SIR Discussion

[RussMcB]

Okay, I'm convinced (at least until I hear equal arguments for the SIR). I've heard enough knowledgeable folks, like George Dean, say that the SIR is a terrible idea. I've been swayed.

I still hope that something is implemented so that you are not forced to choose between steadily losing ground to the latest engine or buying one, along with everything that goes with that (chassis changes, ancilliaries, etc.).

An idea suggested by several is to do something like only allow 2007 & older engines for a few years, or only allow engines at least 2 years old. One great thing about those options are engines will be substantially cheaper.

[rickjohnson356]

FB owners are touting the availability of $2500 bike motors.

So you can put a new one in every year for a minimum of $1000 less than a pinto rebuild.

Sounds like a cheap (for a race car) way to keep the motor current and get all the latest factory improvements.

Didn't Sean O. get 2 years on his first motor before it grenaded? He did well in SEDIV with his car.

What does Mr. Dean get for a 'full race' built motor?

[RussMcB]

You're overlooking some costs, Rick. For instance, you probably can't simply bolt in a 2007 engine where a 2005 engine was installed. Motor mounts, sprocket locations are probably different. Your dry sump system may not fit on the new engine (especially if a flying rod altered it). New (modified) wiring harness will be needed. Header? Air box? Changing a chassis for a different motor could be expensive.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just pointing out some things that make it less simple and cheap.

[ghickman]

Russ
You are 100% correct. The motor mounts on the 2007 GSXR have moved from the cylinder head down to just below the parting line of the head. This in my view is an improvement.

I feel (and George Dean shares this opinion) is that all we need to do to keep engine costs in check is to have a YEAR LIMIT. EXAMPLE: We make the cut off for the next 3 years at a 2007 being the newest engine you can install.

Simple Solution...

Gary Hickman

[RobLav]

We debated a two year moratorium in our rules committee a while back...

[Jon Jeffords]

Some off-topic trivia info:

Quote: "Power is the RATE of making torque."

This is incorrect. In his article "A Lesson in Basic Vehicular Physics" in Automobile Magazine, Frank J. Winchell (retired vice-president, engineering staff at General Motors) wrote: "Power is the rate of doing work, but torque ain't work."

He goes on to say "Power is everything. You can get it in any combination of speed and torque you want. With enough transmission, I can produce the torque to drive a tank up Pikes Peak with my electric razor. It will just take a while. If we want performance, we want torque and rpm, thrust and speed, ie power."

Russ: the peak horsepower number is of more value to land speed record applications or those vehicles with CVT's. For road racing applications with manual transmissions, you must generate a thrust curve that charts Thrust (pounds) versus Vehicle Velocity (mph) for each gear in the transmission (assuming a given sprocket ratio and wheel circumference. This will allow you to compare engines on an apples-to-apples basis across their full rpm range, not just at the peak value.

[Matt Conrad]

I'd like to chime in on this subject because there was some good debate amongst many of us at Atlanta and many of the ideas/comments are being shared on this thread. There are a few items that need clarificartion....

1. Built Motor Costs. I'm not sure why this issue keeps getting brought up because the FB rules are very clear on this issue...."engine internals MUST remain stock".
2. New Motor Costs. The newest, latest, greatest bike motors do not cost $2,500...it is more like $4,500. When the new engines come out they are in high demand and simple economics rule...the higher the demand....the higher the price. Also, as someone mentioned, there are associated costs that can crop up as the manufacturers change things from year to year (i.e. electronics) that require new wiring, exhaust, etc.
3. SIR Costs. There's much more to making one of these engines work with a restrictor on it....just ask any of the FSAE guys out there. All of us running the cars will need to develop new exhaust systems, intakes, and there will need to be some serious development work done for the electronics as a restricted engine won't run properly using the stock ECU. My guess is that the use of a restrictor will more than double the engine costs as they are currently.
4. "Engine of the Year". When there's no other way to add horsepower except to buy the latest, greatest motor....that is what the guys with the resources will do....GUARANTEED! And if buying the new motors is the only way to go....the demand will be higher, and subsequently, the prices for the new engines will rise.

