Originally Posted by S Lathrop
980 or 1020? What'd he weigh at the time?
Hmmmmm
980 or 1020? What'd he weigh at the time?
The latter.
I'm 175 and have been 1010-5 at every event this year. And that's with 1st gen bodywork that has been reworked several times and are way heavier than they would be out of a mold. Including the front nose is not currently made out of carbon fiber. And the JDR cage is very robust. Weight above is with data aq, radios and a go pro... And without exotic fasteners or the FSAE axles.
So, a JDR with a carbon nose, new bodywork and some light weight bits would be less than 1035 with a 225lb driver.
Costs? You will never make racing cheap. Especially at these speeds.
There's always the idea of mandating 93 pump gas.
Agree on rev limiters. Its easy... If we have to do something, but I prefer not.
And again about costs... Another reason why not to make USF1000 series "pro". We have a great thing going. Lets keep it family based and within SCCA club racing. You want pro, go do F2000 or F1600 or the various struggling pro series out there with mega dollar entry fees and factory teams to compete against. At this rate, more and more drivers and constructors are entering FB/F1000. The series is awesome and more drivers will equal even more prizes.
I've said this numerous times when people talk about costs in racing: Racing costs are totally dependent where you want to finish. Want to fight for the podium and the championship? Totally different budget than just being happy to be there.
And then the safety card is thrown out there. Painted as if something wont be done, it will be someone's fault if someone gets hurt. Explain to me how it will be any safer if the cars are 100lbs heavier. Especially most will just add ballast, not more tubes in the cages as some might argue. Oh, 100lbs more needs more brakes. $
The best thing for ANY class, especially this young, awesome, growing class... Is rules stability.
Don't mess with a good thing.
Lawrence Loshak
'13 FB & HP National Champion
'10 DSR National Champion
'06 EP National Champion
Well put LL.
Rules stability and package stability don't always correlate. The rules could stay the same and the cost to be competitive could continue to escalate...or the rules could constantly be in a state of flux and people won't develop and/or people won't enter the class because they don't know what tomorrow holds.
As long as the participation numbers are increasing, keep doing what's working, but don't be afraid to change things when it's best. When participation numbers dwindle or new cars sales disappear someone creates a new class....next thing you know we have 43 of them and 2.5 cars per event is considered good
Last edited by Daryl DeArman; 05.30.13 at 11:15 PM. Reason: sales v. sells
Can someone chime in and reason with why this class would try and utilize rev limiters. or want to try and establish rev limiters to control performance.
heck how would this even be policed at an amateur level with so many engine/electronic packages available.
I can only imagine the potential problems that could present themself.
car weight
Just want to add that the weight of the JDR Lawrence is driving also has an .060 stainless belly pan....not aluminum.....and there is a 5 lb. lighter extinguisher we could use. We are also finishing races with 2 plus gallons of gas on board. So..... that heavier driver could be even closer to the minimum.
Based on that, I see no need to consider changing the minimum weight.
Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars
jdrmotorsport.com
To try and answer Nicholas, limiting revs will pretty much force all engines to be limited to about the same HP (obviously, it won't be perfect), and since HP seems to be the concern, THAT is what you would want to concentrate on.
Adding weight will have the following effects:
1 - It will reduce top speed only a tiny bit.
2 - It will reduce acceleration rates.
3 - It will increase the load on the brakes and suspension components under braking.
4 - It will increase the loads on the tires
5 - It will increase the energy that has to be dissipated at any particular deceleration rate in a crash.
6 - If added as ballast, it will have to be mounted properly to stay attached in a crash.
7- It will increase the loads on the frame members that it is attached to.
While adding weight seems on first glance to be the simplest way to "equalize" performance between different engines, you can see that it affects a LOT more than than performance increases from the extra HP the engine will still have.
One more attempt.
IF the class wants to slow the HP war / performance creep FREEZE the eligible engines to MY2013 or older now.
No need for rev limiters or extra weight.
No additial tech burdens, if anything it helps them keep up with what's what.
Nobody needs to scrap whatever program they may currently have in the works. If anything, people may be more willing to put the effort in to get the other motors working instead of saying screw it, who knows what engine will be king in 2015?
The hp war has been talked about almost from day one, yet almost everyone is still using the '08 GSXR motor. When are we going to see the latest generation of super bike motors in these cars? If the ECU issue is preventing some motors from running then maybe the rules are self regulating in this area. I don't want to slow these cars down, but a rev limit might kill two birds with one stone - limit lap times and increase engine life? I've raced in a series that limited year model bike motors and it worked great. I suppose there is the argument that as a 'modern' formula it should use the latest and greatest motors but that's not currently the case anyway, and does anyone actually care in the club racing world where hopefully this class will stay.
