SIR Discussion

[RobLav]

With model year limits, even with Sean's assumptions, scenario 1 simply gets moved down the road a year or two. The same thing will still happen. The only potentially cheaper cost is the price of a used engine. But then the risk is higher that it might not be a good one then the cost goes up to replace the bad one or fix it...

It seems we are gathering reasonable consensus on the bike/engine production numbers...

Can we stick with that for now and send the recommendation to the CRB?

If people want perfect parity, then go run the Iron class (FE).

[Sean Maisey]

Rob,

With all due respect,I don't think you actually read (or considered) my entire post. I think it clearly states that a PROFESSIONALLY rebuilt used replacement motor every year is still FAR cheaper than replacement every year with a new 0 mile unit. I agree that used motors are a risk, and after this year's experience, I will send all my motors to George to check out prior to running them. It is cheap insurance.

I agree that eventually, we will all have to fit a new motor. My point is why force everyone to do this every off season? Will it make the racing better for us? Will we all have extra fun spending $8-10k each off season on new engines, and reengineering mounts, wiring, dry sump, exhaust, clutch, etc....??? I think NOT!

Who other than the chassis manufacturers will benefit from allowing new motors every year? Certainly not us racers. So why not limit the BIG investment to every 2-3 years max? What is the downside? Show me some facts and figures, convince me... Model out how you see a competitive program working for the next three years, and show me how open engines will be cheaper and the racing better???

Sean

[Mike B]

Sean,
I don't understand why your cost is so low in scenario 2. If you decide your '06 is tired in '09, and the new Kaw has 6 more hp, why would you stick with a Suzuki in scenario 2 but not scenario 1? Even if you do stick with a Suzuki, what makes you think it will be a plug-n-play? If Suzuki makes some changes in their wiring or physical configuration, you would have all the same expenses in both scenarios.
Why do you have to buy a new engine in scenario 1 but are okay with a junkyard engine in scenario 2?
I think your costs are all excessively high but I would be doing all those things myself:
engine mounts=cost of material: $100?
wiring harness mods=cost of material: $50?
exhaust header=off the shelf from S&S: $300 max
new plumbing=cost of material: $100
engine cover mods=cost of material: $50
new chain=I'll buy a new one each year anyway: $0
misc expenses= this one might be a bit low : $500 min
dry sump=get a Yamaha: $0

My total cost= $1100 plus the engine cost but, like I said, this should be similar regardless of the scenario.
I understand not everyone is able to do this work themselves and that we do need to do something soon.

[Mike B]

Sean,
In response to your post that you posted while I was posting my post:

As I understand it, the development cycle of the big 4 follows roughly a 3 year cycle. This means that you could replace your engine each year in those 3 years without any (or minimal) cost above the purchase cost of the engine, i.e. it should be plug-n-play.
This is assuming that you're in sync with the bike maker's cycle.

[Wren]

if you want a two year engine freeze, then in 2009 you must allow people to use 2009 engines. Do not force people to have to source and gamble on 2 year old engines every cycle, it is too easy to get these engines new.

[Sean Maisey]

Mike,

I am most familiar with Suzuki's engines these days. They are on a 2 model year cycle. I am running a 2005/6 unit right now.

I guess I didn't do a good job of making my point, so I'll try again.

In Scenario #1, I assume no rules changes. That means that I will probably need to buy and fit a 2008 Kawasaki over this winter to be sure I have competitive power next year. I know someone like you can do your own work and come up cheaper than my $10k figure, but I think that someone who just buys all of those parts from a F1000 builder will pay those kinds of figures PLUS labor. (If I chose to go to 2007/8 Suzuki power over this winter, I will need new engine mounts, wiring, and exhaust header on top of the new engine costs).

Scenario #2 is meant to demonstrate how much cheaper it would be with model year frozen at 2007 and older. In this scenario, I would continue to run 2005/6 spec motors until the end of the 2009 season. IF, AND ONLY IF I felt like the motor was in need of replacement before the end of 2009, it would cost very little to buy a used 2005/6 unit and have George Dean "zero-time" it for me.