Rather than considering the SIR idea any further, my recommendation is for us to propose a limitation on the engines allowed in this class to 2007 and earlier. And we need to leave the rule in place for 2 years and we need to do it right now before someone goes out and installs an 08 in their car. This is how hundreds of sanctioning bodies across the country do it and it works.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[RussMcB]

Sounds good. Any down sides to that plan?

[Brandon Dixon]

Are there any Motorcycle manufacuturers that are making substantial changes from 2007 to 2008? I expect the Suzuki to remain essentailly unchanged from 2007 to 2008. In that case we would just be reducing someone's options. What are Yamaha, Kawi, etc. doing for 2008?

When the new bikes come out ALL of the parts on the bike are in demand. That actually helps us get engines. If a guy can buy a new bike and part out the plastic, forks, wheels, etc then there is going to be a zero time engine for sale along with all of that stuff. I've watched several zero time 2007 Suzukis go for $3000 or less that were part of parted out bikes.

Let's say that this rule was already in place and our cap was 2005. Can I get a new or zero time 2005 engine? I can get a used one fairly cheaply, but I can do that with 2007s that probably have less miles.

[RussMcB]

Russ: the peak horsepower number is of more value to land speed record applications or those vehicles with CVT's. For road racing applications with manual transmissions, you must generate a thrust curve that charts Thrust (pounds) versus Vehicle Velocity (mph) for each gear in the transmission (assuming a given sprocket ratio and wheel circumference. This will allow you to compare engines on an apples-to-apples basis across their full rpm range, not just at the peak value.

Interesting, but I'm still yearning for someone to put it in the simpleton terms I requested last week.

Sorry for beating a dead horse, but I still think the answer to the question below is the best way to determine if we need to be concerned with yearly increases in HP.

Question restated:

What would be the gap after a rolling start 1/4 mile race between two equal cars with these two engines?

07 GSXR1000 with pipe and airbox 181hp 85ft lbs
05 ZX10 with good pipe and airbox 171hp 84ft lbs

If the answer is a couple of car lengths, then there is a lot more incentive for people to spend more money more often. That money spent for newer engines is money that can't be spent elsewhere, like going to an extra race or two per year.

[rickspencer]

A little back ground. My nephew is 13 and turning 14 next year and races Shifterkarts (3 yrs) racing karts since he was 7. We are looking into getting a F1000 car in the near furture for track days. I see this motor issue being one like the Stock 125 rules. We currently have to use a 99 Honda kit engine for the price of 2800 to 4000 depending???? I think that liminting it to a certain year for 3 or 4 years is a good thing. Our 80c package if I hadn't got it from a friend would have been around 4500 engine and ignition only. 4 cylinders and 180 hp for 4500 sounds like a deal to me. Any time we raced a sealed engine class it cost more money any time we raced a restrictor class it cost more money .......... I agree with Matt, get it in the rules nooooowwwwwwww if not it will turn into a engine of the month club. let me tell you that only cost people more money. I love the concept of this class I have followed it for a year and a half now and I'm impressed with all of the people stepping forward I.E. Pheonix, Sthor, Speads, and all of you home builders..Which is what we will be I want this too be fun for our family we did that with karting and were pretty succesfull with it. Hopefully we will start cutting metal and foam soon. We are still in planning stages I.E. Solidworks and Floworks. So all of you that has a say. Don't let this class get screwed up before we get in.......I know of alot of karters that are looking at this 12 or 13 just in the midwest Ind, Ill, Mich, Oh area.

[Daryl DeArman]

What would be the gap after a rolling start 1/4 mile race between two equal cars with these two engines?

07 GSXR1000 with pipe and airbox 181hp 85ft lbs
05 ZX10 with good pipe and airbox 171hp 84ft lbs

If the answer is a couple of car lengths, then there is a lot more incentive for people to spend more money more often.

Answer: enough to clearly tell who the winner is and who the loser is. When you often have straights twice that long or longer and race for many laps...even half a car length per straight is half a straight by the end of a race.

