ARRC race leads to major changes? Not Good

[Richard Dziak]

I did not attend the ARRC race, but have read in detail all of the posts since the 1st ARRC race Nov 9th, 2007.

Were has all the fun of racing this new breed of F1000 gone too?

Before the ARRC...... the posts here on Apexspeed was about excitement and fun about a new class of Formula cars using the motorcycle engine. Major car manufacturers like Stohr emerged as the major constuctor. There was excitement and follow up from the guys who were spending numerous hours to design, modify and build their own race cars. It was exciting to watch the progress and the photos of what other racers were doing in this class. Then Phoenix emerged and built a few cars, Piper emerged and we have heard of others.

Now after 1 ARRC race it appears the fun and excitement of this class has changed dramaticly. Now there is talk of engine restrictions for HP, and new engines. Limited engine use for a few years, avoiding technology and the quest by major bike engine manufacturers to forge ahead with technology. Now there is talk of protesting engines, and tearing them apart for inspections to look for cheaters. There is talk to hand down to the regions the right to tear apart a competitors engine.

Were is this class going, and were is the fun of the original intent going. Lets remember this is amatuer racing. We are not Champ Car or IRL drivers and owners. I am sure some FB owners think they are proferssional drivers because they own a fancy FB Car. We are the grass roots of racing and if this current trend of being super competitive and limiting engines and tearing apart engines on a simple protest to race continues, it could really deter away future racers from this exciting and fun intended class. Lets remember who we all are. Guys and gals who work for a living, enjoy motorsports and want to get out on the track to have fun. We all have a competitive spirit, but there is a limit.....both competitive wise and financial for many conversion builders.

This new direction during the last three weeks and comments really scares me, and should others also. The thought of having my engine removed for inspection scares me. The thought of limiting engine use scares me. Technology will always prevail. You can't stop progress/tehnology and never will.

On the most recent FB roll call, you can see many of those who responded are self builders using older engines and chassis of cars. These are the grassroots guys that are out there for the fun, and not possible to win major races againist purpose built cars such as the Stohr...Piper or Phoenix, and other purpose built cars.

If the top notch racers who have deep pockets to race and build the best of the best, want these new rules and changes, then they should apply to them.

It seems that there is quickly becoming a separation of those racers in FB Class who want to utmost of being competitive and those who build their own cars for the fun of driving, racing and have a good time on the track.

I think some posters on this site need to step back and realize that they are trying to make rule changes that may effect many that just don't care or the new rules shouldn't apply. I for one, don't want my engine tore apart on a simple protest. I don't care if another FB owner has 5 more HP than myself.

The SCCA which most of us belong have their rules and strict or easy tech inspectors. In Arizona, we are weighed after each qualifying session and race. The FB class was been watched closely and Matt Conrad can attest that his car at Firebird International was carefully measured and checked on his last win there. The tech inspector even required an engine manual be available in the SCCA log book.

Lets let the tech inpsectors do their job, looking for the cheaters and the underweight racers, and leave the rest of us who want the fun and the excitement of racing our new FB Class cars alone.

This class seems to be getting out of control over its original intent of being fun, and having the average guy or gal build their conversion and have an inexpensive car to race.

Maybe its time to step back and just let the class emerge, and lets have fun. Perhaps the guys who want to be the #1 racers in FB form a professional race class and let the others who want the fun and excitement of racing let us enjoy our cars.

I am sure this post may create lots of responses. Lets hope so as the group needs to step back and reflect on the past year or so of the posts here on Apexspeed and why this class was even created.

Lets enjoy what we have .

[Mike B]

Great post, Richard. This one, along with another regarding participation:
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...827#post156827
point to the need to maintain the positive interest and growth in F1000 that is based on the class as we know it. To that end, I think most will agree that it's important to stay the course we're on, at least for a complete season. I also think that most will agree that if the current rules are not meeting the class philosophy (High performance, low cost) that something should be done, but not a minute sooner.
Regarding enforcement of the rules, rest assured that at the regional level you won't see much more than a simple weigh-in and possibly one other easy-to-measure check performed (e.g., max width.) This is likely the case at most national races, too.
The concern with the engine tech thread
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...808#post156808
is more with the high-profile races like the June Sprints and ARRC where the entire country is paying attention.

Finally, there is currently a small group of F1000 competitors that is very actively monitoring the cost/performance status of F1000 and formulating ideas that could be applied if things go south. I hope I'm not putting words in their mouth when I say that nothing will change in 2008.
Except participation!

