2008 Engine Rules Compromise

[Matt Conrad]

Mike,

What happened is that during the ARRC a rumor started that the SCCA was again considering SIR's for the class. Period. That's it. None of us want that to happen, so many of us are looking at ways that we can keep the class from zooming out of control (before it really gets started) and forcing somebody to make changes that none of us likes.

The performance of these cars at Atlanta was spectacular. I've heard from people that the "hired guns" out there were running corner speeds 10mph faster than some of the ultra-quick DSR guys!!! The lap times overall are already there, and some of these cars were essentially NEW.

As Sean pointed out....Many of us have been involved with the DSR class and we've seen what happens when there is money and fairly open rules in a class. I've documented the trends in DSR on another forum, but suffice it say that from 2004 to 2007 DSR has went from one of the most subscribed classes (using Runoffs entries) to one of the lowest. Costs for a turn-key new car in that class have went from under $50K in 2004....to around $85,000 today. The engines in some of those cars...and the parts needed to install one....are over $15,000.

Russ also makes a great point....All of us were so excited to be a part of this new class and to get our cars out running.....I just don't think we really thought about the engine "arms race" that goes on unabated every year between the bike makers. Now....we should....because like Sean says....it is inevitable that money flowing into this class will dictate the newest, latest, greatest engine for those that want to be at the pointy end of the grid.

Also....per Sean's request for Info...Stohr sells an "Engine Install Kit" for around $4,300. Ours is a bit less....but not much. That includes everything you need to install the motor in the car and get it running. I don't think it includes an airbox.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[Duane Dyckman]

MTT Turbine Superbike Y2K 227 mph (365 km/h)

MTT Turbine Superbike, also known as Y2K Turbine Superbike, is the world's second wheel driven motorcycle powered by a turbine engine, created by Ted McIntyre of Marine Turbine Technologies Inc. Powered by a Rolls Royce Allison 250 series turboshaft engine, producing 238kW (320hp), this motorcycle has a recorded top speed of 227 mph (365 km/h), with a price tag of US$150,000. It is recognized by Guinness World Records as the "Most powerful production motorcycle" and the "Most expensive production motorcycle".Unlike other contemporary motorcycles(such as the Hayabusa), 2001 and later models of MTT Turbine SUPERBIKE do not have the 300 km/h speed limit self-imposed by Japanese manufacturers.
Click to enlarge



CategoriesAprilia
BMW
Buell
Cruiser
Ducati
Harley-Davidson
Honda
Husqvarna
Kawasaki
KTM
Moto Guzzi
Motocross
MV Agusta
Naked
Off-Road
Scooters
Sportbike
Supermoto
Suzuki
Touring
Triumph
Yamaha

[Mike B]

Mike,

What happened is that during the ARRC a rumor started that the SCCA was again considering SIR's for the class. Period. That's it. None of us want that to happen, so many of us are looking at ways that we can keep the class from zooming out of control (before it really gets started) and forcing somebody to make changes that none of us likes.

As Sean pointed out....Many of us have been involved with the DSR class and we've seen what happens when there is money and fairly open rules in a class. I've documented the trends in DSR on another forum, but suffice it say that from 2004 to 2007 DSR has went from one of the most subscribed classes (using Runoffs entries) to one of the lowest. Costs for a turn-key new car in that class have went from under $50K in 2004....to around $85,000 today. The engines in some of those cars...and the parts needed to install one....are over $15,000.

So which is it that we're afraid of, performance or cost?
If your concern is with an unsubstantiated rumor of an SIR, we only need one rule: "No SIR." Period. That's it.

Russ also makes a great point....All of us were so excited to be a part of this new class and to get our cars out running.....I just don't think we really thought about the engine "arms race" that goes on unabated every year between the bike makers.

You're wrong here. This was discussed at great length by the F1000 committee and the rules we came up with were in response to the supposed HP arms race in DSR. I'll say it again: one of the draws of this class is the cutting edge technology at a relatively reasonable price. If you want to freeze it at a given performance/technology level, I'll just go back to FC or FE.