Someone posted earlier in this thread that there was a 186HP max agreement between the big 4. I ride bikes and subscribe to Cycle World--I don't recall reading/hearing that, but then I retain less than 1% of everything I read I googled and found a link about an agreement to limit TOP SPEED to 186. Nothing about HP. Even if there is a 186 HP limit, they will spend all that R&D keeping at/near 186 for a wider rpm range.

[Matt Conrad]

Russ,

There's really no downside to my proposal....unless somehow the motors started to dry up...and that's why I limited the "freeze" to 2 years. Just kick around on ebay for 2005-2007 motors....I found 12 the other day...and there's 5 on their today.

The cars are going fast enough right now and based on the racing I saw this last weekend (some of the best I've seen at any SCCA race....ever) the cars are pretty equal too. I would bet if the three top "hired guns" at the ARRC would have had to draw their cars prior to the race....the outcome wouldn't have been very different.

And more thoughts....

There is a long and well documented history of the bike manufacturers adding HP every single year...and it won't stop. To put it in perspective, the first "built" motor (2003 GSXR) that George Dean built for the factory Maloy DSR I drove had the same horsepower that the 2006 stocker George put together for the ARRC race and that we'll be running this season. The 2007 GSXR motors have even more. And not to mention...there are rumors of one manufacturer having a 2008 model with 186 stock horsepower....10 more than their 2007 bike. So then what happens in 2009.....another manufacturer comes up with something better....and so on....and so on.....until we're running 200 hp stock engines and running faster than FA's.

So with that in mind....why would SCCA be considering an SIR? Can only be two reasons....

1. Slow the cars down.
2. Make the motors (and thus the cars) more equal.

The SIR will definitely slow the cars...but it will never make them equal. The different motors will react differently to the SIR and the better motors with an SIR will become the "motor to have" and any of us that have designed cars to accept another brand will have to incur the expense of making the change.

George said it best...."You guys may want to shut the barn door before you let the animals out".

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[Dave Gomberg]

Here's a hint:

If you really think the CRB should consider a rolling two or three model year engine "blackout", write a note to crb@scca.com and ask for it. The discussion here may be useful, but it won't get the job done on its own.

Dave

[cparsons]

Quickshoe, I posted the thread about the hp agreement. I also ride and love it. Lately everytime I see the bike I think "tires and wheels for the FB," but I digress. I suscribe to several bike forums and chased the HP "deal" thread through at least 2 of them. There was no mention of limiting top speed to 186. The common theme was hp limitations by the "big 4". Oversimplyfing, I could go down 1 on the rear sprocket, look for a slight tail wind or downhill incline, and surpass 186 mph and still maintain 186 hp. Attempts to set the limit to 186 mph seem easier to bypass than a hp restriction of 186, which also can be beaten. Many ecu's only allow engines to run at 95% anyway. Some as low as 92%. But I am giving away my best kept secrets


Continuing that thought, I believe I also posted information that Aprilia is rumored to be releasing an '08 model 1000cc, v4, 200+ hp (I heard 220 possible with minor tuning). I am sure that Honda will then feel it necessary, or prudent, to release the 1 litre v4 they have in development. That will end the hp war deal, and speed limitation, if either actually exist.

All of this could be the result of bored bloggers with nothing else to do just letting their mings wander. Or it might be true.
Those interested in avoiding the "motor" of the month might want to act now.

And to keep it real, I have 2001, 2003, and 2005 motors. I won't get another until I have depleted what I already have. Unless it's a VERY good deal

[jtspitler]

I have not read all the posts but read the the thread when it first started and have the last page recently so if I repeat My Apologies.

First; You are all smart people but I cant belive that this was not an issue when the original rules were written, you guys had to have an idea of the speed and the development that was going to go into these cars and it should not be a suprise that they are almost as fastas an atlantic. In 12 to 16 months they will be.

Second: That being said any time you start messing with restrictors you increase cost, no ans ifs or buts. I don't think I have to explain why.

Third: I don't think a freeze on production years is bad but I wouldn't go more than 2 or 3 years, but dont limit the manufactuer.