[carnut169]

Uh... not sure I agree with you Richard.

No one wants motors torn down. The tech procedures that are being discussed are very non-invasive- pull a spark plug and test compression then look in the hole with a boroscope. That's it.

The motor restrictions are more discussions than anything else. Doubt there will be any changes that will require you to do anything. SIR- no one really likes it. Limited engines? Only point there is to keep the latest/ greatest out of the cars mid-season. in 08 you can't run 09 motors.... but for now you can, its just a discussion.

The ARRC did prove one thing- this is the most exciting class currently in existance.

[RussMcB]

Richard, let me start by saying I admire your attitude expressed in one of your earlier reports. I wish that I could be perfectly content to drive my exciting F1000 race car and not be concerned about how well I do against competitors. (I think that was the gist of your earlier post. I apologize if I interpreted it wrong). Unfortunately, my enjoyment level is influenced by how well I finish in races. I have a much more enjoyable experience when I finish in the top half of the field rather that bottom.

It seems perfectly natural to me that the focus has changed since the ARRC. Before, we were all excited about the gathering of many F1000 race cars for the first time. Many of us were looking forward to our first races in FB.

Now that the ARRC has passed, (some) people are more focused on the future of the class, and pondering whether we should be proactive about potential problems. I don't think this new focus is based on the results of the ARRC. It's just that many of us are in a different place now.

I think we all have to realize that a class as exciting as F1000 is going to attract all types of competitors, including the very competitive with the means to put together the best possible package. If they have a large investment in time/money/work in their hopes for top finishes, they want to make sure that cheaters don't have it too easy. That makes sense and the current conversation looking for the best all around tech process is healthy (IMO). I assume that most F1000 would like to arrive at a thorough but non-invasive process if possible.

My hunch is that engine tear downs will probably be very rare except for the top "x" finishers at one or two prestigious F1000 events. In other words, people like you or I would never likely face a tear down during a 10+ year period.

Regarding your statement that you would not care if another FB owner has 5 more HP than you: I couldn't agree with you more. If the gap between the lowest and highest is 5 HP then I can't imagine a better scenario for the class. The problem is that many see that the gap is going to continue to widen, and there are no easy solutions.

I think it's good that there is a dialog regarding the future of F1000. All viewpoints (yours, mine, everyone involved) should be welcomed.

[Dave Gomberg]

Richard:

First, what you are seeing (regardless of the motivations) is simply discussion, so far. That is true for any of the issues you cited.

Second, I don't know how long you have been racing with SCCA, but mechanical protests of one entrant by another has been the mechanism through which compliance is assured for a long time. It is available to any entrant in any class at any time they wish to put up the necessary bond (for disassembly and reassembly - parts and labor). You don't see this very often at National or Regional events, but it does happen. This is not something new, nor specific to FB.

Third, the proposal to have the top finishers torn down at "big" events was, I think, intended as a warning shot across the bow for those inclined to stretch the class rules. Only the competitors can decide if they want this and the event organizers would have to be of a mind to cooperate in such an effort.

Finally, while I understand your desire to keep things low key, that's difficult to maintain among a bunch of Type-A racers - regardless of the class. The very nature of the FB cars is such that it will attract a lot of people who want to win. The very reason we have rules is so that everyone knows where the lines are drawn. You have said (in this post and others) that you are out there to have fun and you aren't worried about winning. If that is the case, you won't be personally affected by things like tear downs. Your point about driving people away from the class because of these discussions might be plausible if the discussions became rancorous. However, I think more people would be encouraged knowing that real efforts were being made to keep things on the up-and-up.

Dave


P.S. With regard to weighing all cars after qualifying: that is something most of the western tracks are able to do routinely because they have adequate space for impound. However, there are lots of tracks in other parts of the country where that is not true. It is a requirement (GCR 5.9.3.C) that the top three cars in class get weighed post-race at National races and is recommended for Regional races.

[blewbayou]

Were has all the fun of racing this new breed of F1000 gone too?

Before the ARRC...... the posts here on Apexspeed was about excitement and fun about a new class of Formula cars using the motorcycle engine. Major car manufacturers like Stohr emerged as the major constuctor. There was excitement and follow up from the guys who were spending numerous hours to design, modify and build their own race cars. It was exciting to watch the progress and the photos of what other racers were doing in this class. Then Phoenix emerged and built a few cars, Piper emerged and we have heard of others.

