Clutch Issue

[Matt Conrad]

It was brought to my attention a ways back that it was possible that we were going to be protested for running a billet clutch basket in our F1000 engines. The contention was that the rules stated that the "clutch is unresricted" and that the basket was not really part of the clutch...it only carried the clutch discs.

The May Fastrack seems to clarify this issue as the sentence has been changed to read "clutch assembly is unrestricted".

I'm happy this was clarified because the original intent was to allow billet clutch baskets as they do not increase the performance of the engine and only add to the reliability.

FYI....There was another change listed that requires the transmission gears to be stock.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[R. Pare]

"Stock" in what manner?

"Stock" as in just that it has to be a factory gear?

Or "stock" in that it has to be a factory gear with zero work done on it? ( No REM polishing, lube impregnating, cryogenic treatments, no ultrasonic vibratory stress relieving, hand deburring, whatever?)

BIG differences there!

[Matt Conrad]

That is a good point, but I thought the GCR (don't have it with me) has a section that allows those types of treatments....."unless they are SPECIFICALLY prohibited by the class rules".

I highlighted the word specifically because to me that reads that there must be a written exclusion....not "if in doubt, don't".

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[R. Pare]

Prove that someone had "doubt" ! The "if in doubt..." is only an advisory to be cautious, NOT an enforcable rule!

What I'm trying to get the people who continually write these vague rules to start thinking about is what indeed the possible interpretations could be, BEFORE it gets published.

In this case, the F1000 rules specify that the motor internals must be "stock" ( which would obviously preclude REM, etc), but do not specify that for the transmission, so I would suspect that the original intention wasn't to restrict playing with the tranny internals. However, now that they have introduced the word "stocK" in pertaining to the gears, one would have think that the same restriction applies to these "stock" gears as pertains to the "stock" engine internals - you HAVE to apply the same descriptive word in the same manner within a set of rules. In the case of the engine, that would preclude the fitting of "upgraded" parts from a different model year of the same engine line if that exact part wasn't available in the subject engine during the period of original manufacture.

Also, since the rules do not specify that "stock" transmissions have to be used, why the restriction on what gears can be used? If, for instance, a gear of a different ratio from a different year model of the same line of transmissions can be bolted right in, is that "stock" gear still "stock"? If it didn't come equipped in that model year transmission in the first place, how can it possibly be considered "stock"?

So, again I ask: What is "stock" in this case?

[Greg Mercurio]

Last time I looked at a bike clutch the ears on the clutch disc transfered the rotational energy through the eges of the clutch basket slots. Kinda makes it part of the clutch?

[carnut169]

I don't see how using a stock 07 piston in a stock 04 motor would be any more of a violation then running a stock 07 motor, assuming that no maching had to be done. I'm not sure that is even possible (or if it would make any sense) but what about running a new head on and older block? (again, might not be possible) To me that is simply updating an older engine to current specs.


If you talk to engine builders the billit basket is an unecessary expense. I've been running for 2 years w/o one and have yet to have any clutch wear issues.

[R. Pare]

Sean:

You are both right and wrong on the engine internals interchange. Which one in the end comes down to exactly what they mean by "stock".

Off the top of my pointy head, I can think of three very valid meanings, with all in conflict with the others:

1 - "stock" means anything from the factory, in the exact condition as it comes from the factory. This allows interchanging of components regardless of what year engine it was intended for.

2 - "stock" means that it has to be a part supplied from the factory specifically for that model and year engine, and it has to be in factory-supplied condition. This would preclude any interchange of components from one model line to another and any modification.

3- "stock" means only that it is a factory-issue component. Modification is permitted. Model year interchange is permitted.

So. Which is it?

[Daryl DeArman]

Not sure you (the FB group) want to go down that slippery slope mix-matching components from various years and models to create their own "stock" motor, which would allow for a specific combination that never existed from the factory.

Updating/backdating components is common in some other classes, but the updating/backdating must be of "complete assemblies"--have fun with that one Richard and must not result in the creation of a model that didn't exist.

If the pistons, for example, are indeed identical from a 04 and 07 motor than the 07 pistons you put in the motor really are 04 pistons

[RobLav]

I don't think we want to get into this updating / backdating stuff at all. You could find a head with less combustion chamber with a piston from another year that has the largest area above the block, etc. then find the engine that had the biggest camshafts, etc. I see a problem here with finding the best matches of crankshafts, connecting rods, and pistons. There is probably a lot to gain. Not my idea of "stock".

My perspective on the engine rule that all internal components must remain stock is that the entire engine, as manufactured, must remain the same as when it was built (except for the allowed changes that are explicit).

If we can update /backdate, then why couldn't I pick the best parts across the different manufacturers? All the parts would be "stock", but they were not originally assembled that way. I could use the 5 valve Yamaha head with a long stroke Kawasaki crank and the high lift Suzuki cams. They would all be "stock!"

So... I am arguing against this swapping stuff. It's a real can of expensive worms.

[fastrnu]

I don't think we want to get into this updating / backdating stuff at all. You could find a head with less combustion chamber with a piston from another year that has the largest area above the block, etc. then find the engine that had the biggest camshafts, etc. I see a problem here with finding the best matches of crankshafts, connecting rods, and pistons. There is probably a lot to gain. Not my idea of "stock".

My perspective on the engine rule that all internal components must remain stock is that the entire engine, as manufactured, must remain the same as when it was built (except for the allowed changes that are explicit).

If we can update /backdate, then why couldn't I pick the best parts across the different manufacturers? All the parts would be "stock", but they were not originally assembled that way. I could use the 5 valve Yamaha head with a long stroke Kawasaki crank and the high lift Suzuki cams. They would all be "stock!"

So... I am arguing against this swapping stuff. It's a real can of expensive worms.

If you start mixing and matching the stroke and bore, you're going to be changing the displacement of the engine. You'll be either going over and be illegal or you could be under and losing the valuable displacement.

Now, if you were to go ahead and do something like what you mentioned above, firstly, you would pretty much have to manufacture a custom block to be able to accept the head and crankshaft, and this is if the cylinder spacing is exactly the same for both. Next, with a longer crank, you would probably use the con-rods and pistons that were mated to it to maintain the same displacement. However with a bigger stroke, you need a smaller bore... a smaller one than the yamaha has, which could then cause the cylinder liners to shroud the outside edges of the valves.

So all in all, in order to get something like this to work, you'd need engines with the same bore, stroke, and cylinder spacing to accomplish this. There would be no point in not using the components that were designed to be used with one another. The piston crown works well with the cylinder head and the piston size works with the length of the crank throw; plus the weight is already balanced. I don't see why anybody would try something like this as they would just be wasting time and money for no real gain.

[R. Pare]

All this side speculation about swapping engine internals is fine and dandy, but missed the point:

WHAT THE HELL DOES "STOCK" MEAN????????????????