The class is still young so now is the time to do it.

Thanks

[Wren]

so if we lock it in to a 2007 motor for two years, then when the 2009's come out, we will be able to use the 2009's right?

Not allowing the latest engine in is a bad idea. If you consistently make people use 2 year old engines it will be a mess. I have bought several 2-3 year old engines for FSAE and it is very hit or miss on quality(I have seriously received one that still had a good bit of blood on it). It's easy to get the newest engines fairly cheap and you can get a crate engine/zero time engine quickly after they come out. Guys are buying these bikes and parting them out without putting any miles on them, any of you can do this and make money as well. A non-bent frame with a good title is very, very valuable.

I won't say what Brandon Dixon paid for the two 2007 GSXR motors sitting in the shop, but you should ask him. It is shockingly low and we were not even looking for motors when these came to us. Since, he has passed on several sub $3000 zero time car kits.

[Purple Frog]

The problem with having my own car entered in the ARRC is that i didn't have any time to visit with George Dean. I'm convinced he is on top of the game.

Listening to a lot of those that did talk with George, he convinced all without a doubt that the SIR is a bad idea.

So, my origial question of two weeks ago still stands. How are we SCCA tech guys going to insure the rules are being followed at an average SCCA National race? Is it going to be the "honor" system? Or tear downs in impound? I'm here to say there can be a lot of leeway between stock and "stock". If it goes to teardowns in impound, you are going to scare away all the guys that bought into the formula to avoid a lot of engine work (e.g. FC pintos).

And, looking at the "factory" involvement at the ARRC, don't be naive, there's money out there for good "stock" engines.

Tech has to be based on things that are quanitative, not qualitative.

[RussMcB]

Question #1: Is there a consensus that we should consider doing something (to lessen the advantages of having new, more powerful, legal engines each year)?

If the answer is yes:

Second question: What is the best process for F1000 people to reach a consensus quickly about the best option to propose to the CRB?

Only after we're happy with answers to the questions above should we begin with a clear statement about what the proposal should accomplish, finally followed by discussion about the best proposal to present to the CRB.

[Matt Conrad]

First off.....

Don't fool yourself into believing people are paying sub-$3000 prices for zero mile engines....not from a legitimate supplier. I've bought dozens of these things...and they are in many of the cars that you see out running today....even our competitors. The prices ranged from $4500 to $3700....depending on how early in the year you bought them....obviously the earlier....the more money. They are on ebay today for $3,700.

The progression of horsepower will continue. If you want evidence....please take a look at the attached graph below. This chart shows the horsepower progression of the GSX-R1000 engines from this decade. Please note that these numbers are from bone-stock engines (on bikes) with stock airboxes, stock exhaust, and each dyno pull was from bikes with less than 800 miles on them. All of the dyno pulls are using the same correction factors so we are looking at apples to apples comparisons on the numbers. Also note that Suzuki does things in two's....the 2001 and 2002 engines are the same....the 2003 and 2004's are the same....the 2005 and 2006 are the same...and so on. Here's the graph:



Thanks to George Dean who has over 13,000 dyno pulls on his dyno to provide this information. Trust me when I say that the trend you see above will continue. Yes, as someone else mentioned....V4's with over 200hp are on the horizon. I don't want to be spending $20,000 on engines and then have the SCCA impose restrictors which will cause all of us to expend another $20,000 to develop our "restrictor program".

We should do something now....before it is too late. My letter to the CRB will be forthcoming.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[Lee Stohr]

I'd agree with Brandon on this. Don't most people freshen their engine once a year?
If so, why not just get next years latest engine instead of rebuilding your old motor?
Same cost. One of the cool things about this class is the bike engine technology - the Japanese do all the development for us, and we get relatively cheap engines.

[Jay N]

I purchased a brand new 2007 GSXR 1000 engine with zero miles from a legit business for $4200 & it included EVERYTHING.