As an outsider looking in and having great interest in this class, i have to agree with Richard. One race (which is a big one) and everyone is up in arms wanting rule changes. As i have not had experience in this class, i ran a formula series that ran rotax 600 cc snowmobile engines, the top guys, i know for a fact spent $10,000 on there motors, i did not have the funds to be competitive, but ran in the top 5-10 (had one win in 5 years and finished eighth in the series championship) and enjoyed it. I had a major accident that broke both of my legs and shattered my ankles. I want to race again and looked at DSR untill i saw competitive rolling chassis go from $45,000 to $70,000. FB is perfect untill i see all this in-fighting so to speak after one race. You really need a good year to base things on, not one race.
Right now used engines are cheap, they will not stay that way as these motorcycle engined cars become popular, more demand equals higher price. Someone with more money is alway's going to find that extra bit no matter what you do. Here is how i see it, stock engines, limited years equal people with money spending it on developing maps for a power commander for each individual track in order to gain the best power equation for that particular track. with data logging and dynos, it is possible.
My question is, what about competiton adjustments? want to run the latest engine, penalize them with weight. Figure out the horsepower to weight ratio of 175 HP to 1000 pounds, if someone is running the latest 185 HP motor,figure out the extra weight needed to match the 175 HP to 1,000# and add it to there cars in a position that cna not be advantagous. I know, some of the people converting cars will say, i can't make weight as it is, Then figure out a way to shave some weight off of your car.
In my former series, we wanted to run motorcycle engines, and tried to get manufacturing company's involved, their response was no way do we want our engines associated with cars, this was in 1998 and we talked to all the manufacturers.
Anyway, this is not to offend anyone, i know what it is like to have underpowered cars and understand everyone's thoughts on these posts, with and without money. but i can not see all of this after one major race, need more data, which is more races.

[Stan Clayton]

I have a bit different perspective than Richard and blewbayou. I suppose one colored by my experience on the CRB and in the rules making process.

First, I think that open and constructive discussion is good. IMO, it is far better to identify the areas of conflict early and earnestly work to resolve them than to let them fester until they grow to emergency proportions. In a sense, FB is fortunate to have had the ARRC focus attention so early on the primary issues still dividing the class -- uncontrolled performance and the attendant unfettered cost escalation. It took Spec Miata several years to have its major issues come to a boil, and the class has suffered for the difficulty in undoing mistakes made years ago. While I agree that there is no immediate emergency facing FB, the issues of engine performance and the cost to remain competitive need to be addressed and resolved sooner rather than later if the class is to maintain good growth.

Second, I strongly suspect that blewbayou's impressions of FB are no different than those of a newcomer to competitive snowmobile racing. In non-spec classes there is always an undercurrent of rancor that can be off-putting to outsiders and newbies. That too is natural IMO. That said, the sooner we put these issues behind us the sooner the rancor will decrease and stronger the growth will be.

Stan

[Matt Conrad]

First....I completely agree with Stan that having these discussions in a public forum is healthy. These forums allow us to state our opinions...right or wrong. I respect everyone's opinions as we all have reasons for our beliefs, and we are all passionate about this exciting new class. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, we do have some issues looming on the horizon and having discussions now will give us some options and directions when the issues need to be dealt with. The timing of these discussions had nothing to do with the ARRC and more to do with the fact that the class had essentially had a year in the books. I intentional waited until after the ARRC because I didn't think we needed to have the discussion yet.

Second....I'm tired of people ignoring the FACTS that the performance of the engines for our cars is dynamic....and not static. Please pick up the phone and have a brief chat with George Dean...who has been working on these things for 30 years...and you will understand where they've come from, and where they are going. If any of you believe that there will not be a 200hp production motorcycle in the next 3 years....you are fooling yourself. In the few years I have spent building motorcycle-powered race cars I have seen the performance of new "bone stock" engines surpass the "fully built runoffs" motors of only a few years ago.

Third....Every comment I've made and every position I have taken is from the perspective of a club racer....and not as a manufacturer of these cars. Trust me, having a runaway cost (and performance) class with minimal rules only benefits the manufacturers (making all the new whizzy bits and selling the $15,000 engines) and those with unlimited racing resources who can afford to pay the higher prices.