[ianashdown]

I have to agree with Mike. Even though I have no stake in this class - yet - I feel expression of my attraction to the class might halp. That fact that we can use the very latest engine technology available to a regular person at what is unbelievably low cost is a major draw for me. I'm not an engine guy, chassis and aero are my domains, so the fact that I can spend $4K and get this level of technology is just so unique and so cool. If I spend $50K on a brand new shiny race car the last thing I will want to do is put a two year old lump in it! The confidence and presumably reliability that having a new engine brings must surely make it the best money one could spend. The really expensive racing is the day you don't get on the track because the engine blew up!

Newer the better - Keep it Free!

Ian

[RussMcB]

Ian, given the choice, would you rather do 5 races a year and have the latest, newest engine, or have a 1-2 year old engine and do 8 races a year?

[Mike Devins]

I would not support any change that had a rolling date of more than 1 year. If you purchase a zero miles motor you install it and race. If you install a $2500 ebay motor you rebuild it ($1000), Break it in on the dyno ($500) and pay for shipping both ways unless you are local ($400). If you do not do this you run the risk of blowing up your used motor.

A zero miles motor sound cheaper to me. You will not be able to buy zero mile motors when they are two years old.

Sean can attest to the cost of running junk yard motor without rebuild.

George Dean - if you are reading this please let me know if I am off base on the costs.

[JEREMY HILL]

IT WOULD APPEAR I HAVE 'STIRRED IT UP' AGAIN!, ONE OF THE REASONS I WOULD LIKE AN ENGINE FREEZE IS BECAUSE THE NEWEST AND MOST POWERFUL MOTORS ARE GOING TO BE LESS AND LESS RELIABLE, MORE POWER EQUALS LESS RELIABLE, I WAS WARNED BY SOME GUYS IN BIKE RACING THAT THE 07 GSXR HAD SOME ISSUES, I DIDNT LISTEN AND WENT AHEAD AND INSTALLED ONE FOR THE ARRC, I RAN 7 EVENTS ON AN 06 WITH NO PROBLEMS, THE 07 DIDNT LAST 1 WEEKEND, I ALSO KNOW I WASNT THE ONLY ONE WITH CONCERNS ABOUT THE 07 LASTING THE RACE ,I BELIEVE THE PICTURE WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF, BEST REGARDS, JEREMY HILL FB#00

[Lee Stohr]

That's the whole point, the guys buying the latest engine have to do the development. It's a risk. It doesn't guarantee a win.
After a season, the development issues become well known and everyone else benefits.
I think the rules aren't that bad as is.
Even in DSR, a 1999 Yamaha R1 with carbs won the Runoffs in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and was second in 2007.

[Brandon Dixon]

I think that what Lee is saying is very relevant. DSR and FB are different because of the stock vs. built engines, but they are still very similar. They have proven that the "latest and greatest" engine isn't REQUIRED to win at the highest levels of competition in DSR.

I believe that EVERY car in this class can benefit more from chassis and aero tuning than bolting in an extra 10hp.

I've heard several people say on one hand that it was going to be a requirement to upgrade engines every year, but that if we freeze engines now then they are going to leave the 2004/5/6 engine in their car and not upgrade to the 2007 engines.

I think that the current rules are working. The class and the excitement are growing.

[Sean Maisey]

There has been a lot of misinformation floating around, and I feel the need to clear the air (somemore).

When the original F1000 committee submitted our proposal to the CRB, Stan Clayton and Dave Gomberg were fairly adament that we needed to cap HP at approximately 180. To do this they proposed (and the F1000 committee went along with) a 23mm SIR.

To quote

The HP question is another situation. It would be really nice to have all the engines within 5 HP and in talking to Dave Gomberg, it sounds like this is doable with the rules (including the SIR.) 10-15 HP won't be as huge of a difference in F1000 as it is in FC, given that we're talking about peaks in the 180ish range.