Don't know. But when somebody successfully raises the bar there are going to be lots of GSXR guys out there wanting to stuff that genie back in the bottle....and that's not cool for the people who put in the effort....which is probably why more people aren't putting in the effort.
Me too and it certainly did.
Exactly, 5 year old or older motors seem to be the norm. Apparently, it takes a lot of R&D work to get a 2012/13 motor in one of these cars and get it to work correctly. Why bother if the 2014 GSXR might be a bigger HP motor and a much easier update?
Keep our eye on the ball
Gentlemen,
Let's try to keep our eye on the ball if we want to move forward, having information
on what the current available chassis weight is good information however let's try to
make this a self-moderated post so that we might actually arrive at a conclusion that
Most of us can actually agree on, I for one would like to stuff a Bimmer or Aprilia engine
on my car (and may even be able to afford it ) but it would give me an unfair advantage
over other competitors, and this could spur a spending spiral and really kill the class
( Hmmmm....sounds Familiar) which is exactly why f1000 makes so much more sense to me,
I however am concerned by some of the ideas I am hearing around paddocks about engines and other speed things due to the fairly open nature of our rules and would
like to suggest that we look at this for 2014 and on and be very clear on the objective of
controlling cost and increasing participation levels.
with the great contingencies our organizers have got us for 2013 we should focus on these, if we increase our numbers there will be more people to run with and more people wanting to sponsor and give out contingencies, please think about ALL the other benefits on and of track (ever needed an Engine, tires, wheels, A-arm, harness, wing, nose , ecu , etc ?).
you guys get my piont
Step on the gas until you see the bright light..... THEN BRAKE HARD !
JDR weight
Just wanted to say that the first production JDR weighs in at 780 ready to race (running on the scales) with abt 1.5 gallons of gas in the tank. That is with .060 SS floor. So 235 driver would come over the scales at 1015.
Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars
weight
thanks Jerry, Great to see you this last week, I am in Europe this week but have discussed with Dave to possibly do the ARRC in November and will discuss possibly moulding a seat for it, we are going after a podium next year for the Runoffs and need to develop our strategy for it over the next three months.
regards
Jose
P.S. Great showing at R.A. !
Step on the gas until you see the bright light..... THEN BRAKE HARD !
Our Nova-Piper was actually the lightest FB in impound after the race. With rain tires (5 lbs heavier for all 4 wheels and tires), we weighed in at 1008 lbs. The fuel tank was filled to the gills before the race as we know we are very close.
How do I know we were the lightest? I asked tech. I was not told the weights of any of the other cars, just that we were the lightest. I have the weight slip too.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Is it me...
or is it total BS that tech does not have to show the weights, or post them.
At VIR there is a LED scale readout on the wall, but really, just post the weights, what's the big deal?
Enlighten me, O readers of the GCR...
GC
I totally agree Coop. The weights should always be posted. I suggest a letter writing campaign to the CRB asking that all weights be posted in impound.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
I agree,
Jay do you want to lead on this one.
Done, letter 12495
Please change the rule for impound so that the weights of each car in impound at all races shall be posted on a board such that the weights can be viewd by each competitor in impound.
Thank you for your consideration... Jay Novak
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Ever since I have worked tech, both in SFR and Colorado Region, the weights were never called out in impound. They were written down and submitted to the Chief of Tech and stewards if there was a car underweight.
Even when running the scales when competitors wanted to checkweigh their cars, the weights were written on a slip of paper and never spoken.
Weight publication does not appear to be discussed in the GCR, but I believe it is policy in the tech manual. I could ask our chief for a reason if you want.
“Racing makes heroin addiction look like a vague wish for something salty.” -Peter Egan
Well you motivated son-of-a-gun
That's all there is to it, huh?
I have never claimed to be the guy that gets stuff done, rather the idea guy.
Thanks Jay, I'll get on that this weekend.
GC
*Each SCCA Region will be required to procure a dry erase board of sufficient size as to be able to post the weights of each group as that group is being weighed.
The board will be sectioned vertically into two equal halves - Group 1 will be posted on the left half, and upon completion of Group 2's run, their weights will be posted on the right side.
At the completion of Group 3's run, Group 1 will have their numbers erased so that Group 3 will then be posted in that space and so on.
With this method, the numbers will stay up until the completion of that groups subsequent session.
Only Tech workers are allowed to record the numbers, which are to be called out verbally in a 75-80 db range.