Hope this makes my point clearer...
Sean

[RussMcB]

... but I would be doing all those things myself:
engine mounts=cost of material: $100?
wiring harness mods=cost of material: $50?
exhaust header=off the shelf from S&S: $300 max
new plumbing=cost of material: $100
engine cover mods=cost of material: $50
new chain=I'll buy a new one each year anyway: $0
misc expenses= this one might be a bit low : $500 min
dry sump=get a Yamaha: $0

My total cost= $1100 plus the engine cost but, like I said, this should be similar regardless of the scenario.
I understand not everyone is able to do this work themselves and that we do need to do something soon.

Mike, I assume you wouldn't want to do all those things often, right? I know I wouldn't. After a year of fabrication and headaches, I want to keep the same engine configuration for a while, preferably without losing ground each year. Wouldn't everyone be better off if they could spend time and money on other things, such as with their families or competing in more races?

[Mike B]

But Russ, we're getting so good at it!

To be honest, I'll probably be running my '99 R1 for a few years so none of this applies to me. I just want this formula to remain true to our original class philosophy of high performance, low cost. One day we'll have the chassis sorted and handling well at which point we'll plug in the engine of the day and start going for class wins and the Runoffs.

Sean, I'm with you now. I just need to think through scenario 2 more thoroughly (like how it would play out over the next 10 or so years).

[RobLav]

Hey Sean - give me a call tomorrow if you like - 401 368-1964

All I'm trying to say is that your (Sean M) costs in Scenario 1 (although excessively high IMHO) will still happen - it'll simply happen with older engines. For instance, if we had a two year moratorium lag, in 2010, everybody with money would be picking the best 2008 engine. It might be Kawasaki in 2008 and Suzuki in 2009. Those on the front row with money would be making the change anyway. All the two year lag would produce is a waiting period (precisely two years from the effective decision) until the inevitable. Frankly, I'd rather spend $3500-$4500 on a brand new engine every TWO years (and sell the still semi-newer leftover one) rather than buy a two year old question mark and possibly have to rebuild it.

If the manufacturers already have a two year cycle (Suzuki and Yamaha), then why bother trying to make rules when they've already done it for us? We'll surely screw it up. If we pick a two year moratorium lag, then that decision will effect at least one of the engine makes, since Yamaha and Suzuki are on alternating year development cycles.

My earlier (and primary) point is that we don't have enough data points between the engines to make decisions with any statistical confidence. We had one big race (ARRC) with a TON of other variables (drivers, cars, aero packages, diffs, etc).

All I'm trying to say is let's wait it out through 2008 and see where it flows. But I do believe we should restrict the allowed engines to some homologation number to prevent outliers. We need stability for a while to let the class thrive.

I'm still installing the 2006 Yamaha in my new car. I expect to use it (regardless of its HP values) for two years. The car and I require development. A few HP difference between a YamKawSuzHon just ain't gonna make a whole lot of difference at this point. But maybe it will in 2-3 years after we develop the potential of these cars. Why don't we look at it then? It's too soon now.

[George Dean]

I guess the main reason I agree with the 2007 and older idea is I believe it not only will help hold down costs but also help to control the speed of the cars. I first chimed in to this forum because somebody mentioned the use of an air restrictor to make the engines equal. Along time ago somebody contacted me about using a SIR on these engines to control speeds and costs. I didnt think it was a good idea then. After using restrictors on some mini sprint engines this last year I know it is not a good idea now. At Atlanta the F1000 cars were moving along pretty good, So is the object to control cost or to control speed or both.
I wouldnt be too woried about someone putting in an apprillia engine in their car the japan engines will make the same power in a couple of years or so.


George

[carnut169]

I am less concerned with freezing model years and more concerned with folks complying to the "stock" engine rules. As it stands, no one has any idea if people are running modified engines. There are so many small changes that can be made to add hp its just silly. I even had a conversation with someone in the business (while looking for a motor) who asked if I wanted the motor built. I said that it had to be stock, and his reply was that he could make some changes that an inspection would not find. Oh my. I've been talked out of the SIR... it sounds like a bad deal. I do think we should have someone (perhaps George, and I'll most likely be buying my next motor from him) but I'd rather see an expert who is not also a supplier... it just seems "cleaner". We need to have a system in place where the expert checks compression, uses a boroscope to check the valves, look for head work, looks at the top of the pistons, and whatever else they can inspect without a tear-down. Then, we need a significant fine (not $$) for rule breaking- I'd say a 1 year suspension would be fair.

