of all this talk about changing the class rules. No telling how many others are out there that were waiting on the sidelines that are now gone for good.

Potential buyers don't want to hear of any instability what so ever. We need to leave this class alone and let it grow.

How many sales do you think you'll lose if F1000 is combined with FA?
Here's my guess: all of them.

I was firmly in your corner on the need for stability and no changes. However, F1000 continues to evolve and develop while FA doesn't. I've since seen the light and come to realize that it's only a matter of time before the club sees it as an opportunity to eliminate one more class. F1000 will be the loser in that scenario.
We need to maintain control of our class and that means taking proactive steps to keep the performance level where it is, or ratchet it back a step or two, as hard as that may be to accept. The steps we take need to be significant enough that we aren't going through this exercise again in 2-3 years because tires/shocks/chassis/tracks have gotten better.

We can't keep our collective heads in the sand anymore.