Fourth....My idea (and that is all it is) to look at limiting engine years as a way to keep costs low and to also keep the performance of these awesome engines at around 180hp (where they are now) was a "pre-emptive strike" in keeping any future SIR rule imposed by SCCA. I never said any action by SCCA was forthcoming, but the only mechanism allowed by the current FB rules is an SIR. Also understand that the imposition of an SIR will not hurt the manufacturers....it will help us. We have access to knowledgable engineers who have several years of experience working with SIR's and, through our engine builders, we also have access to very nice dynos that we can test our methods for working around an SIR. We then get to sell our newly developed and proven engine/airbox/exhaust packages to everyone at a premium....because we know they work.

Fifth....Allowing these cars to exceed the performance levels of FA cars is irresponsible. That is what will happen if we allow the engine rule to continue unabated. It hasn't really been brought up before in these discussions, but there needs to be some thoughts around safety if we allow the engine performance to rise 5% each and every year. This is a whole 'nuther can-o-worms and I don't want to open it yet. Suffice it to say that I have personally impacted a wall almost head-on at 117mph in a DSR tube frame car and know that ankle bones do not like it much.

Sixth...and lastly...I have invested a year of my life and hundreds of thousands of dollars into building cars for F1000. When other manufacturers said "I will not build a car for this class" we announced we would....and we did. From the very beginning (early 2005) when Mike B. and I discussed the possibilty of the class (and us building a car for it) I thought it could be a huge success. I continue to believe that and only want to do what is right for the class....not for me....not for Phoenix Race Works....but for the entire class, because I believe if we always think about what's best for the class...it will benefit all of us.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[carnut169]

As an outsider looking in and having great interest in this class, i have to agree with Richard. One race (which is a big one) and everyone is up in arms wanting rule changes. As i have not had experience in this class, i ran a formula series that ran rotax 600 cc snowmobile engines, the top guys, i know for a fact spent $10,000 on there motors, i did not have the funds to be competitive, but ran in the top 5-10 (had one win in 5 years and finished eighth in the series championship) and enjoyed it. I had a major accident that broke both of my legs and shattered my ankles. I want to race again and looked at DSR untill i saw competitive rolling chassis go from $45,000 to $70,000. FB is perfect untill i see all this in-fighting so to speak after one race. You really need a good year to base things on, not one race.
Right now used engines are cheap, they will not stay that way as these motorcycle engined cars become popular, more demand equals higher price. Someone with more money is alway's going to find that extra bit no matter what you do. Here is how i see it, stock engines, limited years equal people with money spending it on developing maps for a power commander for each individual track in order to gain the best power equation for that particular track. with data logging and dynos, it is possible.
My question is, what about competiton adjustments? want to run the latest engine, penalize them with weight. Figure out the horsepower to weight ratio of 175 HP to 1000 pounds, if someone is running the latest 185 HP motor,figure out the extra weight needed to match the 175 HP to 1,000# and add it to there cars in a position that cna not be advantagous. I know, some of the people converting cars will say, i can't make weight as it is, Then figure out a way to shave some weight off of your car.
In my former series, we wanted to run motorcycle engines, and tried to get manufacturing company's involved, their response was no way do we want our engines associated with cars, this was in 1998 and we talked to all the manufacturers.
Anyway, this is not to offend anyone, i know what it is like to have underpowered cars and understand everyone's thoughts on these posts, with and without money. but i can not see all of this after one major race, need more data, which is more races.

So do you want to leave the rules as-is, or add weight and limit engine years?

BTW- one of the current owners suggested the very same thing... 1000lbs for 180hp (2007 motors) and add 5.5lbs per hp going forward. I kinda like the idea, but there are several good ideas floating around- including just leaving it alone for a year and watching results.

I really don't think there is any undue drama here. Buy (or build) a car and get off the pit wall.

[blewbayou]

carnut 169: I really don't think there is any undue drama here. Buy (or build) a car and get off the pit wall.

On the contrary, on the outside looking in, from a prospective FB racer, there is. A while ago, when i was seriously looking at DSR, i could take $70,000 and buy a new chassis, competitve engine and spares. I hesitated due to all the fuss about participatin numbers and whether DSR would continue onto a national level. My hesitation resulted in needing $85-$100,00 now to be competitive, i know, my fault, not the class. Now i see where i can by a competitve chassis, motor and spares for around $55,000 in FB, but why would i, especially not knowing where the class is going and if i would need to invest more money due to changes that may come before the car was finished being built. Now i agree that things should be discussed, my point is that one major race does not warrant significant changes in the rules and baseing things on what if's is not a good idea. Will we have 200 + Hp motors, maybe, but i think the insurance industry will have a say as well as government. My thing is that i have a certain amount of money to play with and want to be able to run at least a year before i have to invest more. It would be like ordering a new car for x amount of dollars and half way during the build, i get told it is going to cost me $10,000 more before i can pick it up.