Concerning the "freeze", I agree w/ Rob- it just pushes back the spending- there is no savings. I rather keep the steady supply of engines flowing, and like that we can source new 0 mile motors. I feel that freezing motors at 2007 will make those motors harder to find and perhaps even more expensive.

[RussMcB]

... So is the object to control cost or to control speed or both?

I think those two goals are desirable, but I feel the primary goal should be to try and limit the performance difference between 2 year old engines and the latest available engine. I don't know the best way to do that (since the SIR is unanimously unwanted), but if we can keep 2 year old engines fairly competitive, that will increase competition & reduce costs. That means I can go racing more often and have more fun.

I like what Sean Maissey and Glenn Cooper have posted above. They seem to be on the same page as my concerns.

I just want to drive and have fun, not spend money and work on the car. I know, I should probably have a different hobby ...

[Matt Conrad]

Alright....I can't stay away...there's too much at stake here.

I don't like the idea of allowing motors based on production data....it just doesn't accomplish anything except maybe keeping the really elaborate stuff out...and like George says....it is highly unlikely we'll see any of those motors anyway because the cost to get one and engineer it to be packaged in a car would cost as much as a new "roller" chassis.

Writing a rule keeping out the smaller "boutique" manufacturers does nothing....it is a waste of time and a mute point because you are disregarding the fact that it is the high production manufacturers which are heavily involved in the "arms race" of horsepower as well. Did you not see the graph above? That trend will continue unabated, and if you extrapolate data going forward, we will have 200hp engines within 3 years. If George Dean has the technology to build a 200hp motor right now (and he does) don't you think the multi-billion dollar bike makers can as well?

Like I stated before...the 2008 Kawasaki motor is already rumored to develop 186hp....10 more than their 2007 model. I'm sure the 2008 GSXR will bump up from the 2007 as well....and then how long before Honda releases their in development V4 with 200 hp? Keeping out the small manufacturers is a mute point....it does nothing.

I like Sean's thought process on this. It is pretty much the same way I feel. And Mike makes the point that we all should be considering paramount....."high performance AND low cost". We have that right now. I just listened to an interview with SPEED's Greg Creamer (who announced the ARRC race) and he said he was "stunned" at the performance of our cars and that they were "wicked fast". That's from a guy that has announced hundreds of professional and amatuer races. We already have an awesome performance package.

We are the only formula class that does not have "stability" in our engine rules. We are riding the coat-tails of the battle for horsepower between the bike manufacturers and I think the thing we need NOW.....is some stability. 180hp with a 1000 pound race car is awesome. We are going to scare some people away from this class when they find out they have to change to the newest, latest graeatest engine every year.

The engine "freeze" idea is a good one. It works for thousands and thousands of other racers across the country (mini-sprints, mod-lites, dwarf cars, etc.). There is absolutely no downside to the proposal, even though some make it seem that trying to find a 2-year old motor is difficult or risky....that's BS....I'll get you half a dozen tomorrow.

And the best part of the proposal is nobody has to do a thing.....we all just go racing and further developing the cars. I have sent a letter to the CRB asking that they do NOT consider SIR's (for all the reasons we have all discussed) and that we consider only allowing engines from 2007 and earlier for a period of two years (for now).

Please also know that I sold dozens of new "zero-mile" engines over the last year....even to many of our competitors....so from a business standpoint, the engine freeze will reduce sales. But this isn't about the money...or about business....it is truly about what is best for the future of the class.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[Mike B]

Matt,
I think you're confusing two separate issues. The minimum production rule is intended to eliminate any exotic Moto GP race-only engines or one-off creations. That's it, nothing more. It's an easy rule to write, easy to implement, and easy to police. It's a no-brainer. If there is no opposition to this rule:http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25407 I'll submit a recommendation.

To tackle the other perceived problem of a horsepower war is totally separate and will take a different approach. I don't have the answer but I haven't read it on this forum yet, either. The proposals set forth so far only delay cost, at best. Any proposal needs to be thought through many, many years into the future. I helped create this class with the intent that it would be around for a long time and the rules need to stay stable to accomplish that. Yes, I said "STAY" stable. Maybe I'm naive, but the F1000 rules are more stable than most. Geez, it's not even a year old yet so there hasn't been a chance to change anything and I'm not totally convinced it's broken yet.