Thanks ... Jay

[Rick Ross]

This is a very interesting discussion, with valid points made by folks who are much smarter than me. I do not have an F1000, but I think that it is a really exciting class with a great future. Those of you who are creating the first wave of F1000 cars should be very proud of your accomplishments.

OK, so here's a really stupid question.....won't an engine model year freeze just be putting off the inevitable? As soon as the 2 or 3 year period is up, absolutely EVERYONE will be upgrading their cars to the latest spec motor/ECU/exhaust, etc. It will be absolutely required if you want to be even near the front. I suppose this may still be preferrable to allowing folks to do this every year, but it will just result in large step increases in powerplant performance every few years, as opposed to a constant linear progression over time. Also, what happens if your engine explodes 6 months before the end of the "freeze"? Do you just park the car for the rest of the season and wait to order your new spec engine for the following year? Or do you install an "old" motor that will be useless after 6 months?

That said, speaking as an "outsider", I personally never expected the FB class to be particularly low cost. A review of the class rules shows that this will likely be a class where it will always pay to have the newest, lightest, strongest bits and pieces. The guys at the front of the field will always have the best chassis, the best shocks, the best aero bits, the best diffs, and, yes.....the best motors. The class rules were specifically intended to allow just such innovation and competition....weren't they?

Again, congrats to all of you who are designing, constructing, and driving these cars. I'm looking forward to seeing you on the track in 2008, regardless of what engine you're running .

Rick

[Jon Jeffords]

So, my origial question of two weeks ago still stands. How are we SCCA tech guys going to insure the rules are being followed at an average SCCA National race? Is it going to be the "honor" system? Or tear downs in impound? I'm here to say there can be a lot of leeway between stock and "stock". If it goes to teardowns in impound, you are going to scare away all the guys that bought into the formula to avoid a lot of engine work (e.g. FC pintos).

Mike, how does SCCA National insure the stock rules are followed for the multitude of makes that compete in SSB or SSC? In addition to an engine inspection, these cars potentially could be inspected for full-vehicle legalities (brakes, sway bars, springs, shocks, uprights, frame, carpet pad material (don't laugh, its been protested).

Do the factories provide all the necessary inspection specifications to SCCA?

[Jon Jeffords]

It appears there are now three main questions being tossed around in this thread:

1. Should a SIR be used?
2. Should a model year freeze be imposed?
3. How can the $20,000 exotic motors be excluded?

My suggestion regarding #3 is to follow the lead of the AMA Superstock class, which publishes a specific list of vehicles which are allowed to compete:

http://www.amaproracing.com/prorace/...0equipment.pdf

For FB, the approved engine list could be derived from engines that are manufactured by either Honda, Suzuki, Kawasaki, or Yamaha, and are for a motorcycle model that was homologated for US street operation, with a minimum import volume of 400 units, and be available through US retail dealers.

Something along these lines should suffice in keeping the high-dollar low-volume exotics out of FB.

[RussMcB]

Those are good questions, but, IMO, the question should be:

What can we do to reduce the benefit of upgrading to a new engine each year?

Or, similarly,

How can we keep 1+ year old engines competitive?

[jtspitler]

Tech does not have to difficult All competitiors are required to have a FACTORY repair manual for the model year of there engine. In the manual there are minimums and maximums, the motor can not exceed those specs.

Tech does need to be done occassionlly in every class!!

[Dave Welsh]

Keep it simple. How about instituting an engine claim rule?

[Matt Conrad]

What is exotic today will become mainstream tomorrow. Right now the only V4's I've seen are from Aprilia and other smaller, high end builders.....but that will end soon as I've also heard Honda is developing one right now. I would have to believe the others won't stand by and watch.

Saying that a "refresh" is the same cost as a new motor (especially if it is a brand new model) is disingenuous. Jay N. just posted that he paid $4,200 for a brand new 2007 engine....I just paid less than $2,000 for a "refresh". Maybe I'm not so good at math.....but those numbers aren't the same.

The point made about when we do finally allow the new motors is a good one. In two years when SCCA says....Ok, you can now use the 2008 engines.....will there be a huge rush to get them? Yes....unless there is another component to the equation.....weight. Many other classes and sanctioning bodies use weight to equalize the car performance and I'm sure there are some smart people out there that could come up with formulas to keep things equal. Just an idea....

