I would like to see aftermarket ECUs allowed to allow the BMW to be in the game.Originally Posted by Jnovak
I would like to see aftermarket ECUs allowed to allow the BMW to be in the game.
Greg Moon now states that he can reprograme BMW ECUs.
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)
ECU rule. - opinions
If full flashing-ignition & fuel timing ( which is common place now ) can be done to suzuki, kawasaki, bmw, honda ? - why not just open the ECU rule up.
can anyone give a reason as to why not.. It is not like anyone is going to put a motec or halltech system on a bike engine and find anymore power..
Pros for open ecu rule:
- simplifies making these engines and newer engines run without going into safe/limp modes potentially.
- allows engine builders to simplify ecu and build purpose built looms for our car application as well.
- reduces initial development costs to engine builders on trying to bypass and gain access to new engines and ecu's to start to even make them a viable engine for our use
- we dont have to keep so many stock bike sensors in the car just for the purpose of the ecu seeing it for bypassing/fooling the ecu /sensors.
-- This would allow bike engine factory "race ecu's " with factory race harnesses, as some manufacturers offer these.
Cons for open ecu rule:
people can start to play around with more advanced traction control.. even though this is not legal so policing of this should be ok! if a car is running 1 or two rear axle sensors then they may need policing from competitors. easy to hear from the sidelines as well when in competition a competitor behind a car using traction control can easily audibally hear such usage.
Last edited by Nicholas Belling; 09.27.13 at 4:26 PM.
As an "outsider" who really wants to get in one of these cars some day, I would say a little more weight would be a good thing.
It would slow the cars down, which, in my opinion, they need to be. Realistically, these are doing Atlantic times with Formula Ford frames and safety. If you raise the minimum weight, even 50 or 100 lbs, it would allow more room for mfgs to use side impact panels and other safety features that might otherwise be left out. I know more weight equates to more stress, but really most of these cars are very FC like, which weight a good 200+ lbs more so that really isn't a factor.
Look at the lap times compared to Atlantics...and look at the crash protection a 014 or 016 has. As the times are coming closer to FA times, more FBs will be in with the FAs, and contact potential increases. If the two come together, the FB will be the looser in that battle.
Little more weight = a little more safety. It's a good thing.
Just my 2 cents.
Also, as far as engines go...I think something really needs to be done to keep that from getting out of hand. Just because the 08 Suzuki is the engine of choice now, does not mean it always will be forever. If the class waits until the engine-of-the-week fear becomes reality it will be far to late to get the proverbial genie back in the bottle. Look at DSR...it looks like quite a few left for that very reason. Be proactive, not reactive after it is to late. When I tell people I want to go to FB, or talk about the class, the number one thing they say against FB is the engines. Both the tweak of the week, and the perception of them being hand grenades. If you want the class to continue to grow, and maybe even grow more, these are the issues that I see keeping people from migrating over to FB.
As another hopeful... custom ecu's with rev limiters. work really well in Zetecs. at Sixty, I no longer bounce, I break... impact protection is important. for the guys who are 'all in', perhaps a 'pro' series with more of an 'unlimited' rules mindset...more conservative rules for the hobby racers.... just maybe, that brings more cars to come out to play & FB gets its own run groups ... 'pro' on point, mere mortals following close behind...
"An analog man living in a digital world"
Agreed. Either you (a) go with the Suzuki so that when the proverbial genie stuffing occurs you are on the right side or (b) raise the bar, win a few big races and then get screwed by the political majority for taking a chance. Like most every decision made on the track---it's a risk v. reward thing.
Yes, a lot of new motorcycles come with some form of traction control. Although the most common mechanism (that really isn't traction control) is a rider optioned switch for variable conditions. A switch that adjusts engine and torque output based upon your decision as to whether wet weather conditions are called for or you just decide to have a calmer drive. Thus the three stage switch found on most of today's modern sport bike.