A couple people have asked how we enforce a stock engine rule (or any engine rule.) It gets enforced the exact same way the FF, FC, FA, or GT1 rules get enforced. Except for the Runoffs, I've never seen one of those cars get torn down at any national that I competed in, including the June Sprints. For all intents and purposes, the engine rules are on the honor system. That is, until they get to the Runoffs. That's where everyone (well, the top 6) lay their cards on the table. Until then, nobody knows and nobody will ever know what's in your engine.

[Lee Stohr]

I can't think of anyone running a dry sump on a Suzuki - Chris Farrell makes a special wet sump pan that all our cars use in DSR and F1000. No one had a failure at the Runoffs this year with wet sump. So you can take that cost out.
The top 8 finishers in DSR at the Runoffs all had wet sump.

[George Dean]

Sean O, I challenge your engine guy to do somthing to your motor to extract more power and it cant be found. Tech inspection on these motors should be done and can be done easily. Every car is required to produce a manual for the engine they are running. If they use the specs that are in the manual this will take care of most issues. The first thing that should be done is a compression test, It cannot go over the specified pressure in the manual. Each car owner should be responsible for this. I realize that all engines are built to tolerance not exact spec so there will be differences. But a compression test will weed out most questions (in my mind anyway) The sparkplugs will already be removed so they can then look down the sparkplug holes to make sure the pistons are stock. Throttle bodys should be removed to look down the intake port. Suzuki and Yamaha are not ported Kawasaki is so that will need to be addressed. If the inspector feels the need the valve cover should be removed. The cams can be measured by a caliper and the cam timing can be looked at. If they need to go farther the alternator cover can be removed and there is a window to see if the connecting rods are stock. These things can be done fairly quickly and anybody can be trained to do them. I am just trying to help

George

[Matt Conrad]

Mike,

You are right....Stability is the key here...but we won't have it if we don't do something right now! If you look at FF and FC over the past 20+ years you will notice one thing when it comes to the engines...whether good or bad....they haven't changed much. Yes, engine builders have found little tweaks along the way to get a few more HP out of the powerplants....but I'll bet it hasn't been more than 5% OVER 20 years!!! We have seen...and are going to continue to see that difference in HP EVERY SINGLE YEAR!!! That to me IS a problem.

So....Another huge benefit of a freeze that I haven't mentioned is that it gives us the time to develop a long-term solution to address a unique issue in our class. Can't we take some time to look at this and come up with a well thought out solution before we have another iteration of new engines making another 10 hp?

These cars are going to get quicker and quicker...it is the nature of racing...even without the addition of more horsepower. Hell...the cars haven't really even been on track for a year yet and we're already at DSR speeds and will be approaching FA speeds as new exhaust systems, ram air systems, etc, etc. get further developed. We think a stock 2007 GSX-R1000 with the right exhaust system and optimized air intake can develop close to 190hp....right now!

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[S Lathrop]

I am in favor of some limit on the model year for engines. I think that at a minimum the approved engines should be generally available 6 months prior to the start of the season. Simply put, come January 1 of each year we all know what the engine game will be.

Now if you want to increase the limit beyond six months that might be even better. But I think that the rule should be stated as model year and generally available at the dealers some peroid prior to the beginning of a new season.

I also see wisdom in limiting the source to volume production bikes. That obviously would include the Japanese makers. Who else I don't know. Maybe we should specify the recognized manufacturers.

The performance of these cars is still below what we will begin to see next year. I would guess that all the cars will advance by 2 seconds at Atlanta.

The speed of these cars is getting very impressive. I hope that everyone who a building car is really looking at the safety structures they are putting on their cars, especially nose boxex and roll bars. The last thing we all need is for anyone to get hurt.

[Sean Maisey]

Concerning the "freeze", I agree w/ Rob- it just pushes back the spending- there is no savings.

Pushing back spending is saving money PERIOD. Pushing back engineering a totally new engine package to once 3-4 years is a HUGE savings.

So, please explain this to me like a five year old. Sean O, Roblav, and Mike B all seem to be argueing that they are against the model year freeze, because they think it is best to keep the option of buying a new motor each year. How is this cheaper again???

Under the current rules I can virtually assure you this will happen:

2007 ARRC - 2005/6 and 2007 GSXRs are the engines of choice, racing is close and everyone is happy

2008 Season - Factories market motor transplant kits (@$5000?). The serious racers show up with ZX10 power and whip up. 2006/7 GSXR Motors now sell for $1000 each, and newer ZX10s are in very high demand. "New" motors are impossible to find now that there are more than 10 active F1000 cars, and everyone wants a spare. F1000 founders are bummed out and wax poetic about the good old days when you could be competitive with a 2 year old eBay motor.