You guys feelin' me on this?!! ;O)
Would you like Tech to display the results from their other inspections as well - e.g. bore, stroke, valve size, cam lift, etc.?
It is a very firm Tech / Steward procedure to share inspection data with the competitor only. Inspection results are announced as Pass or Fail.
Just sayin''
Terry
I would vote to leave this rule as is. The attributes of a competitors car are private property, which includes weight.
Rules
Agreed,
the issue is one of participation, we have some early heavy conversions and stohr's (34-37)
that are possibly not competing due to a low min weight in the class and this renders them un-competitive, There are competitors coming in at 1003 (Steve ott) and (1008) for Brian Novak and some competitors of stohrs and conversions coming in at 1064 and 1074 and a huge disadvantage and I don' think we want to ask them to find another class to race in since they may become the backbone of the class, another issue that I have brought forward is that of the business model for the car manufacturers so that they may have the possibility of marketing their cars worldwide (FIA homologation) and actually turn a profit, in order to do this they would have to make a heavier chassis and in turn their opinion is that cars and parts prices would actually come down due to the economies of scale that this would generate.
I discussed this with Mike Beauchamp and Jay Novak and would like to understand what is the position of competitors, our team is having to look for another car in order to remain competitive and as I found out after I voiced my concerns there are quite a few people who are on the same boat as we are.
Thanks for visiting the thread, I look forward to your comments.
Step on the gas until you see the bright light..... THEN BRAKE HARD !
I must be misunderstanding. You folks (some of you) want Tech to write the weights of all cars that go over the scales in post-race impound?
What is the reason (purpose, justification ...)?
Seems to be asking a lot (with no reason obvious to me).
Racer Russ
Palm Coast, FL
As the tech director in F2kCS and F1600 I think you guys may not understand the unintended consequences of your wish. It becomes a very slippery slope. In tech we see a lot of novel/unique things about legal cars that the owner considers proprietary, thus the reason for the privacy.
Next thing you guys will want is wing dimensions/angles, or make of fuel filter, etc., etc....
If you want to know, ask the entrant, not tech.
We do not make public the results of our inspections, only pass/fail, weights being only one of many factors.
Be very careful what you wish for...
I am just curious, what makes any competitor think he has any right to what specs my car is running at ? Worry about your own car not mine.
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Runoffs 1 Gold 3 Silver 3 bronze, 8 Divisional , 6 Regional Champs , 3x Drivers of the year awards
answer
Yes, I guess I went a little off subject with the weight issue.
the point I wanted to make has very little with the discusssion, the weight needs to be kept the way it is, on a piece of paper and give it to the driver or crew at impound, if they feel they can share it then let them.
I just wanted to get some feedback as to the class opinions on rules, I really wish some of the guys who own those non running cars to step up and give their opinion of what it would take for them to get into competitive events.
Step on the gas until you see the bright light..... THEN BRAKE HARD !
I believe the minimum weight was decided and published in plenty of time for the manufacturers to do the design work necessary.
I build cars that meet the SCCA rules. There are significant differences in the FIA rules vs. the SCCA rules. The differences are way more than just weight and the differences give SCCA specific cars the advantage. That may be why you don't see American cars exported.
I build cars for FF, FC and FB. The majority of parts are shared between all three classes. But each class is a purpose built design. Each part that is shared is designed to the demands of the highest stressed application. In some cases that is FB in others it is FC. This has been true dating back to the late '70's with the Zink Z10, Z11, and Z14 (FF and FSV).
Serving all three American markets is the only way I see to do this economically.
I have exported cars to England and one of my cars even won a national championship over there. I have built well over 250 cars over nearly 4 decades and my exported cars can be counted on one hand. I think that is true for all American manufacturers.
The 1000 pound minimum weight was carefully considered and came about after looking at the differences in weights of the FC engine and drivetrain verses the motorcycle.
The fact that some manufacturers haven't built cars that can reach the minimum is due solely to their design decisions - gel-coat on acres of bodywork, 10's and 8's, heavy differentials, heavy walled tube where it isn''t necessary, and so on and so on.
Don't try to penalize the manufacturers who did their homework and made the right decisions.
Seems to me that's what 99% of rule changes and competition adjustments are...penalizing those who did their homework.Don't try to penalize the manufacturers who did their homework and made the right decisions.
Rules
Great Feedback Guys !
The issue I have been trying to bring about with all this is one of class participation
there are far more competitors out there with cars that are not being raced and we would like to get them out here but with a 60-70 lbs. weight penalty they will not compete, I agree with Steve about doing homework (it's what some of us should have done before we bought some of our cars) but I also think that it should be an economic incentive for manufacturers to build and sell cars and not just win championships with a few cars because like in the case of the Citation chassis it is a very light and highly competitive car but limited to those who can build it on their spare time and In most cases that time is spent earning what we spend in racing.
