Rules proposal as of 8/8/06

[racer27]

Has the perfomance goal for this proposed class/car shifted? I originially thought it was ment to be equivilant to FC, now I'm reading "Between FC & FA". IMHO the performance objective needs to be nailed down, before derterminations are made on how to reduced engine HP. Detailed discussions about SIR, body width, wheels, wt, etc all hinge on fixing that goal.

[RussMcB]

We need to pitch in and buy a 23mm sir and send it to any builder w/ a dyno.

Sean, what are your (and others') thoughts about how to connect the SIR to carbs or injection intakes? Someone stated to me verbally not too long ago that building a proper air box is not a simple task. It made me wonder if people considering F1000 were also keeping that in mind as they're thinking about things that need to be done for their projects.

Just tossing that out for discussion ...

[sidney]

It is interesting to se how the data is presented to focus the discussion in a certain direction. Lee says 151 at the rear wheel, and Rob says 195 -- but that's at the crank. These are apples and oranges -- not the same numbers. Also, with the airbox design open (which I like) you are not restricted to the same envelope that the bikes have, and you can create more power than stock just by changing the characteristics of the box. You can make improvements just by sealing the box better than when it comes off the line from Suzuki!

How much does a front running Pinto put out on the dyno, at the crank? I don't want to get into another discussion about what the efficiency of the drive on a chain versus a mechnical transmission is, because everybody has data that supports his own theory. I've got mine from HD that says they use 80-82%. I'm sure there are many other numbers between 93 and 65% that people can point to. I don't care about the rear wheel power estimates, because part of the engineering is putting the power to the ground most efficiently and you enter into the magic discussion about what the drive loss is.

I'm not a big fan of dyno traces from folks trying to sell aftermarket exhausts and ECUs because they are trying to promote the biggest gains for their products and you can always find the one bike that is on the low end of the tolerances before and on the high side afterwards.

I thought the goals were to have a car close to FC power with less weight, thus making it theoretically safer (less mass), and at the same time a little quicker for less cost.

Now we have some builders that have cars desinged for DSR that they want to sell into F1k. Great, the more the merrier, but becasue the cars were not necessarily designed to be run open wheel they would like to have more power (they are already designed the chassis and rear drive line for these elevated power levels in DSR and CSR) and more power allows them to take advantage of a wider car/chassis and the related air manipulation. Obviously someone has a good feel for what a current FC makes, what's wrong with limiting the power to this level? Might make it tougher to convert a DSR with big tires, because now the car needs to be skinnier (is that a word?) with less power availble, but wasn't that the original intent before new car sales were flashing before eveybody's eyes?

Sean has a great car, with what he feels is plenty of power and lots of room for development. Correct me if I'm wrong Sean, as I often am! If the motor stays stock, then that's fine, if you run a SIR, make the power levels close to +/- 5% of a top pinto motor (at the crank) in stock bike motor trim. It may even make it possible to run an unrestricted inlet twin instead of a 4 cylinder (my personal choice) and make equivalent power.

I like the modifed AMA rules posted above, and have submitted them to the CRB. As for the SIR, if the rules are set to include it, at least give us equal power to a top Pinto, or people with be unmotivated to make the jump. I'm sure someone would be willing to dyno a stock motor with the SIR to to size appropriately.

Remember, I failed Engineering and was moved to Marketing, so I'm sure this is all a load of rambling bull.

Ian

[Stan Clayton]

We need to pitch in and buy a 23mm sir and send it to any builder w/ a dyno. Heck, even a motorcycle could have the sir installed for testing on a chassis dyno... then we would know what effect the sir has. If it limits hp to 135 and rpms to 9500 it will take a good idea (F1000) and ruin it. Personally, I'd just run my car like it is in FS before throwing out that boat anchor.

How much is that sucker? If everyone on the F1000 committee would agree to split it, I'm in for my share. If it does not kill my stock motor (hp & revs) then send it to me and I'll pay everyone back.

Don't spend any money, guys. SCCA has already ordered one for engine development. Stan

[Lee Stohr]

Mike,
As a member of the SRAC, we got to review a set of rules already written for F1000.
I had no comment except questioning whether the SIR wiould save any money. The basic idea that I assume you all want is FC with bike motors. I totally accept that, even though little of our DSR chassis can be used in F1000 now. Richard and Art have some good points regarding poor wording of the current FF chassis rules.
I am just one member of the commitee - we just send our comments on to the high ups. We don't actually write anything, we don't write any rules, we just comment.
Our comments are not always accepted. Sometimes we get no feedback regarding the comments we pass on. There is value to the SCCA to have people on the commitee with 25years or more of experience in various SCCA classes. For the most part, being on committees is just a lot of work, a lot of reading and pondering, lots of emails. I don't think we have any more influence on the rules than any well reasoned member letter. We have no greater access to the Comp Board than anyone else, you can find their email and phone numbers.