2009 Season - Honda updates the CBR1000 to 200hp V4 power for 2009. F1000 makers market a Honda CBR1000RR update kit over the winter. The season shows that you can't win without the Honda. Honda powered cars sweep the Runoffs podium (at indy?). The Kawasakis are firesold off. Everyone is scrambling to get new 0 mile Hondas at $4000+ each. Everyone who is 'serious' wants at least two. Costs? ($5000 update kit plus $8000 in new motors and spares)

2010 Season on - Privateers like us are gone. Only very well funded drivers run in F1000 now. The cars are refitted with the newest/best motor every year at substantial update costs. There are rumors of a whole new generation of narrow chassis specifically built to take advantage of the narrower V4 motors for 2011.

___________________

Before you firestorm my forecast, please engage in the following excercise:

1) Pretend you want to race in F1000 for the next 5 years.
2) Assume you want to compete up front each year.
3) Assume that you are an average racer with only modest fabrication capability, so you must buy things at realistic market prices (no sweat equity, no killer deals).
4) Assume that 1000cc motor development continues as it has for the last five years.
5) Assume that you want the class to grow and become the place to race with large competitive fields, not just a fringe tinkerers class that is threatening to newcomers.

Now, build out your plan to meet those goals and assumptions for the next five years.
- What engine will you start 2008 with.
- When will you change/update.
- How much will you (realistically) spend each time.
- What will you do when your brand or configuration (I4 vs. V4) is obsolete?
- List what you will have to do each year from now to 2012 to stay competitive

If we can not come up with a compelling story to answer these questions, the class will not grow and flourish.

Sean

[Lee Stohr]

For what it's worth, we have 6 years experience with Yamaha engines in DSR. You really don't want to look inside a 3 year old used street bike engine that you got in from a wreck. With the Yamahas, it got so bad that the used engines began to require new crankshafts, pistons, valves, transmission gears and often new cases because of cracks. You can buy all that stuff new from the bike dealer, just bring a big check. Take the parts to your engine builder and write another big check.

Or get a zero mile current year engine for $4000, skip the engine builder and go race.

[Daryl DeArman]

Mike B,

A freeze cuts cost because it makes it possible to upgrade to the latest and greatest every two years (or whatever is agreed upon). That isn't a delay, a delay would be 2 year old motors where every year a new motor year would become eligible. That is an important distinction I believe hasn't been made clear enough.

If the freeze period was similar to the expected life of these motors all the better.

Policing stock internals is a whole nother can o worms for another thread.

[Dave Welsh]

How about doing some research with regards to what the rules are with other racing clubs.

A quick search of the BRSCC revealed the regulations for Formula Jedi.



This is a quick overview of the class.

The lightweight chassis, reliable motorcycle engine power, sequential gearboxes and slicks and wings provides serious performance but within controlled budgets.

In 2004, Formula Jedi introduced 1000cc motorcycle engines with a choice between Honda Fireblade, Yamaha R1 and Suzuki GSXR. No one make dominated so racing was electrifying! For 2007 the engine rules have been amended to a standard specification? and capped at 2005 model years to ensure even closer racing and lower costs.

Two classes exist; Class A derived from Formula Honda, uses CBR 600 engines (375kg all up weight including driver).

Class B utilises 1000cc units, giving around 160bhp (400kg including driver). Both classes give serious power to weight ratios.

The introduction of the 1000cc class has given the series a boost & placed it at the forefront of club motorsport. Jedi is one of the success stories of club motorsport with growing grid sizes and 10 new cars being built for customers this winter. Regulation stability and the fact that every Jedi is capable of being updated to the latest Mark6 specification ensure that car values are sustained.

Cars are available from the factory, fully built or in kit form. Older chassis can upgrade to current spec so a new car is no guarantee of front row performance. Running costs are low; approximately £7,500 for a full season which this year will be 16 races over 8 weekends at the major venues.










Below is an excerpt of the Formula Jedi rule book, 1000cc engines.

BRSCC Formula Jedi Championship Regulations
Issued by: BRSCC 9th March 2007 Issue 2: MSA Approved
Page 22 of 26
5.7 ENGINES
Regulations for engines were changed in 2006 to reflect the principle expressed in GENERAL
DESCRIPTION (5.2.1) ie that the cars are intended to provide the basis of economical
competition, both in terms of first cost, cost of ownership and to provide uniform performance.
In order to achieve this, - the principle will be over riding that engines will be standard
production units. Engines for use in 2007 will not be newer than 2005 models. Grand father
rights will only exist for tuned units for Honda Fireblade 919cc in 2007, this will cease
for the 2008 season.
5.7.1
Any up to 1000cc production motorcycle engine is allowed. Competitors are forbidden from
modifying components in any way except where a specific modification is stated in these
regulations. UNLESS IT SAYS YOU CAN, THEN YOU MUST NOT! Component bolt heads
must be drilled to accept lock wire.
5.7.2. The standard cylinder head castings must be used. The compression ratio is free provided it is
achieved by cylinder head modification only. The cylinder head may be ported and polished.
Counterbalance shafts may be removed.
5.7.3. Standard Valves of a type and material, and size as defined by the manufacturers workshop
manual, specific to that engine, type, model and year, will be retained Such valves may NOT
be reshaped by the addition or removal of material. Valves may not be polished or re-cut to
angles other than supplied as standard ( 5.4.17 refers to competitors having a manufacturers
workshop manual relating to their specific engine)
5.7.4. Standard valve springs of the poundage and length must be retained. Valve spring retainers
must be standard (5.4.17 refers)
5.7.5. Oringinal manufacturers standard camshafts for the model must be used. Camshaft lift, profile
and drive must remain as standard. Cam timing is free
5.7.6. Over boring is not permitted.
5.7.7. Standard production motorcycle crankshaft must be used. Standard Pistons, conrods, piston
rings, gudgeon pins and all associated nuts, bolts.
5.7.8 Sump pans and oil feeds may be modified. Dry sump systems are allowed.
5.7.9. Carburation, for carburetted models will remains free, eg flat slide carburettors may be allowed.
Fuel injected engines will be required to use standard fuel injector systems for the model., Fuel
injector systems, including injectors and throttle bodies are required to be standard production
items for the model.
Fuel pumps and pressure regulators are free Forced induction , other than by approved air box
is prohibited.
5.7.10. Any combination of air box approved or supplied by Jedi Racing Cars is allowed
5.7.11. Ignition systems must not exceed the maximum rev limit as stated in the original production
motorcycle engine specification
Ignition systems must be standard in relation to the specific model type and year for the model
of motorcycle engine and may not be tampered with or modified in any way, ECU’s are
required to be standard and will require the rev limiter to operate to the same levels as a
standard production model. Wiring looms, must be produced and installed by the Jedi
Factory, ECU’s will be installed by the Jedi Factory.
A Power commanader may be used.
Formula Jedi will retain the right to substitute an ECU with a standard parts model for the
particular engine for the purpose of scruitineering. Parts will be compared against standard
parts and standard part numbers. (list to be attached.)

[S Lathrop]

For what it's worth, we have 6 years experience with Yamaha engines in DSR. You really don't want to look inside a 3 year old used street bike engine that you got in from a wreck. With the Yamahas, it got so bad that the used engines began to require new crankshafts, pistons, valves, transmission gears and often new cases because of cracks. You can buy all that stuff new from the bike dealer, just bring a big check. Take the parts to your engine builder and write another big check.

Or get a zero mile current year engine for $4000, skip the engine builder and go race.

Lee makes an excellent point. The difference in cost between a used engine that has been professionally checked/preped and a "0" time engine may not be worth arguing about.

My concern would be more with a new model hitting the market mid season and every one in a scramble to get that engine in time for the Run Offs. Now that will be expensive.

Buying "0" time engines at the end of a model run might be the least expensive thing to do. That is what would happen if we froze the engines for 6 months prior to the start of the season.

I think that some of the appeal of this class might be that the engines are not frozen but change over time. Look at the problems that classes like FF and FC are having.

[Mike B]

Dave,
I realize that not everyone has been paying attention to the F1000 development from the beginning and that we didn't make every excruciating detail of the committee public prior to the proposal, but rest assured that everything that is being discussed here, including the Jedi rules, has already been hashed and rehashed by the committee. We submitted what we thought would be the best compromise without adopting an SIR, not knowing that the sky would be falling so soon...