The reason that all of this discussion got brought up agian is not from us competitors...it is because the rumor mill got started that SCCA has been calling "people in the know" about SIR's again. My fear is that if we leave the performance envelope wide open and these cars start going faster and faster (which they already are)....eventually somebody will close it for us. That somebody is SCCA....and the method could be an SIR....which I'm positive none of us wants!

If you need evidence of what happens when a class is allowed to go "out of control" just look at DSR. When I purchased the Maloy Racing assets in early 2005, the cars were selling for $48,000...turn key. (Ironically...that's our F1000 price now). Today, the cars are selling for $70,000 as a "Roller" and to get a competitive engine installed would exceed $15,000. The lap times of the cars are now faster than CSR and many guys are running speeds with a well-driven FA. Car counts are now dropping. In fact, we had almost as many FB's at the ARRC, in our first ever year in existence, as DSR did at the Runoffs! Not to mention that SCCA has already tried to combine DSR and CSR once....and I'm betting they'll try again....and succeed at some point.

Let's not let the F1000 deal turn into a free-for-all. It is not in the best interest of the class.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[cparsons]

the 2008 model Agusta F4 312 has, and this is taken directly from the USA Dealer website;

"The F4 R 312 is fitted with an extractable gearbox that allows gear ratios to be quickly and easily changed"
I don't think any of us are currently running Agusta motors, yet, but if someone does get one we may have to re-define "stock internals".

performance is touted to be 186hp, couldn't find torque or revs but I think it is 13,000

[Matt Conrad]

One more point and I'll step aside and let the rest of you debate this....

Let's look at this from a consumer standpoint. And let us assume that I am a father of a young kid just coming out of Karts and wanting to go SCCA racing. We've determined we want to race open-wheelers and we have choices. Our budget is fairly small so FA is out, but we like the idea of having wings and things so FV and FF are out. We're now left to FC, FB and FE. To be honest....in order to truly showcase the talent of my child....I'm going to pick FE all day long....and here's why:

1. The cars are the same and the driver talent will show through.
2. The car counts are rising and there's plenty of competition.
3. There's a Runoffs event in 2008.
4. The costs will be lower due to the lack of new whiz-bang engines, etc. every year.
5. FB is a new class and there is some uncertainty.
6. FC is an older class, and even though the rules are being relaxed to finally allow new engines and parts, the car counts are not where they used to be.

I'm a huge believer in the FB class....all of you know that....but let's make sure we're doing what is right for the class.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[RobLav]

With one good race on the books, there is not enough data to change any rule yet.

The only additional rule I would support is the homologation one - 400 units (or whatever number is chosen) must be produced and sold in the USA.

[Mike B]

For FB, the approved engine list could be derived from engines that are manufactured by either Honda, Suzuki, Kawasaki, or Yamaha, and are for a motorcycle model that was homologated for US street operation, with a minimum import volume of 400 units, and be available through US retail dealers.

Jon, I know we talked about this, but what is the significance of 400 units? Why not 1,000, or 6,000? To me, a simple requirement for a minimum # of production units sold is an easy way to prevent the exotic Aprila-type engines or even a one-off engine built by some enterprising (and very wealthy) competitor.
This is better than limiting it to an group of manufacturers because then you'll have the Harley owners up in arms. They have the right to drive around at the back of the pack with their lawn tractor engines.

[Brandon Dixon]

I really like the idea of specifying a minimum number of units produced, be that 400, 1000, or 10000. How many bikes does a specialty manufacturer like Aprilla make in a year?

If then engines are produced in large quatities and sold in the US then the engines WILL become available to us at very low cost.

[Daryl DeArman]

It isn't the total number of bikes produced or imported by that manufacturer that other organizations use, it is the total of that specific model.

I did find mention in the latest cycle world re: the 08 Hayabusa and its' agreed upon 186 mph top speed limit...that strange number is and even 300kmh.