[John Mosteller]

In my opinion if you had the same crankshaft HP as the FF2000 pinto you will be quite a bit slower because the pinto has two times the torque as the 1 Liter bike engines.Also if you target the same lap times as the FF2000 it would put it in direct competition with FF2000.In order for this class to go anywhere it needs to be a step above.If it will only be FF2000 speed then I would just put on wings and a 2L pinto in my FF and forget about F1000.

[sidney]

If you have similar power, less torque but 200 lbs less weight, does that make you more competitive? I don't know the answer, but I'm willing to find out. If it turns out to be a dog, I'm sure the board would look at a change, like the ECU for Zetec, to make things better. I go back to earlier posts -- make it a claimer class -- We swap motors, mine for yours + $2000. Not too many people will want to sink $10K into a motor if they can lose it for $2k!

You're always going to have somebody who wants to cheat to win a stupid plastic trophy. I just want to be able to race with a group of guys with very similar power levels, and let my preparation and driving determine who wins. You can keep the trophy regardless!

[VehDyn]

With all due respect, I have heard the claimer rule come up on this forum and others before. I think that rule screws the guys it is supposed to protect. Sure, the guy who spends 10-15k on a motor loses out to the first guy that raises his hand, however, the guy that puts in his own time on his engine loses out too. You know the tinkerer that likes to work on their own stuff as well as may not have the funds to pay an engine builder? That guy gets screwed more as his time is lost. The claimer may just be the lazy guy that doesn't want to do the work, so he screws the guy that did. The whole concept strikes me as a kind of racing engine welfare system. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Ken

[sidney]

There are plenty of things you can change on the car. Why is it so difficult to leave the engine bone stock as it came out of the donor bike? Spend money on a HANS, or some other area of the car. The goal of this class is to cut costs, and one of those major costs is in the development and maintainance of the motor. Sean seems to be doing fine with a stocker GSXR, if you want to tinker with the motor, drive a DSR, but then again, that was a "tinkers" class and now where is it?

Ian

[VehDyn]

First of all, DSR is growing. You read the doom and gloom, but it is growing steadily from what I have seen.

This illusion that some may have that you can take an engine from a wrecked bike and pray and hope it lasts without a going through is perhaps flawed. That is my time and effort to check it out, replace what is wrong, and even tune it to the rules (ie restrictor). If you dont want to go through the process and just take the bike from the yard, more power to you. Just don't take my hard work away from me.

Even if the class has no SIR, it would take effort to make the "system" work effectively in a package it was not designed to work within, right? Oiling system, airbox, etc.

Funny thing is I am not an engine guy. My area is chassis. So I am at a disadvantage with respect to tuning and such. But I just think the concept of a claimer rule is flawed as there will be some guy that brings a junkyard motor to teh last race before the runoff just to screw some guy that worked hard for his car. If a claimer rule is good for the engine, why not the dampers, etc?

If you want a spec motor, I think there are classes out there too.

Ken

[sidney]

It sounds like we are agreement. I like the AMA rules discussed earlier. I'm not a fan of million dollar cranks and billion dollar rods. I agree that some limited "blueprinting" will be necessary. I am also very intrigued with what could be done with the airbox (with or without the SIR).

As for the runoffs, I think we are 7-10 years from national class status, if you use the national class through numbers system.

[Anonymous Lee]

"Don't spend any money, guys. SCCA has already ordered one for engine development." Stan

Shouldn’t that work have been done prior to the rule making process?

Let me take a guess the SIR is at Loynings and the land of the $14,500 national championship motors.


Hopefully we will see the information as well from people like Woody and George Dean regarding SIR

Has anyone communicated with people in the motorcycle community, they tried SIR on their bikes and they lasted about a year before everyone realized that they were a nightmare.

I hope that Stan is right, that SIR is a cost savings device but I fear that it is really a horsepower limiting device that will run up the costs.

Willing to be wrong, but hoping your right.

[RobLav]

My view - the SIR is a horsepower limiting device that will raise costs. Therefore, it goes against the lower cost philosophy of the F1000 class.