Steve L. makes a couple good points. One being that a key attraction to this class is the cutting edge engine technology that is still affordable (relatively.) Where else can you get an all-aluminum, multi-valve, EFI engine for under $4k (or less)? Please be careful of writing a rule that negates that attraction.
His other point deals with freezing the engine year for 6 months. I heard somewhere that the manufacturers intorduce the new models in July or August (correct me if I'm wrong), which could mean a mad scramble to get the latest & greatest engine installed prior to leaving for IMS. Maybe it's as simple as stating that the engine used during a season (calendar year), must have been available as of Jan. 1 and must be more than 2 years old (or 3 years old.)

Thoughts?

[Wren]

Maybe it's as simple as stating that the engine used during a season (calendar year), must have been available as of Jan. 1 and must be more than 2 years old (or 3 years old.)

Thoughts?

I think this is the wrong rule. You need to allow in the new engines.

example

1. Freeze engine years right now at 2007 for two years

result- the pointy end can purchase new crate engines and not have to get a blood soaked questionable spare they have to send to Dean anyways. In 2009 the pointy end buys and engineers new engine packages with crate motors/quick crashes(remember we are relying on human stupidity to supply these engines, which makes it a lot easier).

2. Make everyone run 2 year old engines

result- no one can buy a crate engine except the few that are left on shelves around the country(or we buy them new and sit on them for two years ) and we all play the e-bay engine lotto and hope we get one that isn't a complete piece of crap. I have played this game with CBR600F4i engines for several years and it SUCKS!!!!!!

Let the new engines in!

[Matt Conrad]

Steve,

The problems FF and FC is having is that they didn't do anything for over 30 years! We're only talking about a "pause" for 24 months....a huge difference.

Please note the Formula Jedi rules above:

DESCRIPTION (5.2.1) ie that the cars are intended to provide the basis of economical
competition, both in terms of first cost, cost of ownership and to provide uniform performance. In order to achieve this, - the principle will be over riding that engines will be standard production units. Engines for use in 2007 will not be newer than 2005 models.

It is the same here in Phoenix with the dirt roundy-round guys. Only engines from 2005 and prior....and all stock components.

I think we need to make a choice to do something...because by not doing anything we change the playing field.

"If you choose to not decide....you still have made a choice" Geddy Lee

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[RobLav]

Sean Maisey and I talked on the phone, and I think we reached a compromise. For the 2008 season, we agreed to limit engines to 2007 and earlier. We also agreed on the 400 production limit (AMA uses that number and it is working).

We agreed to look at the 2009 season engines at the end of 2008 to determine which years we should allow.

We also agreed to not having the SIR.

Sean will post this info in another thread for discussion.

Thanks everyone for all the comments.

[Sean Maisey]

As Roblav says, i think we came up with a pretty good compromise. i will post it shortly in a new topic.

(This topic has gotten pretty far from the SIR debate)...

Sean

[D.T. Benner]

Foget the SIR. Limit Fuel Flow if you want to have any HP limit. Don't matter how much AIR you swallow if the FUEL isn't there.

[martyb]

Foget the SIR. Limit Fuel Flow if you want to have any HP limit. Don't matter how much AIR you swallow if the FUEL isn't there.

An interesting notion. Does the technology exist to limit flow to an absolute number regardless of pressure pushing it? You couldn't use a fixed size orifice, as it could be messed with by just increasing the pressure behind it.

Marty

[Sean Maisey]

...of unintended consequences.

Ask the FSCCA guys and gals why they now run alternators. As my memory serves, the fuel pressure would drop when the battery got low. The engines started to run lean and then stopped running altogether. ("Lean is mean")

Sean

[Billy Wight]

Foget the SIR. Limit Fuel Flow if you want to have any HP limit. Don't matter how much AIR you swallow if the FUEL isn't there.

Limiting fuel flow and limiting air flow will accomplish exactly the same thing, though I would much rather have excess fuel than excess air. It's a lot harder to ruin your engine running rich than it is running lean - if your going to restrict something go with the SIR.

[jerry freeman]

I'm not in favor of a SIR but I will agree 110% that if you limit the fuel, you will have more scrap motors than any of us care to think about.

AsIthink more about all this the more I think we should forget all this crap and keep the motors stock and let people buy new motors whenever they want.