The true traction control system watches the front tire speed, rear tire speed AND lean angle. The demands for traction at full lean (and the much smaller tire patch) are VERY different than what one would find on a four wheeled vehicle. I've taken a close look at at least two brand's (Honda and Yamaha) traction control mapping and the parameters for bike traction and four wheeled traction are so different (and as far as I can determine not remapable) that I believe the concerns that have arisen about a bolt on traction control system using the OEM ECU are misplaced.
Clearly, after market ECU's could make this happen.
Hasty Horn
my 2 cents
Limiting engine ouput increases above current levels offers many benefits. It keeps older engines competitive, allows newer engines into the mix without forcing everyone to switch over every couple years, and limits the speed growth in the class which seems to be a concern. Individual inlet restrictors seem to be the best way to to that.
I will bow to Jay's knowledtge of flat plate restrictors vs shaped versions. I will pay for a couple of hours dyno time to evaluate them. I just want to get this thing settled, so eveyone can move forward with their engine programs for next year.
An open ecu rule is a bad idea. It will definately increase cost......custom wiring harnesses can run in the thousands (look at FA).....and traction control will be easier to do and harder to detect (power can be limited by varying timing....to the point it will not be audible to the ear). Some have said there is little or no power advantage to be had with an open ecu. That is not precisely correct. Playing with the igniton timing can offer some advantages.....and currently that is not allowed (only fuel curves can be altered). If we allow changing anything we want in stock ecu's, then little or no power advantage can be had over the stock ecu. Even modified the stock ecu is still a better option for the class because it can be easily checked for any changes by the factory software at any dealers service department (so traction control could be detected). At the runoffs, tech could impound the ecu from the top cars and easily have them checked.....not a big deal. That would be next to impossible with an open ecu.....and they are not neccessary to bring other engines into the mix. As Jay said, Moon has gotten the bmw ecu to work. I knew someone could and would.....it was only a matter of time.
Now to the speed/safety issue. Some (if not most) of our cars are much more crash worthy than earlier tube frame cars (and even lots of monocoques). Remember, the Stohr Dsr is a tube frame car (granted with stressed side panels)....and it has a much higher top speed....and no one seems concerned. Our top speeds have not gone up that much since the class started....but lap times have improved a bunch....and that will continue....although at a somewhat slower pace. So, I don't buy the need to slow the cars down.
However, I do not oppose limiting our speed growth....by engine restriction. Adding weight however, is not a good approach. It will do little to decrease top speeds. It will slow lap times.....but not nearly as much as some think it will. That assumes we are talking about reasonable amounts of added weight. If we go adding 75 or 100 pounds, then yes, a big affect.....but that becomes unsafe in itself due to problems involved with securing the weight (and we are not going to throw out the cars we now have and build all new ones with heavier tubing).
Most of this was discussed in great detail when the rules were orginally written, and overall they did a very good job. I see no need to revisit it all again. The restricitors accomplish the task of limiting speed increases (which is what scca is concerned about) and allows multiple competitive engines choices. I see that as a win/win.
I ran on a bit, so if you took the time to read this.....thank you.
Jerry Hodges
A couple things...
- The ECU reflashes alter both timing and fuel. This has been happening for at least 5 years now and seems to have passed muster with the rules.
- When we initially developed the rules, one of the initial weight limits proposed was 950 lbs. At the time, the logic was that if DSR can get to 900 lbs with a body on it, then 950 should be reasonably achievable in FB. We compromised and agreed upon 1000 lbs because F1000 = 1000cc m/c engines + 1000 lbs min weight. It was cool then and is still cool today IMHO!
I am voicing my opinion on this topic simply from the standpoint that I've raced in classes before where these two items were important issues. Obviously, those who are in the class or are currently building a car for the class should have the say on how these issues are solved. However, that doesn't mean some other viewpoints shouldn't be considered for topic of discussion.