I sent a lengthy input to the CRB this morning. John's AMA engine rule package and discussions here with Richard were part of it.

Anonymous Lee - would you mind letting us know who you are? Your input and comments might be seen to have higher value here.

Thanks,

Rob

[ny_racer_xxx]

I assume everybody is aware of what direction the SCCA is going with respect to the F1000 class? Builder class ala DSR. What was a simple conversion, make use of dusty FC cars, will now be another $60k plus car....
I guess all you need is a bunch of cash to give the SCCA to start you're own class....

Anybody for Formula CR??

CR

[Charles Warner]

I assume everybody is aware of what direction the SCCA is going with respect to the F1000 class? Builder class ala DSR. What was a simple conversion, make use of dusty FC cars, will now be another $60k plus car....
I guess all you need is a bunch of cash to give the SCCA to start you're own class....

Anybody for Formula CR??

CR

Your subtle and disparaging comments notwithstanding, how do you know the direction the SCCA is going? All you see here are the comments of a small part of the formula car community. Write the CRB with your comments. Since you choose to remain anonymous I have no idea whether you've made your feelings known to the CRB. As has been said earlier, if you identify yourself you might be taken more seriously.

[Anonymous Lee]

Since you choose to remain anonymous I have no idea whether you've made your feelings known to the CRB. As has been said earlier, if you identify yourself you might be taken more seriously.
FATTO GATTO

Charlie, If you look up and to the left you can see that he is registerd.

Chris Reinhardt, 43 NY ny_racer_xxx@yahoo.com

he does bring up a good point, it started out as an FC convertion idea for older FC and turned into an all togeather different idea.

[Charles Warner]

You are right. I did not notice the registration.

He may have a good point. In fact, I think he has an excellent point - one I have been espousing in other threads for a while. However, it is far better to make it to the CRB than cast aspersions about a "direction" when the Club has not said anything official. The only rules bandied about are the "recommendations" made by the Think Tank and the suggested revisions. To state that all one has to do is write a check to influence the Club is, IMO, uncalled for.

[Anonymous Lee]

Perhaps this has more to do with a racecar being made on a “recommendation of rules” before the rules have even been hammered out. This jump to build could be seen by some as a way of ensuring that the original FC conversion idea will never see the light of day.

His disgruntled statement although uncalled for should be seen as a sign.

You are correct, he should make his opinions known to the CRB. But instead of defending the Club and the F/SRAC and putting him down for having a view, tell him how to send his views to the CRB.

Identify who you are and what you drive. Include lic. Number if possible email to crb@scca.com

You are a member of the F/SRAC “think tank” Charlie, explain to me how a builder can build a car for a class that has no definitive rules and in a round about way effect the outcome of the “proposed class”. That might be why Chris Reinhardt could be a little suspect of the organization.

Or is that "Think Tank" separate from the F/SRAC.

[Charles Warner]

Perhaps this has more to do with a racecar being made on a “recommendation of rules” before the rules have even been hammered out. This jump to build could be seen by some as a way of ensuring that the original FC conversion idea will never see the light of day.

His disgruntled statement although uncalled for should be seen as a sign.

You are correct, he should make his opinions known to the CRB. But instead of defending the Club and the F/SRAC and putting him down for having a view, tell him how to send his views to the CRB.

Identify who you are and what you drive. Include lic. Number if possible email to crb@scca.com

You are a member of the F/SRAC “think tank” Charlie, explain to me how a builder can build a car for a class that has no definitive rules and in a round about way effect the outcome of the “proposed class”. That might be why Chris Reinhardt could be a little suspect of the organization.

Or is that "Think Tank" separate from the F/SRAC.

John,

I agree with what you say. I too find it strange that anyone should start investing tremendous amounts of resources before any firm rules are established. I do not put down anyone for having a view. A negative and denigrating view - unsupported - is not, IMO, on form. I am not defending the Club - they have done nothing so far. The F/SRAC has done nothing but make recommendations to the CRB. They are at liberty to ignore us, and often do.

The Think Tank that came up with the F1000 rules proposals has NOTHING to do with the F/SRAC. They are a self-directeed group of interested individuals. There are/have been similar groups involved in the Zetec conversion and the direction of FF. Again, there is NO cross-over or common members of any of these groups and the F/SRAC.

We should all write the CRB with our cogent views on the directions we want this class, and formula racing in general, to take. Not a lot of letters so far.