(F1000 email discussion - July 27th, 2006)

Now this whoe SIR thing turned out to be a relative disaster, and before the F1000 sules were published that part was removed with the provision that it would be revisited later if HP levels and speeds got out of hand.

So, lets keep it real guys, no one ever intended for this to be a wide open class. We knew the 'engine of the year' would be a problem and thought we had made provisions to deal with it. The SIR clearly was not the solution, but we need to do something.

I hate to keep harping on the same point, but acquisition costs aside, IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE to change engines every year. Matt has posted some real info on costs. Read it , believe it. It will ruin the class in very short order.

Sean

[Matt Conrad]

Duane,

Yea....an F1000 "whoosh-mobile"....now that would be cool. I wonder if it would be eligible for FS?

Alright...I'm going to be done with the discussion at this point. I've made my points and I've sent my letter. I will make a prediction though....If we don't do some of the things we are discussing right now to "check" the performance and minimize the ongoing engine costs of the FB class.....NOW....we are going to look back and wish we had.

Just food for thought....Estimated Power to Weight Ratios of different open-wheeled "winged" cars:

FA - 1HP to 5.3LBS
FB - 1HP to 5.5LBS***
FC - 1HP to 7.5LBS
FM - 1HP to 7.7LBS
FE - 1HP to 8.1LBS

***This is based on real dyno numbers for a 2007 GSX-R1000 engine. This number will be lowered every year as new engines are released and additional horsepower is allowed.

See you at the track soon!

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[Matt Conrad]

Sean said....

So, lets keep it real guys, no one ever intended for this to be a wide open class. We knew the 'engine of the year' would be a problem and thought we had made provisions to deal with it. The SIR clearly was not the solution, but we need to do something.

HOME RUN......Couldn't have said it any better. There was ALWAYS an intention to reign in the performance of these engines...we just backed off of it when the info came forth on how bad the SIR idea was.

Truthfully, the SIR is the worst idea and I'm glad we're all on the same side on the issue....but I think doing nothing is the second worst option.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[RussMcB]

Brandon, I do not agree with two points:

I think that what Lee is saying is very relevant. DSR and FB are different because of the stock vs. built engines, but they are still very similar. They have proven that the "latest and greatest" engine isn't REQUIRED to win at the highest levels of competition in DSR.

In DSR you can do a LOT to the engines. It's much easier to make a 1999 Yamaha as powerful as a 2006 Yamaha. On the other hand, in FB, you can't really change much, so the only way to get 5-10 HP over a competitor (or to have equal HP) is to buy the latest most powerful engine:

I believe that EVERY car in this class can benefit more from chassis and aero tuning than bolting in an extra 10hp.

That's probably true right now, but will not be true in the future. At some point you'll reach a point of diminishing returns (i.e., MUCH less than 10 extra HP).

If you asked Don Svenpiper (sp?) if he could get to a lower lap time with 10 more HP or with more chassis and aero tuning, what would be his answer? What would be his answer in 6 months?

Besides, the argument about chassis and aero tuning is irrelevent. To help me make that point, imagine you have two great drivers in WELL developed identical Stohrs. THEN what would you think about one having 10 more HP than the other?

[Sean Maisey]

Brandon,

I think it is apples and oranges to compare FB and DSR engines.

That '99 Yamaha R1 that Mark J. used to win the runoffs was highly developed, and VERY costly (rumored to be in the $12-15k range to duplicate). So it was not really a '99 motor at all. Each year it was refreshed and refined. If you can spend enough money in DSR you can keep the same block and attempt to outpace the Japanese factories in development.

In FB we can not modify the motors, so when the 2009 Suzuki comes out with a different exhaust cam and higher compression pistons, you can't just update those parts. You need to replace the WHOLE engine to keep up. Each year you run the risk of not only having to change the engine, but the water pump, dry sump. wiring harness, mounts, exhaust, etc... because of different packaging. At best, if you choose to keep one manufacturer's product, you will be uncompetitive every other year and only have to redo everything every third year.