1) Restricting engines through the use of IIRs will create issues if you are trying to achieve some resemblance of parity between engines of numerous manufacturers. Engine A "matched" to engine B won't be so hard. Introduce Engines C, D, E and F with perhaps very different cam specs and compression ratios and gearbox ratios and it's going to be a constantly moving target. All the required testing/development politics/bickering won't be a fun environment in which to compete.
2) While OPEN ECU's can get expensive, the hours spent in trying to develop a work around that produces the same result can, in some cases, be more expensive. Perhaps some engines are very easy to get an ECU to do what you want. Others, not so much. The IT classes had an ECU rule that attempted to keep control of costs. People with very large budgets spent way more than a MoTec would cost just to get the ECU in their BMW or Mazda to do what a MoTec could do.
Problems without solutions, yadda yadda, so here goes:
1) 5 year freeze on eligible engine years allowed. 2013 or older MY engines through 2017. In 2018 open it up to 2018 and older. This allows creep without an engine of the month or even year.
2) Allow a single make aftermarket stand-alone ECU with adequate but limited capabilities.
No different
I have been following FB pretty since its inception, reading posts, researching manufacturers etc. The bang for your buck is the best in FB in my opinion. You have modern and older udated cars (good old fashion racing ingenuity), technology and a very good start to a class that people from what i remember didn't put much stock into motorcycle engined cars.
I raced off and on the past 30 years, raced cars, motorcycles and snowmobiles, have not raced since 2000 due to a severe motorcycle racing crash and of course young kids. kids are getting older and i will race again whether it is in FB or something else. That being said, the arguments i read are and have been the same since i can remember, add weight, slow the cars down, limit this, limit that. It really is not going to do a whole lot to satisfy people. There will always be something to fight about because this chassis or motor is better than what i got. If you are changing something in the name of safety, that one thing, but to change it because some don't feel competitive with others and want to even up the field so they can be competitive, is wrong simply because this is not a spec class. when you have different chassis, engines available, there will be differences. It's why spec classes were created in all racing disiplines, so as to have an even playing field.
Times are getting faster from what i see, but i think it is more to do with the driver learning their cars, better car set-ups and people figuring out how to drive these cars. Motorcycle engines will reach a plateau, HP wise soon, there is only so much that a manufacturer will put in a stock off the showroom motorcycle, what will it be, 210, 215 HP, i think that will be about the limit. People cant use what they have in a 1 liter bike now, even on track days, they will never use it. 220, 230 or higher are religated to the $60,000 motorcycles. I really can't see a street motorcycle engine being able to have much more than 210 HP with reliabilty without it costing a small fortune.
The 07/08 suzuki's wil dry up as with other older manufacturers, you really have no choice but to progress to newer years and get them workable even if you have to open up to other than oem ecu's, otherwise you will end up spending alot more money rebuilding old stock and i am pretty sure, there is only so much these engines will take stress wise before they become un-useable. Engines electronics are getting more complicated and will continue to get worse as technology advances for use in these cars, if you don't have options to run them, you won't have a class in the future.
I raced with guys that spent $20,000 on one racing artic cat 600 engine, that was 10 years ago and guys who didn't have a pot to piss in, but it was fun for us who didn't have the big bucks or the factory money, the commeraderie, the friends and beating these big spending guys on occasion is what it was for me.
Personally, i would leave things as the are with the exception of opening up ecu's for a couple of years and see where motorcycle engines are headed HP and technology wise, or create FB-1 and FB-2. FB-1 would be current rules, open ecu's, FB-2 would incorporate weight increase, limit engine years to say 2010 and add a restrictor. HAPPY, HAPPY, HAPPY.
Anyway, had to put my 1 cent in. Now, just have to wait and see how this 2014 RFR 1000 and a BMW motor works out in this class, may have to sell my soul.
John
I am so impressed by the depth of knowledge, experience & insight here on Apex Speed. Where else can one learn so much, so fast from so many ? Kudos !