[Sean Maisey]

I must admit, I have become a little mystified by some of the directions this whole rules discussion has taken:

My thing is that i have a certain amount of money to play with and want to be able to run at least a year before i have to invest more. It would be like ordering a new car for x amount of dollars and half way during the build, i get told it is going to cost me $10,000 more before i can pick it up.

(Dude, I am afraid that you are in for a rude awakening regarding buying race cars Hopefully YMMV)

Someone please correct me if I am off base, but I see the entire point of all of these engine rules threads is to discuss possible ways to reduce costs and thus KEEP the class growing. Ignoring these issues is refusing to acknowledge the proverbial "800# gorillia in the room".

NOT changing the rules can (and probably will in some cases) lead to obsoleting engines after less than one full season of use. (For example I currently run a new for the ARRC 2006 Suzuki, but worry that I should now go directly to a new 2008 Kawasaki ZX10 and forget the 2007/8 GSXR for the coming season)... Believe me this 'flexibility' is NOT making me happy or improving my racing experience.

Motorcycle powertrains are very dynamic, and expecting that we can have a 40 year long engine spec like FF or 25 year spec like FC is absurd. Take the newest potential FB/F1000 engines from Honda and Kawasaki. Even if we choose not to address anything else, we apparently must address traction control if these units are to be used. Who knows what Suzuki and Yamaha will come up with in 2009.

And what will be the reaction the first time that someone shows up with a special-edition 200hp Ducati/Aprillia/BiMoto/???? powered car? Do we wait until they build it to send them home? That hardly seems fair and sportsman-like. So why even let it become a possibility. Again, until the rules are changed this is fair game...

So to summarize: Discussion = GOOD
Adjustments = GOOD
Head in sand = BAD

Sean

[sidney]

Will we have 200 + Hp motors, maybe, but i think the insurance industry will have a say as well as government. My thing is that i have a certain amount of money to play with and want to be able to run at least a year before i have to invest more. It would be like ordering a new car for x amount of dollars and half way during the build, i get told it is going to cost me $10,000 more before i can pick it up.

You already have a motor from Ducati that will produce more than 205 hp bone stock. This will easily put power levels in excess of FA at 1000 lbs. Oh yea, it costs more than $20k (for the motor). We need a way to limit the power to weight ratio to levels between FA and FC (thus the class name FB).

I am in agreement with Matt on the tubular chassis at FA type performance. I'm not smart enough to have the magic answer, but leaving the engine rule open as we have it today is in my opinion not viable long term. If we discuss options openly and honestly, I suspect the group will come up with a solution that can be proposed to the CRB. We either shape the future, or have someone else do it for us.

[jabro1000]

It's none of my business as I'm an FC guy and will continue to be for the forseeable future, but I watch what you guys are up to with great curiousity mostly because I admire the grassroots nature of the homebuilt conversions; my hat is off to all of you with the balls to whack the back end off a Van Diemen and start over As a person who spent a good portion of my younger years riding sport bikes I do have a simple technical question with regard to how easy it would be to just flip and flop whatever motor happens to be putting out the most horsepower on any given calender day: Kawasaki, Honda, Suzuki, and Yamaha bike frames are not all built identical, and therefore I would have to assume that the motor mounting points are not the same either. Are you guys using the same motor mounting points in your cars as are used in a bike frame, and if so, would it not mean some re-engineering and frame welding to switch from a GSXR to a ZX motor?

[RussMcB]

<snip> ... would it not mean some re-engineering and frame welding to switch from a GSXR to a ZX motor?

In my case, it would be a major pain and would mean attending fewer races. It's largely my own fault for not planning ahead for different engine swaps (my mounts are hard parts welded to the chassis), and also because I did not make the best decisions during college and life and don't have lots of expendable income. :-).

[Matt Conrad]

So to summarize: Discussion = GOOD
Adjustments = GOOD
Head in sand = BAD

I agree Sean.

As far as the Ducati.....I may be mistaken, but the bike alone is $73,000 and I would bet you'd be hard pressed to find an engine for sale anywhere....

The traction control issue....that's another story. We don't know yet if it will have any impact on our application...probably not....but if it does....that's another issue we need to address....Now.