Correct me if I am wrong, but when we ran FF weren't you the guy who commissioned multiple heads from Arnie one year and kept only the one that dyno'ed the best (selling me the 'left over' parts)? Are you telling me that YOU don't think people will feel the need to switch to the hot brand of engine each season to gain 4-5HP?

Sean

[RussMcB]

Matt & others, thanks for resurfacing the desire to cap power at 180 HP. That would be fantastic, because then I could settle on an engine (and spare), not have to worry about new engine mounts, wiring harnesses, dry sump systems, air boxes, etc. Heck, I'd be a LOT more inclined to ship it off to Gearge Dean for inspection and peace of mind every year or two if I thought I wouldn't have to replace it with something else in the near future. THAT would be IDEAL. Heaven!

I sure wish the SIR didn't have so many problems. I wouldn't say this to any of you in person for fear of being stoned to death, but I wonder if it wouldn't help reach that goal. To be honest, it wouldn't bother me too much if front runners spent gobs of money to have 5 more HP over me. It would be great if a bone stock engine would never be more than 5 HP below the most developed engine.

I understand why the SIR would be very unpopular with people with Runoff aspirations. Then you would be forced to spend development money to be on par with others doing the same.

Remind me again why a low budget racer like me wouldn't like the SIR? ***

Russ (running for my nomex ...)


*** I don't want to hijack this back to the SIR argument, so feel free to ignore my SIR comments. PM's are welcome.

[Lee Stohr]

Oh my God, racing isn't fair ? I had no idea.
Why, I bet the top guys at the ARRC got free tires too.

[RussMcB]

Oh my God, racing isn't fair ? I had no idea.
Why, I bet the top guys at the ARRC got free tires too.

Lee, can you elaborate? I'm not sure what point(s) you are trying to make.

[Lee Stohr]

Just my warped sense of humor, sorry.

[Mike B]

There's one thing Matt and I will agree on, I'm done with this discussion.

You guys are talking in circles, have contradictory goals, unachievable goals, and are throwing out exaggerated claims that are worse than worst case, false information, and just confusing "data." This discussion has become harmful to the class and is probably turning off potential competitors. All of this is over a class that has had exactly ONE well-subscribed race and only existed for 11 months.

If I send a letter to the CRB, it will contain three things:
1) no SIR (although I might be persuaded otherwise)
2) no engines that aren't available in the US and that meet a minimum production quantity (TBD.)
3) engines used in the current year can't be any newer than the previous model year, starting January 1.

If there is a proposal for a 3 year limit, or an interim rule to be readdressed at some later date, I will vigorously campaign against it. I want rules stability.
Sorry.

[Brandon Dixon]

I am also 100% in agreement with Mike B. I am also done.

[Sean Maisey]

Here is the funny part. After all of this sometimes contentious debate, I find myself able to support all 3 of the items Mike lists above.

So can we all agree on that much?

If so, let's write our letters (or one as a group) and move on.

Sean

[dereklola]

I don't have a horse in the race (which sometimes enables one to see the both the forest and the threes) but I have just spent 1/2 hour reading the last 20/30 posts and it seems obvious that the solution is to adopt the DSR engine rules.

The really top runners will spend the quoted $12/15,000 to win the ARRC/runoffs. Others will be content to be 5/10bhp down and will choose when to update their motors and associated car mods.

Lee's right - racing isn't fair - but this would make it acceptably so!

Derek

[RussMcB]

I don't have a horse in the race (which sometimes enables one to see the both the forest and the threes) but I have just spent 1/2 hour reading the last 20/30 posts and it seems obvious that the solution is to adopt the DSR engine rules.

The really top runners will spend the quoted $12/15,000 to win the ARRC/runoffs. Others will be content to be 5/10bhp down and will choose when to update their motors and associated car mods.

Agh!

New rule: You have to have a financial stake in F1000 to participate in this thread. :-)

JUST KIDDING! Of course you have every right to share your opinion, Derek. Please don't take me too seriously.