"An analog man living in a digital world"
ECU
If you want to keep the costs down (LOL) in relations to the ECUs only allow those that are offered as a factory race ECU. They are available from almost all of the bike manufactures and in most cases you cant tell the difference between the factory and the the factory race except for the part number. This would allow any motor to run that a competitor wanted. Its that simple.
This debate heats up every year after the runoffs just look at the history old posts.
What does it cost
to reflash an ECU if the motor is currently being raced? How about for a new model that has yet to race?
Thanks
Marty
There is almost never an immediate reflash available for a new model. It takes the after-market about a year to figure it out. This process is likely (but unknown by me) to be even longer for the more exotic engines (Aprilia, Ducati, MV Agusta, etc.).
The first opportunity to reflash the Yamaha R1 (2009) started at $600 but very quickly fell to $279.
My experience with the OEM Racing ECU's is that there is absolutely no physical way that one can tell it from the box stock standard ECU. The numbers found on the standard ECU have no trackable reference to the serial number of the engine or VIN of the originating motorcycle.
Hasty
Here's my 2 cents(again)- If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Everything seems to be A-Ok right now. The problem is with so many different opinions, when someone jumps up and says we need to change this, well you all know what happens next....
reflashing
The ecu can be reflashed for fuel curve without changing the ignition timing, or anything else, which is all the rule currently allows. Inputs to the ecu can be changed.
Jerry
Status quo may just be the right answer...
"An analog man living in a digital world"
They've been saying that since the CBX came out in 1978 or back when a production car could first go a mile a minute back in 19-ought-whatever.
As long as it sells bikes they will continue to play the HP / ET war. The street bikes spend the vast majority of their lives operating so far below their peak that they can afford to make some sacrifices to win the HP war.
I agree that it is time for an open ECU rule.
Philly Motorsports spent a lot of time trying to crack the Honda ECU as did some people in the Stohr camp with the BMW. Apparently both have been made to work after a lot of time and money, but why not just open up the ECU rule? Certainly future stock motorcycle electronics will just get more complicated which will make aftermarket ECU's even more appropriate.
I do not claim to be an expert, and it is possible that there really ARE significant advantages with a $20K Motec or other professional ECU, in which case the class could homologate, for example, ECU's from several manufacturers with a maximum retail cost of say $2500 or $5000. I believe the Haltech Sport 2000 is less than $2000, so, in my semi-open ECU rule, this and other comparable ECU's would be allowed. What do you guys think?
Theres
no reason for open ECUs outside of the the FACTORY OFFERED Race ECU. They all have them and for under 2k.
Why is this so difficult for everyone to grasp?
Even BMW has a race ECU and harness.
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)
That is correct!
The one thing everyone seems to forget in all these discussions is policing.
The easier it is to police the rules, the easier it is to incorporate them and the less expensive it would be to implement them.
Aftermarket ECU. Easy to police. Anyone can use one. So it would be a non-issue. Just limit the ones that are allowed. (I admit my preference is open ECU, even easier to police).
You want to make cars slower? Put weight on them. Simple. Cheap. Cost effective solution. Very easy to police. All ya need is some scales. Takes 2 minutes to check, Max.
You of course can add a boat load of unnecessary time, cost, and effort by going the other routes. But ask yourself, who's going to be the designated enforcer of those rules? We can barely enforce the limited ones we have in place now. Enforcement takes time, resources, personal, money. Want to spend hours after each race going through tear-downs on your car to make sure you are in compliance with the rules? Doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me.
There's plenty of room for this class to grow if we take sound solutions that are easy to implement as a group, and easy to enforce as a rule.
Keep it simple.
Restrictors I don't think will work very well. Not a good idea.
TC,
IMHO they were a massive fail in FA....the SIR for the 016 was around 4k, and some folks MAY have found a way to defeat the leak/ stop engine test with the dreaded ECU programming.....I know, hard to imagine that >>>
Regards,
Bill
Standing by my post #416...
There are some people who think that there is currently a problem.
I couldn't be happier to be moving to a class with good engine rules, good engine longevity, and sealed engines.