[Jon Jeffords]

I stole the 400 unit requirement from the AMA rulebook for their Superstock class, which is based on production 745-1000cc four-stroke street motorcycles and are the closest motorcycles to showroom stock in the AMA Superbike Championship.

Reference page 30 of their rulebook:
http://www.amaproracing.com/prorace/...07%20Final.pdf

For comparison sake, I'll see if I can find the import volumes for the bikes currently listed on their Approved Equipment list.

you'll have the Harley owners up in arms. They have the right to drive around at the back of the pack with their lawn tractor engines.

Ouch! Hey, without my cushy engineering job at Harley, I'd still be driving a Briggs Lite at Dousman!

[Lee Stohr]

Seems like we might all agree on keeping exotic MotoGp engines out of F1000. So keep discussion going on the other issues, but let's nail this one first.

Come up with proposed words to restrict engines -do it here on this forum.
Agree on the words.

Then, everyone should write to the Comp Board crb@scca.com proposing the same exact thing. Don't try and change what was decided here. Don't write until we give the word, here, on this forum.

Keep it simple and it is more likely to get passed.

Just my advice as an Advisory Committee member.

[Mike B]

I think this one is easy so I'll take a crack at it.

Where "x" = a given volume of imports or sales, based on what Jon Jeffords digs up. Maybe Hasty Horn has some input.

The only engines permitted must come from a motorcycle model that is street certified in the United States and available through US retail dealers. That model must have achieved a minimum sales (or import) volume of x for the specific year engine used.

As I interpret this, buying an engine from a Canadian source would be permitted because it's probable that the motorcycle in question, while sold in Canada, is street certified and available in the US.
I think it's important that the sales or import volume is for the specific model year to prevent an insider from procuring a 2010 prototype (could happen... ).

Commence to criticizin'.

[Sean Maisey]

It sounds like we are fairly close to agreement on limiting FB engines to mass-produced models. (and I agree)

I still think we need to address the possible 'engine of the month' syndrome. Several people have chimed in in favor of allowing current motors going forward. The play devil's advocate, please consider the following two scenario:

Scenario 1 - No model year limits (current rules):

Next month, the new Kawasaki ZX-10 comes out and makes 188hp (vs. 181 for the 07/08 Suzuki). As an aspiring National-level FB racer, I feel that I must convert to compete. What does it cost?
Engine - $4500 (new never run from a bike dismantler)
New Engine Mounts - $500 (Assumes engine will fit with new mounts)
Wiring Harness Mods - $350 (Dean)
New Exhaust Header - $500 (bigger exhaust ports)
New plumbing - $500 (new hoses, lines, fittings etc)
Air box/engine cover bodywork mods- $500
New chain - $150 (longer/shorter now?)
Misc expenses not anticipated - $500
New Dry Sump system - $2500 (Kropp)

Total Cost - $10,000 (Yes some could do it cheaper, but you get the idea)
**repeat each year as Yamaha/Honda/Suzuki/Kawasaki leap frog each other


Scenario 2 - Engines frozen at 2007 or older until after the 2009 season:

This winter I do nothing, because the ARRC demonstrated to me that I don't really need the extra few hp of a 2007. But for the sake of arguement, in the Winter of 2008/9, after MANY miles, I decide that the 2006 unit is tired, and I need to refresh it:
Engine - $1000-1500 (ebay or salvage yard)
Engine refresh, tune and dyno $1500-2000 (George Dean Race Engines)

Total Cost - $2500-3500 max (assuming a 'new' refreshed motor each season)

Please tell me what I am missing about this? I just bought all of this stuff and did this setup...

Sean

[RussMcB]

Sean, I absolutely, 100% agree with you.

I can't justify the expense of frequent engine upgrades, and therefore I wont be doing it. I'm hoping that some sort of restriction will mean that I do not constantly fall further behind.

I'm realistic - I expect to be slower that people spending more money than me, but I'd like the gap to be as small as possible and grow as slowly as possible. It's a selfish view, but the cheaper we make it, the better for everyone except Deep Pockets.