A more serious response:

Why in the world would you open up the rules for $12/15,000 when we've just shown (last weekend) that $2/6,000 engines can put on some of the greatest racing many of us have ever seen? What is the added benefit of spending those extra thousands of dollars? I can't imagine that many participants would benefit.

A really big draw to this class is affordability, such as engines under $5,000. If I spent that with DSR rules I'd be WAY down on power compared to people doing all the things allowed in DSR. Much more than 5/10bhp, I'd think.

[dereklola]

Just one more very short comment in reply to Russ' response. I saw my proposal as a way to avoid having to spend thousands every other year or so to buy new 'installation kits' to accommodate the latest new engine. I understand that many only spent $2000/$6000 on their engines this year but several posters pointed out that to do the same in future years would need these new 'installation kits' which might cost as much again.

Now back to my vintage cars where I can only dream about $2 engines doing 12,000rpm.

[Jon Jeffords]

If I send a letter to the CRB, it will contain three things:
1) no SIR (although I might be persuaded otherwise)
2) no engines that aren't available in the US and that meet a minimum production quantity (TBD.)
3) engines used in the current year can't be any newer than the previous model year, starting January 1.

Mike, you can't leave yet! I need a clarification regarding your rule #3.

I spoke with three dealerships in the Milwaukee area who indicated that the new model year bikes arrive at the dealership sometime between the fall of the preceding calendar year and the spring of the actual model year. In other words, the 2008 model year bikes will arrive as early as the fall of 2007 calendar year and spring of the 2008 calendar year.

If I interpret your #3 rule correctly, you are recommending that for races held in calendar year 2008 (Jan 1 - Dec 31), engines must be model year 2007 and older?

[Lee Stohr]

Whatever the engine rules are, a bike engine class is a still a great bang for the buck. I really don't care what the rule is, but I'd encourage focusing on the low volume engine rule separately.
A top DSR engine might cost $12,000 but that engine will be competitive for several years. With yearly rebuilds for rings and bearings, the cost came to about $5000 per year, per Championship Title. I don't think we should have DSR engine rules in F1000, I'm just saying these bike engine classes are Relatively Economical regardless.

[Jon Jeffords]

Whatever the engine rules are, a bike engine class is a still a great bang for the buck.

Agreed. And the resulting rules package from FB will help smooth the way for Formula Fords to convert to 600cc. I recently picked up a '98 FF from the west coast that would sound awesome with a ZX-6R at 16,000 rpm!

[Daryl DeArman]

A top DSR engine might cost $12,000 but that engine will be competitive for several years. With yearly rebuilds for rings and bearings, the cost came to about $5000 per year, per Championship Title. I don't think we should have DSR engine rules in F1000, I'm just saying these bike engine classes are Relatively Economical regardless.

So lets take the "12K"--99R1 motor and assume it will still be competitive in DSR for another 2 seasons. That is 10 years for 62K in motor costs (12k + 10x5K). 6200 per year, more per year if it isn't competitve for that long. Does anyone really think replacing with the motor every year is going to be any cheaper than DSR? Looks fairly close to me, tech would be much easier under DSR rules too. The issue I see is that it is too far from the original intent and there will be a much wider performance gap between the guy with the DSR motor and the guy with the zero mile GSXR. Where now, the differences between the best and worst is probably much less.

I get bored with race cars fairly quickly. I am on car number 8 in the last 17 years, it will probably be another 2 or 3 years before I look for something else. I'll see where FB is then. Have fun!

[jerry freeman]

Just some food for thought for people with money because I'll never be able to have the latest and greatest parts.

But , If most people like me don't want a SIR or unlimited DSR motors then here is an idea from the drag racing world.

You can't possibly think you can stop the yearly gain in horsepower by manufacturers
so, the way they helped slow down Top Fuel cars is by limiting the rearend gear ratio
I.E. certain size sprokets on motorcycle engines and they put rev limiters on the cars.
This is easy to police at the track in about 5 minutes. The rev limiter will cut the power to the 180HP you people talk about and the rearend gear will keep the speeds at a manageable level that can be changed at various tracks with different length straights.
That way you could use new motors every year if you can afford it.