If I never touch an FB again, it will be too soon.
IIRs work fine and are currently used in numerous classes.
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)
Wren,
being serious. what do you feel are some of the biggest rule changes or for clarity of current rules that you feel should be implemented into the F1000 GCR ruleset for greater stability of the class now and its future potential.
Here's a controversial one - whats the problem with TC? Uh oh, what have I done
Seriously, I don't know and leaving the class means that I don't have to even care.
-Figure out how to make the engines last
-slow the cars down to get out of the atlantic field
-figure out how to make enforceable engine rules or just use DSR rules
Rules
Nick,
would it be premature to share what you have been discussing with Tom and Mike B. regarding the future USF1000 Championship rules would be for 2014 ?.
Maybe we can use the series to test and develop possible changes to the rules which then we will be able to prove they have been tested and results obtained.
regards
Jose
Step on the gas until you see the bright light..... THEN BRAKE HARD !
In regards to post #416: That's assuming that this class stays stuck in a time warp (like so many other SCCA formula car classes) and never advances beyond where it is now. I can also understand why someone would feel more comfortable existing in one of those other formula car classes, where everything is so safe, secure, and never changes.
It's not for me. I found the sameness of those classes boring and somewhat lifeless. That's why I left them. But to each their own. Everybody's different.
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. It's makes for good marketing to tell potential customers that your car weighs only "this much". But to complicate things by adding restrictors just so a couple of manufacturers can continue to brag about their weight (or the lack thereof), I guess I have to ask exactly who's interest are we serving? The class as a whole?
In regards to ECU's, this class has unique issues the other formula car classes don't have. Such as engine supply, development, etc. Most of the other formula classes are very advanced in their maturity and are pretty set as to their power plant. They have established formulas with very few engine choices, F1000 on the other handle is pretty wide open as to engine make. Another reason this class so overwhelming trumps the other formula car classes when it comes to interest.
Yet we keep pretending as if F1000 is exactly like some of those other formula car classes with their mature engine choices. We keep trying to restrict our options as if the engine choices have already be made for us. Why?
These issues are going to have to be dealt with eventually. There's no if's about it. I prefer to take a pro-active approach and not wait until the elephant falls on us before doing something.
We can continue to circle around these questions until we eventually decide to face them head on. Until then, we'll just keep chasing ourselves the room I guess.
-Figure out how to make the engines last
-slow the cars down to get out of the atlantic field
-figure out how to make enforceable engine rules or just use DSR rules
1 liter
12,000 RPM limiters
Normally aspirated
Pump gas
FB-1 and FB-2
I like your Idea regarding the FB-1, 2 possibility. It's the best of both worlds.Personally, i would leave things as the are with the exception of opening up ecu's for a couple of years and see where motorcycle engines are headed HP and technology wise, or create FB-1 and FB-2. FB-1 would be current rules, open ecu's, FB-2 would incorporate weight increase, limit engine years to say 2010 and add a restrictor. HAPPY, HAPPY, HAPPY.
I can also understand why a rep for the manufacturer that has a reputation for being a bit heavy would want to see weight added.
If restrictors can be made to work, they might actually do something to make the engines last longer.
Yep, there is a reason why the Firman is the only purpose-built FIA spec chassis in F1000. No denying that.
Jose, your idea has possibilities. I think the series would like to keep from straying too far away from the SCCA rules. Providing the SCCA doesn't take some crazy flyer off into the deep black abyss like it did with the shifters.
I just hope all this sudden discussion about a topic that has been around for 2-3 years without anything being made about it isn't a sign some hasty decision making is going on behind the scenes.
Still can't see the rational behind restrictors. So soon?
Wouldn't it be much more easier to explore the simpler solutions first?
I guess I just can't see why inflicting pain has to be the first option.
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.
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)
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. Haltech can do it for $4,500 - you supply the motor.
I spoke to Greg Moon, I will let him comment on his status on the BMW.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote