F1000 Rules Proposal Ramifications

[Mike B]

Dave,
You can count me among the elated, but I think you knew that. As I've stated, it will be a tech inspector's nightmare, and probably won't (can't?) be enforced at the regional level, but I think it's crucial to maintaining the F1000 class philosophy.

[JerryH]

I would like to touch on the wheel size issue again. If we only specify a max size, then we will see better funded teams taking advantage of 6/8" wheels at very fast tracks (lower drag) and the 8/10" ones at shorter tracks for better grip. That's why FA specs a given size - not a maximimum.

The extra cost of needing different size wheels at different tracks should be avoided by allowing only one size front and one size rear wheel. I believe the 6/8" is the best solution - lots of guys out there have them - why shuold they be forced to buy more wheels?

Jerry

[Charles Warner]

One group thinks that F1000 as written and submitted by the FSRAC is too fast, and thus too expensive/unsafe/etc. The 'other side' thinks that this is just what the doctor ordered - that there is a market for a slightly less expensive upgrade to FC. The truth is generally somewhere in the middle, right?

I have to reiterate - the F/SRAC DID NOT write or submit the rules. Please take note of this. These rules were submitted to the F/SRAC by a working group for our comments. To state or imply otherwise is clouding the issue and implying Club approval.

[Rick Kirchner]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but "all stock components" is an expensive dead-end this club has gone down many, many times before.

In Showroom Stock it lead to selecting matched parts from large stockpiles - don't have access to lots of parts, then you're second class.

Look at FF and FC. All stock components. It's very simple, to get more HP you up the RPM - and then the stock components become overstressed and fail. We finally have good rods and pistons only because the supply of crap was drying up.

Air cooled Super Vee was another exercise in this frustration.

It's totally false economics. If you don't have a way to restrict RPM through a limiter or SIR you'll just create another bunch of hand grenades - except this time there won't be a big supply of junkyard and crate motors for replacements. If you don't restrict the motor you might as well leave the componentry wide open and there will at least be an opportunity to fix the weak spots - and every engine will have different weak spots.

Granted, a bike motor is a lot closer to a purpose built race motor than something out of a passenger car, but that also means that it has less margin. I said it before a couple of years ago and I'll say it again - motorcycle manufactures figure that bike motors are going to have VERY short lifetimes. Either they're crashed out or ridden a couple of hours a weekend. They don't build them to go 100,000 mi.

And if you want to compare motors, stop looking at individual numbers and compare the areas under the curve.

[Lee Stohr]

Rick, my understanding is that SCCA can and may adjust an SIR at any time to try and keep engine costs down. I am guessing that they want to do that.
God knows we can't allow real race engines that include the gearbox/clutch/induction and electronics costing $13,000

Steve, what kind of corner speeds does a FC do at Road America ?
I can give some DSR speeds if you want. I think DSR might be pretty close to FC in the corners. It's a narrow car, but lighter and equal? downforce. DSR top speeds are not so amazing anymore. If you add downforce you loose top speed, but you reduce lap times. So we are usually willing to give up some top speed for improved lap times. You may not appreciate how delicate the balance is with a 1000cc engine. A couple little dive planes on the front fenders can kill 5mph.

[Marshall Mauney]

I have to reiterate - the F/SRAC DID NOT write or submit the rules. Please take note of this. These rules were submitted to the F/SRAC by a working group for our comments. To state or imply otherwise is clouding the issue and implying Club approval.

Charlie -
That's not what I intended by my post, although I can see how it's possible to read it that way. What I meant was:

"that F1000 as written - and submitted by the FSRAC - is"

My understanding was that it went 'through' the F/SRAC before being reviewed for approval. If I was wrong about that, accept my apologies.

[Matt Conrad]

I never liked the SIR idea, but I understand the thinking as the founders of this class wanted a way to restrict the spending on the motors without the nightmare of trying to enforce a "stock engine only" rule.

The unfortunate thing with the SIR is that it may actually reward someone for a ton of dyno time and spending to "get around it". From what I know from talking to George Dean and my engineer (who has a few years of MC-based engines running SIR's) is that any engine running the SIR proposed cannot physically run beyond around 10K RPM due to the SIR causing the MAP sensor to read "vacuum" or "partial throttle" while the throttle sensor is sensed as "wide open". The computer cannot accept these two opposing readings and retards the timing and throws a butt-load of fuel into the mix.....sort of a safe mode. Based on our calculations, no Ram-Air effect can overcome this situation and that only leaves some possible "electronics solutions"....like disabling the MAP sensor, an aftermarket ECU, or creative programming of the stock ECU.

I like the stock engine rule. The only problem is that it will be impossible to police unless the F1000 community would be willing to "annoint" a few regional engine builders across the country to be responsible for verifying the engines as "F1000 compliant" and place an official seal on the motors. Obviously this will ad some costs to the home builder who wants to do everything themselves, but seems reasonable if we could all agree on a price for the verification service. Manufacturers of cars could also certify that motors installed in F1000 cars were verified and sealed. Verification at the track is then fairly simple as the tech inspector needs to verify that the engine has its official seal and that is that. The only other option is for a protest to "tear-down" a suspect motor and that is just not an option.

For the record, we've dyno'd several stock motors at right around 155-160hp at the rear wheel.....as in one. This is plenty of power and we've ran that HP in one of our DSR rentals and no customer ever complained about a lack of power.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.

[S Lathrop]

Lee:

I don't have data for FC. I do have good data for FF. The difference in FF and FC times is almost solely in the corners and a much higher entry speed on to the streights. Generally the top end difference is because of accelerating form a higher speed. We know that a good FF can sustain 1.8 g's. I estimated an FC as approaching 2.5. I think the F1000 will be .2 to .4 better than a FC.


Matt:
If you are counting hands, I would vote for show room stock. The SIR might work if it does not restrict the engine very much.

What about a single source ECU? Engine components must remain stock. This may restrict the class to FI engines. In the IPS series, we return the ECU's prior to the event and then draw the one we get to run that weekend. IPS ECU have sufficient memory that they can down load a race and see what the engine was doing.

F3000 used a spec rev. limiter before they went to spec engines. Maybe that might work with a stock engine and ECU rule.

How does AMA run their stock engine classes?

I would be nice if several engines worked equally well.

[John Mosteller]

Steve,
The engine proposal that I posted earlier and sent to the CRB is the AMA stock rule which I will copy below again.The exception is that they allow the cylinder head gasket surface and the block gasket surfaces to be machined to increase the compression ratio.I removed that because the F1000 committee has been against changing the compression ratio.I think that AMA's reasoning that I happen to personaly agree with is that the different motors come with all different compression ratios stock and in order for all the manufacturers to have an even playing field they allow that.My personal feeling is that we should have a maximum compression ratio like FF or FC and let everyone bring theirs up to the same level.AMA doesn't specify any particular ratio.I think they basicaly control it with the fuel that everyone has to run will only allow them to run so high.We don't specify the fuel so would be better off specifing the ratio. I also added the electric or air shifter item as that came from the committee.

As far as one make ecu's I think that would only work with the motorcycles if you could restrict it to one make and model which will never happen because there would not be enough engines available and they won't sell new engines.The newest motorcycles run individual coil on plug ignitions fired by the ECU which makes it almost impossible to install an after market rev limiter.The different brands are running different makes of fuel injection systems,some have one injector per cylinder some a low speed injector and a high speed injector per cylinder.Some have a single butterfly per cylinder and some a primary and secondary butterfly per cylinder.The ones with two butterflys per cylinder have different systems.On some the secondarys are vacuum controled and others are servo motor controled.All that makes it very difficult or maybe impossible to have a single make ECU.All in all AMA stock classes have very close competition between the different makes under their rules.

I think that in most of the classes in SCCA the only way the engines can be technically inspected is by having it done by someone familiar with the specific engine.We have to many different engines in all the different classes to have your ordinary tech people at regionals be able to do anything.For the most part it is an honor system.SCCA is listing the rule and expecting you to be honest and follow them.Very seldom is an engine torn down at the regional level and if it is it is usually impounded and sent to a specialest with the particular engine.Only at the runoffs are the top runners torn down.There is always going to be a few cheaters no matter what the rule is.I personaly don't see how they can feel good about themselves when they cheat to get a little trophy but some do.In that respect the DSR rules are better,it is anything goes as long as they are 1005 cc or less.But there is very little interest in that for this class.

I am personaly for the AMA style rule where everything is stock.When all parts have to be stock and unmodified my feeling is if someone breaks the rule they know they are doing it and why they are doing it so the penalty should be banishment from SCCA compitition as there would be no doubt as to their intent.If all that is done is DQ them from one race and take a few illegal parts away there is not enough penalty to keep them from taking the risk.Whatever the engine rule ends up being there will be some that don't like it.Anyway below is my very slightly modified AMA superstock proposal.

[SIZE=2]Engine/Ignition modifications are limited to the following:

a) Except as noted, all internal and external engine parts must
remain stock with no modifications, metal removal, blueprinting,
or surface treatments.
b) Pistons, rings, piston pins, and circlips may be replaced only
with standard bore, stock production items. There is no
allowance for overbore.
c) Cam sprockets may be slotted solely for the purpose of altering
cam timing. Press-on cam sprockets may be replaced with
aftermarket steel bolt-on cam sprockets and adapters.
Aftermarket cam chain tensioners are permitted.
d) Light cleaning of gasket surfaces with steel wool, Scotch-Brite®,
etc. is allowed.
e) Cylinder head combustion chambers may be cleaned by bead
blasting with valves seated in place. Intake and exhaust ports
may not be bead blasted or cleaned with abrasive material
such as steel wool or Scotch-Brite®.
f) Valves must remain as produced with no modifications. Valve
springs may be shimmed with standard or aftermarket shims.
g) Valve seat inserts may be reworked or replaced with OEM or
aftermarket seats of original dimensions. Any dimensional
thickness of the stock inserts may not be increased. Aluminum
casting of cylinder head ports and combustion chambers must
remain absolutely stock, with no metal removal.
h). Gaskets may be replaced with aftermarket parts.
i) Clutch plates and springs may be replaced with aftermarket
parts.
j) Transmission gears may be shimmed only for the purpose of
proper engagement. Standard or aftermarket shims may be
utilized.
k) Shifter return or detent springs may be replaced with aftermarket
springs.
l) Electric-assisted gear change mechanisms are permitted.Shift
mechanisms operated through direct-acting electric actuators or
air shifters operated by electric solenoid are permitted.
n. Modifications to the stock starting and charging systems are
not permitted. Starters and complete charging system must be
in place, connected and functional before, during and after an
event. Charging systems must meet manufacturers minimum
output specifications, as listed in the service manual.
p. 49-State model engine and ignition components may replace
those same components on California-only motorcycles of the
same manufacturer, year, and model.
q. The complete ignition/engine control system must be the original
OEM parts for the model being used in competition except
as follows:
1a. Ignition timing may be altered by slotting the ignition trigger
mounting plate or replacing the stock ignition rotor with an
aftermarket rotor.
2a. Ignition control modules may be modified or replaced with
aftermarket modules.
3a. Spark plugs and plug wires may be replaced with aftermarket
parts.
4a. The original cooling system thermostat may be removed or
modified.
5a. All other parts, except as previously noted, must remain as originally
produced by the motorcycle manufacturer at the time of sale
to its dealer network.

[/SIZE]

[S Lathrop]

John;
Thanks for reposting the rules. Maybe it will take hold this time.

The AMA has been doing this for years. I think we should follow their lead. The only problem I see in this solution is that the power may be a bit on the high side.

I think we will need some type of limit on engine output.

For sure the prepartion rules should be the same as the AMA.

[Matt Conrad]

From my reading.....The AMA rules essentially keep the internals in the motor stock. I would add the ability to install a billet clutch basket and then I think you've got a useable car motor. I'm just guessing, but a motor like this would cost around $6,000 by the time you got your core and had a reputable engine builder go through it, alter the harness for car use and put it on the dyno. I would even think you could allow a set of aftermarket rods for those that would choose to have a more robust bottom-end....without altering the HP number.

For the record, we ran a stock GSX-R1000 with a billet clutch basket in our rental DSR and had it shipped back to George Dean for a look after 16 race hours.....he said he could have bolted it back together as it looked perfect inside. That engine used the wet-sump pan and Redline 40wt oil. That same car finished on the podium at PIR twice in CSR last year even though a post-race inspection showed that one of the toe-link spacers was upside down and was totally binding the right rear suspension...no wonder the car was ill-handling...

I'm just hoping that the decision on the engines is sensible and is made to reflect the desire of the founders of this class to keep the power down and the costs down. Even though the SIR seems like a good idea....but I think it is a can of worms that could cause higher costs later on as enterprising people will find ways around it.....new rules.....way around it.....new rules.....you get the idea....and each work around takes research, time and money that some won't be able to afford.

Many classes have engine rules that would require a complete tear-down to find "cheater parts" and they are doing fine. Nobody is going to tear down a motor at a Regional race anyway (I hope), so why can't we start this thing with no SIR....and a basically stock engine rule and make the penalty for cheating very severe.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.

[Anonymous Lee]

It never seems to amaze me how everyone strives for the simplest ruleset and the powers that be will make it as complex as they can. The AMA Supersport rules are the way to go and making the punishment for altering the internals draconian punishment is simply brilliant. If the powers be would have taken the time to speak to anyone who races in the motorcycle community they would have found out that “SIR’s DON’T WORK” they tried them and discarded that idea as a failed project.

The only down side to Supersport rules in car applications is the shift forks, slipper clutch and the transmissions are all suspect parts. The shift forks on the newer bikes have been redesigned and they do not lend themselves to car kit applications. The slipper clutches are a weak link and should be replaced with a billet basket. Lastly, the transmissions in the older bikes are more robust ( 04 Suzuki drops into an 06 )

Other then that the Supersport rules ROCK.

P. S. can someone on the committee explain to me how this project went from a class for older FC cars to where it is now? Everyone knows it's cheaper to buy an old car then it is to buy a new car. Right?

[MJM]

Lee:

What about a single source ECU? Engine components must remain stock. This may restrict the class to FI engines. In the IPS series, we return the ECU's prior to the event and then draw the one we get to run that weekend. IPS ECU have sufficient memory that they can down load a race and see what the engine was doing.

How does AMA run their stock engine classes?

If you don't go to a single source (no changes in programming allowed!) ECU you will end up with traction control and launch control in this class. Since you aren't doing standing starts the launch control won't do anything, but even with the low HP I think traction control would give an advantage.

During this years Laguna Seca motorcycle races they announced that since they couldn't accurately detect traction control software in different types of ECU's that they were just going to give up and make them legal. So these motorcycle engine ECU's with traction control are out there and you could probably get one at the end of the season if you know anyone in AMA.

[Rennie Clayton]

Perhaps Curtis Boggs would care to comment as to whether or not it is possible to modify the living hell out of the internals of an engine, and then acid / chemical etch the parts to return back to a stock appearance? If you think a "simple" set of rules that stipulates stock parts is the answer, it's already been proven by the various Showroom Stock style classes that that can of worms has no size limit. Unless you really want three days of impound at the Runoffs? The aforementioned techniques are quite expensive, I understand, which means that you've now created an even bigger gap between the haves, and the have-nots.

If you're pointing to an SIR and saying that it won't reduce cost, I humbly submit that you're missing the point. The SIR intrinsically is not intended to reduce costs - it's intended to reduce the effectiveness of throwing truck loads of money at the engine. If the rules are unlimited, throwing $20k at an engine can get you 20-30hp over the field, and it can put a mediocre driver atop the podium. If there is an SIR involved, throwing $20k at an engine will get you maybe 5-10hp, which some will argue is still an advantage, but I say it's an advantage that can be overcome by an enterprising shoe-stringer who sets his car up a little better, and drives a little smarter.

Anonymous Lee, I hear you yelling that the AMA folks will tell us that "SIR’s DON’T WORK" - they're also likely to tell us that dainty shift forks and slipper clutches are demon tweeks. What works on a bike, or what doesn't work on a bike, and how those same pieces of equipment work on a car are in many cases two entirely different things, as you have already pointed out. There's a crowd here that's taken a single dyno day with the SIR and are proclaiming that the sky is falling because we haven't immediately been on the numbers expected. Why don't we wait and see if there's a workaround for the ECU "limp home" issue that's being seen before we declare it dead and buried?


Cheers,
Rennie

[Lee Stohr]

Rob Lav said the original committee proposal always included new chassis construction.

The original impetus was never just "to provide a place for older FC cars to play in a regional group". The original impetus was partially that, but it also included clear provision for new chassis construction. The idea was to obtain the class' initial growth through FC conversions and then continue that growth through new chassis. We always had the belief that Stohr, Speads, Gloria, etc might join the mix. Our hope was that it would also eventually become a National Class through normal SCCA regulation.

[markbakhit]

"IF", and I repeat IF the engines must be slowed down and governed. AMA superstock rules are the way to go. Just think of how many STOCK PARTS are available. Just that alone will affect engine cost. Every engine builder has tons of pistons, rods and internal parts. I don't think the SIR will work though. We have CV carbs, FlatSlide carbs and Fuel injection. Has anyone tried these three intake configurations? Some fuel injection models now have two 2 injectors per cylinder.

And cutting costs, whatever someones engine budget is will get spent even with restrictors, there will just be more time and money spent on the Dyno and lots of development costs to squeeze every inch of power out of these machines because the SIR is redesigning the wheel. The power that comes from these 1000cc engines is because of the combination that the manufacturers came up with. When Nascar added their restrictors, (to slow them down and run even on a superspeedway), their engine budget almost doubled because of the huge development costs to get a race engine to make power and run good with a restrictor that it was not designed for. So stock parts is the way to go if we need to govern the engines, but what I really wanted was to keep F-1000 engine rules the same as DSR rules so that you could go back and forth to either class, and I wanted all the power I could get!

I dont think restricting the engines either way will let them live longer. Failures occured because something was wrong; oiling, cooling, or preperation issues and miscalculations. There arent many casses when a DSR engine expired because it had reached the end of it's service life. When everything is right, these engines run along time.

The other huge factor that everyone keeps forgetting, a DSR engine is not just an engine, mind you that your engine price includes a transmission, a six speed sequential transmission. In other SCCA classes, how much is the cost of a race engine and a sequential 6 speed race transmission w/clutch?

cheers,

mark

[RobLav]

I see a lot of good comments here (after returning from Lime Rock over the weekend).

Matt Conrad's position is mine too:

"Many classes have engine rules that would require a complete tear-down to find "cheater parts" and they are doing fine. Nobody is going to tear down a motor at a Regional race anyway (I hope), so why can't we start this thing with no SIR....and a basically stock engine rule and make the penalty for cheating very severe."

or - the AMA Superbike rules are fine too...

So who is offering F1000 kits so far? Matt, Lee, - how about Steve? I'll be looking.


Rob

[S Lathrop]

Rob;
Both Don and I have FC designs of proven competitive performance. The questions is if the rules have been written in such a way as to obsolete the fundamental FC design?

The question I have is about F1 style stepped noses. This technology came about because of rule restrictions that are not in effect for F1000. In particular the size and placement of the front wing and the shape of the under side of the car. Will F1000 cars need stepped noses or is it a styling feature that has no consequence? Does the F1000 need all the down force possible with the design or will streight line speed dictate the final shape. The wider side pods will add significant cost but are only a fraction of the cost of a new frame and complete body to cover it.

At the end of the day, it will be the winner that sets the style.

In any event, I hope to offer a rear end assembly that will be a bolt in replacement for the bell housing and transmission as used in current FC's (VD in particular). New control arms will probably be necessary but uprights and drive shafts will be retained. That project starts the Monday after the new FC leaves my shop. Richard has already produced the chain drive differential, which is dimensionally closer to the LD 200 and only 12 lbs (for real). We are looking at variations on the diff. design that will cut the weight to as little as 8 lbs.

I will wait to see what the class really requires before I start a new car. If FC derived designs do the job, I have a product along with Don, VD and others.

[eospeed]

So is everyone going to change the engine package in there car every 3 years as motorcycle builders come out with better engines?Because you know every 3 years 1000 cc bikes make 5-10 more hp.An you cant just buy the engine when a new bike comes out you have to buy the whole bike an part is out.Thats going to get expensive.


Erik

[Lee Stohr]

I hadn't thought of that, but yes, when stock engines are required then you will have to have the latest engine. In DSR a 1999 Yamaha R1 has won the Runoffs for the last 4 years. It has a good chance to win again this year. It would not be competitive in F1000. I expect the 2005 and up Suzuki and the 2004 and up Kawasaki will be the main choices in F1000.

[Mike B]

If I'm not mistaken, this is where the SIR comes in. If the top end is limited to around the power of a present-day GSXR (for example), and the 2008 CBR is 10 hp more (for example), there is no reason to upgrade because the SIR will limit the CBR to present-day hp levels. Of course you CAN upgrade, but those of us who choose not to will still be competitive and that shiny new CBR (or whatever) won't do you much good.

New bike engines will be available within hours of the first new bikes being available. That will never be a problem as long as there are brave young men with more money than riding ability.

[formulasuper]

Ref note: A quick Ebay search results currently list 8 GSXR 1000 05-06 engines & 8 pre 05 engines for sale.

[Chas Shaffer]

Engine availability and engine of the week/year has been a great concern to me which is why I asked about availability earlier. Mike, you can't buy a 2006 Suzuki engine new from a dealer and I think any new class based on wrecked engines is foolish. I can't wait to see the finger pointing that'll come from this. Today drivers complain about 2-3 hp differences saying the top guys get the HP. Every year once the dominant engine is figured out, those with money will be buying new engines (bike and all). As it stands every year there will have to be rule changes for 4 or more different engines. I've seen how hard it is to achieve engine parity with the zetec, equalizing MC engines will be a nightmare due the number of manufacturers and frequency of change. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding AMA does not try to achieve parity. How much faith do you have in the Formula Car Advisory Committee or Comp Board to get these right every year. If you think they will then you are being extremely foolish.

I'm surprised no one has brought up Jeremy Hill's old car. It was a motorcycle powered old FC utilizing some very old chassis and aero technology yet it was extremely fast especially in a straight line. I have to say I didn't notice where my pinto torque helped me against it. I doubt this engine in a modern day FC chassis will achieve FA lap times but I'll bet you it'll match FA top speed pretty close and that's the concern. Fahan, Silver and I were hitting 150 - 151 mph in our pinto FC's at Pocono a few weeks ago. Just how fast do you want these tube cars to go?

I'll admit the concept sounds cool and I'm enjoying watching the engineers circle like sharks sensing the smell of new car sales and a new engineering project in the water but I still don't think we can afford a new class in SCCA unless some others are taken away. Modern engines are legal now in FC and FSCCA so I'm still struggling to see why we need this. European envy and more speed do not seem like a solid foundation on which to base a new class.

Formula 1 engine technology in a 96 VD... I love it. Now that's bleeding edge. Sort of sounds like dressing a pig in a versace.

[Matt Conrad]

Based on what I read as to the recommendation to the BoD, the SIR has been shelved (but held out as a future alternative) and the engine is now stock with a stock ECU (which can be re-mapped). I didn't see anything about the clutch and I'd be pretty disappointed if the use of a billet clutch basket was not allowed.....for reliability purposes only.

As for HP based on the above, I'm pretty sure 160-165hp would be the max out of current engines.

As for Jeremy Hill's car....I believe his motors were fully built GSX-R1000's with a big-bore kit that would make them illegal in F1000. I'd be surprised if those motors were doing less than the 200hp area.

As far as front and rear crush structures go....I don't think the rule regarding the use of stressed panels applies as the crush structures are not an integral part of the chassis. I could be wrong. Regardless, if putting riveted aluminum crushable stuctures on the front and rear of the car for the sole purpose of safety is ruled illegal....then I won't race the damn thing in SCCA.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, Inc.

[RobLav]

Matt,

The rules said clutches are free.

[Art Smith]

To:crb@ssca.org
Subject: September Fastrack - item 10: SIR
Date: Aug 23, 2006 8:28 PM
Attachments: SIR input to CRB 08-23-2006.JPG

Sirs:
This letter is written to urge that the SIR glossary definition appearing in theSeptember Fastrack be revised prior to the implementation date of January 01, 2007. as written, the definition is not objectively verifiable and probably not accurately/repeatably implementable. the attached enclosure includes the text of item 10 as it appeared in Fastrack, recommended improvements, and the supporting rationale for the changes. If SIR's are to have any chance of being accepted by the membership the rules must be objectively verifiable and the verification methods perceived as both accurate and reliable. it's my sense there's no chance the rules as written are implemented and verified in the same manner when comparing any two venues.

Arthur E. Smith
artesmith@earthlink.net