Great insight into this Guys, I hope more people subscribe into this discussion and voice their opinion.
P.S. another issue that came up at the Runoffs is how to slow the cars down a bit, we saw 2:04's and 150+ MPH down the straight and this is just a couple of year's after a 2:08 was pole, in talking to JDR, Dixon (Citation) and Jay Novak , Mike b. among others the sub two minute mark will eventually be reached there and then we will have the speed development in less than 8 years that FA has has in something like 25+ years.
Your comments are greatly appreciated.
Step on the gas until you see the bright light..... THEN BRAKE HARD !
The assumed cause and effect relationship between overweight cars and guys not bringing them out is extremely weak. There are numerous variables causing guys to not bring the cars out, and overweight MIGHT be a minor one. The "increase min weight" solution to this very weak assumed relationship socializes the punishment across all drivers and designers and is unsatisfactory.
Also, the discussion to slow the cars down has been made by the same people for years now, and that agenda is entirely present in the current FB rules subcommittee where the presumption is made that restrictors are the solution. This is, again, a socialized punishment across the class and effects those of us who desire to run the cars as they are built and developed. It is an individual's choice, with the attendant responsibility, whether to run the class or not. This is especially true given the myriad of other formula in SCCA.
The only thing that raising the minimum weight will accomplish is me abandoning my diet........so I'm all for it! (J/K). I'm sure that most of the guys that have cars that are 60-70 heavy can start by losing 30lbs in their belly.....lol (at least in my case).
All joking aside if you want to get your car down to min weight it can be done. Ben Cooper got a very heavy car (probably 1100lbs) down to min weight. It all comes down to $$ and time....
"If you're not driving on the edge you're taking up too much space.... "
It's a noble goal, to get as many FB cars out as possible, but who (an actual name) is not racing because of the class' minimum weight?
Even if you came up with five names of racers across the country (unlikely), would that be justification for a rule change? Would there be some people deciding to race less if the weight was increased?
Racer Russ
Palm Coast, FL
The same debate has been raging in FV for a few years, but proposals to increase minimum weight have gone nowhere.
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
Putting restrictors in the cars would not be a punishment. Let's be honest, there are not very many people driving these cars to their potential as they were built and developed anyways and I have heard several of them come out in favor of restrictors as they are tired of having Atlantics in the middle of their race or trying to stay out of the middle of the Atlantic race.
It is my opinion that we need to slow the cars down a little bit. Right now the top guys are VERY close to Atlantic good times and F1000 is in its infancy and will be faster next year for sure.
There are only a few options as I see it:
1. Add weight.
This option does not seem very popular, particularly by the car builders. However this is probably the easiest and lowest cost solution to slow the class down a bit. This will not equalize the newer engines to the current HP level.
2. Flat Plate Individual Inlet Restrictors (FP-IIR) to reduce HP.
This option is known to be effective and is used by several classes in the SCCA already. Tech knows how to police it and it is very low cost. We currently sell a set of IIRs for F600 engines for $50 for 4 restrictors. No reason for it to cost much more than this. This requires remapping of the ECU to optimize. This is not a major issue IMO as everyone is doing this now.
3. Radiused Individual Inlet Restrictor (R-IIR)
This option is simply a spec size and shape air horn or velocity stack. These will probably cost about $200/set and I am sure they will work as we have already tried several different air horns on Suzuki engines. They will simply be smaller than the FP-IIR. Again, remapping of the ECU is required to optimize.
4. Single Inlet Restrictor (SIR)
Another option used by some classes in the SCCA. This is typically a very expensive option as there is a great deal of development required of the air box and the SIR itself. Raetech makes SIRs for SCCA racing. Here is a link: http://www.raetech.com/Restrictors/I...FbDm7Aod7GMA0Q
They are not low cost but are very effective at equalizing HP. Prices here: http://www.raetech.com/Restrictors/R...or_Pricing.php
I also think that the rule should be stock ECUs with reprogramming allowed. All the current engine builders are doing this now.
It is my personal opinion that the R-IIR is the way to go for a long term solution and some way of equalizing engines will be required in the long run.
I also think that some additional weight would not hurt the class at all but would just slow the class down.
Of course these are my opinions only. Flame away.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
A close friend recently reminded me... "Going faster just means you crash harder."
"An analog man living in a digital world"
Rules
Great comments Guys, Keep them coming .
Step on the gas until you see the bright light..... THEN BRAKE HARD !
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