Like I said before, the guys with money will always be at the front and the rest of us will be racing for fun. That's life.

Jerry

[RussMcB]

<snip> ... the guys with money will always be at the front and the rest of us will be racing for fun. That's life.

Jerry, I agree completely. However, we can and should try to influence the gap between the two. We will all be much better off if the difference is 5-15 HP rather than 20-30 HP. (*)

* Made up, fictional numbers pulled out of thin air just to make the point.

[jerry freeman]

I could go for the SIR rule and leave everything else alone IF someone can show me a good way to test the SIR. The way I understood the way they test these things when it was talked about last winter is by some kind of pressure test along with a diameter test. The diameter test is simple. But, I havent seen an airbox yet that was capable of holding pressure and I've looked at all the cars at Atlanta and the pics on this website. If this can be done then go for it. It will only make the top guys spend more to make they're motors run a peak performance with less air. No problem for me because I'll just have to use e-bay motors.

Jerry

[RussMcB]

I've heard of an SIR test described as: While the engine is running (idling), close off the SIR opening (by hand, I guess). The engine had better die. If it doesn't, air is getting in elsewhere.

[Matt Conrad]

There's been a ton of information bantered about on this thread, and some comments made that some information is misleading, untrue or downright lies....So....I just wanted leave you with some of my prior comments that are facts...

1. The FB cars are currently running at performance levels between FA's and FC's....right where most of us thought they would be.
2. The power to weight ratio of the FB cars is much closer to FA than it is FC...in fact, it is nearly the same as an FA.
3. The fastest FB cars are running the newest motors. For example, at the ARRC, all of the top 5 cars were running 2006 or newer engines.
4. The stock horsepower of the 1000cc bike engines is not (and never has been) "static" and will continue to increase by at least 3-5 horsepower each and every year. Did you know the first 1000cc inline 4-cylinder bike engine made under 50hp? So how is it that we are now knocking on 200hp's door? Barring any government interference...or other outside influence....we will see a 200hp production 1000cc bike in the next three years.
5. The costs of installing a "new" engine each and every year will be much greater than merely "refreshing" current engines. This is based on an estimated $5,000 average cost of a new engine (including new items that may be necessary..i.e. headers, wiring, etc.)....compared to a $2,500 average cost of a "refresh"(which includes a new set of valves...just in case).
6. The SCCA has the right to impose an SIR at any time it sees fit....without approval or consultation with any of us. If you doubt me....read the F1000 engine rules:

"E. Inlet Restrictors. The air inlet system is unrestricted at this time. However, the CRB may require the use of an inlet restrictor at any time by publishing the requirements in FasTrack."

***Please note the HOWEVER and that it says AT ANY TIME.

The goals of the founders of this class were "high performance at a low cost". They have succeeded....greatly! These cars are already very fast and I believe that when we really start to develop the full potential of the platform, the performance will begin to skew further towards FA levels and I'm not sure that is where the SCCA wants us to go. Either we make some decisions now to help keep the performance "in check" or I predict it will be done for us.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[Matt Conrad]

Russ,

FYI....I don't think your number of 20-30hp difference is off. I would bet that the difference right now between a 99 R1 engine and the 2007 GSXR is already in that range.

As far as the SIR goes....I believe the way they test it is by closing off the intake and the engine must shut down after 4 seconds...or something like that.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[sidney]

Matt, there are about 13 million different ways to get around the test they are using. I'm a failed engineer, but I have already figured out how to meet this rule and avoid using the SIR. The only way to make sure the SIR is being used properly is the way the F3 guys do it: You have to pull a vacuum on the exhaust side of the motor with the SIR plugged.

On the other side, what do you think SCCA will do when the FB guys are going faster than the FA cars? Right now you are talking about times that are much closer to FA than FC and that will only go in one direction with further development.

I completely agree with Matt that SCCA probably does not want these cars going faster than FA. Limiting power output or adding weight are a couple of ways to do that. I'm not a big fan of adding ballast to my car.

The easiest way SCCA will limit that, if past history is any indication, is for implementation of a SIR. As it has been clearly stated by other folks, it is right in the rules. If we don't want the SIR, and we don't want the cars to run lean (i.e. fuel restriction), then what are the alternatives? Maybe this is a different thread.

[RussMcB]

How can you cheat an SIR?

It's a serious question (& not because I'd want to cheat).