Jerry

[RussMcB]

This may have been posted earlier, but I just ran across this info on a motorcycle site.

For Suzuki & Yamaha, 2008 engines will be basically the same as 2007.

Kawasaki & Honda will offer all new engines for 2008, presumably with increased power.

[jtspitler]

So what do we do in prperation for next year! We are at a point where we need to decide on a motor.

Is there going to be a rule change?

How long do I wait?

thanks

[RussMcB]

So what do we do in prperation for next year! We are at a point where we need to decide on a motor.

Is there going to be a rule change?

How long do I wait?

thanks

Tough decision. What's your chassis situation? Is it new with no current engine installed and you can install whatever you want? Safest is probably to buy & install an '07 Suzuki. If peak HP is the most important aspect to you, looks like the 2008 Kawasaki might offer the most. It's legal (now). Not sure if it's available.

I guess it also depends on when you want to get on track with the car, if you want to mount a serious effort, how much money you have, availability of accessories such as dry sump parts, etc.

[Charles Warner]

So what do we do in prperation for next year! We are at a point where we need to decide on a motor.

Is there going to be a rule change?

How long do I wait?

thanks

Continue to operate under the existing rules as set forth by the Club.

[jtspitler]

We are at a point know where we are ready for the engine. Yes I know I can go with the Suzuki but that was not are plan. So if I complete and ready for testing I don't have to worry about any change for the 08 season. There are currently 3 cars in the works with us.

Thanks

[Duane Dyckman]

I believe the only way to limit horsepower is with a separate part for the Suzukis, a separate part for the Kawasakis, etc. George Dean already flashes the stock ECM. Would you be willing to spend $3,000 - $5,000 for a true sealed ECM, Bosche, Motec, ....? There is a sponser on e DSR forum who has great experience in ECM. Also Veracity has great experience with data logging which, I imagine, could track a "cheater ECM".

[John Mosteller]

Why do we need to worry about SIR's and 2008 engines for when there has only been one race with more than two or three entries.(ARRC)Who knows how things will shake out at this point.From what I have heard the 2008 Suzuki and the 2008 Yamaha are the same as the 2007's and the 2008 Kawasaki and the 2008 Honda are not legal anyway as they both have traction control which is only allowed in Touring and Showroom Stock.I would expect that by 2009 Suzuki And Yamaha will follow suit with traction control and they will then be illegal as well.So why worry about something that will take care of its self.

[RobLav]

I agree with John... and Charles - keep operating under the current rules, which I is what I'll be doing this winter.

[RussMcB]

,snip> ... and the 2008 Kawasaki and the 2008 Honda are not legal anyway as they both have traction control which is only allowed in Touring and Showroom Stock.I would expect that by 2009 Suzuki And Yamaha will follow suit with traction control and they will then be illegal as well.

Hmm. If that's true, the rules will surely need to change because the class couldn't survive if they could never use engines newer than today's.

The 2008 Kawasaki traction control uses speed (in addition to RPM increase rate and throttle opening) as inputs. I doubt anyone would go to the trouble of making it work in their race car. Of course, I could be wrong, but seems like way too much effort to solve a problem that isn't really a problem in cars.

I'd bet most F1000 drivers would rather use their brain, butt and right foot for traction control. :-)

[Nicholas Belling]

Think of monsoon weather.. Then think thats what racing is like up here in the north west.. Seattle, Portland, Mission.. These tracks attract rain for some reason like magnets..

Some racers including myself would put the time in to at least test traction control out if rules didnt dissallow it.. Would at least let me know if it was viable.

I can only imagine being in the wet with the throttle pinned to the floor and let TC take over to give maximum accelleration on the slippery surface.. specially corners were it can catch you fast.

I do beleive the class should run for one more year before we embrace anything significant.. But following the ama rules sounds viable as to motor legality..imo

[RussMcB]

Good point, Nicholas. I'm embarrassed that I didn't even think about the benefits of TC in wet conditions.