Changing to a new motor isn't that difficult.

For example....we use two machined plates (and some shims) for the rear motor mounts and two fabricated units for the front. The chassis itself does not need to change. All we would need to come up with new mounts is the new motor for a few hours and we'd have new one's mocked up. By the time we got done with the new parts, it would probably cost $300-$500.

There are other factors....like airbox attachment.....as I'm learning that some of the new motors have ovalized intake ports. You may also have to alter the header and install a new wiring harness. The point is that many with the resources will make the change to get the 5-10 more horsepower.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[Matt Conrad]

From "blewbayou":

Will we have 200 + Hp motors, maybe, but i think the insurance industry will have a say as well as government.

A good point, but lets look at the reality. There already is a limitation on the speeds of some of the larger displacement bikes. I'm pretty sure it was self-imposed by the manufacturers (in 2001) as they knew the speed and horsepower wars would never end and instead of having the government and insurance industry step in, they took care of it amongst themselves. I believe the speed limiters are set at 186mph (300km/h).

The two mute points of the speed limiter are....One...that even though the speeds have been limited....the horsepower has continued to rise every year...and the new 2008 Hayabusa now boasts nearly 200hp.....and has 12% more than the 2007 model. I'm guessing the new ZX14 will now have to improve on its paltry 186hp as well.

Second...Did I say the speed limiter was at 186mph??? Not relevant and is easily defeated anyway...and one can do so using all of the stock wiring and stock ECU.

I also remember the US insurance industry and the government stepping in to curb the performance of muscle cars back in the late 60's and early 70's. Do you know how the manufacturers got around the restrictions....they lied....and it worked...at least for many years. Go back and look at HP numbers from the big motors of the day and you'll find that 425HP seems to be the "magic number" everyone advertised for power...what a coincidence. The problem is that every single engine made well above the advertised number....for example....a stock street Hemi that was listed at 426CI and advertised to make 425HP....was dynoed at over 800HP! And the Ford FE 427 made nearly 700HP!

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[P. Howarth]

As far as the Ducati.....I may be mistaken, but the bike alone is $73,000 and I would bet you'd be hard pressed to find an engine for sale anywhere....
Matt Conrad

You may want to check the "2008 Role Call" thread post number 20.
jtspitler is listing the 1000cc Ducati Desmosedici RR as their engine.
A quick web search says this about the engine:
With a power output of 200 HP* at 13,800 rpm and a torque of 11.8 kgm* at 10,500 rpm, the new D16RR engine follows the guidelines laid down by the Ducati Corse GP engine, a masterpiece of engineering and precision.

Who knows if they are serious, but it is out there.

[Daryl DeArman]

Since we are just discussing and head in the sand is bad...and I am wearing my FIA 2000 SCCA approved driving suit...

Why not limit the tire widths to make sure that no matter how the horsepower wars progress these cars won't be as fast as FA's?

With 6/8's how much HP before they can beat a top level FA? How much time does that buy the class? How much faster will the FA's be by that time?

[martyb]

(snip)
With 6/8's how much HP before they can beat a top level FA? How much time does that buy the class? How much faster will the FA's be by that time?

If you accept that Laguna Seca is a handling versus a horsepower track, we were within a second a lap of most of the FA's lap times at the closing Regional earlier this year. The glaring exception was the Runoff's winning FA, which was a good 7 seconds a lap faster than us; none of the other FA's could get within 5 seconds a lap of him!

YMMV.

Marty

[blewbayou]

Matt: Go back and look at HP numbers from the big motors of the day and you'll find that 425HP seems to be the "magic number" everyone advertised for power...what a coincidence. The problem is that every single engine made well above the advertised number....for example....a stock street Hemi that was listed at 426CI and advertised to make 425HP....was dynoed at over 800HP! And the Ford FE 427 made nearly 700HP!

blewbayou: Ask and you shall recieve: http://www.allpar.com/mopar/hemi/dyno-test.html

I owned a 409 chevy with dual quads, stock and it dynoed at 445. stock engines could not handle 7-800Hp back then with the technology, notice i said stock. I understand where you are coming from, as i do everyone else and i see what you want to do by limiting engines. There are alot more varibles to consider that makes a car go fast also. This class has four engine manufacturers, different chassis, some new, old, converted and different driver talents that go in the picture. My point to my input is, in order for this class to grow you need to have some type of stabilty for awhile, where people won't fear rules being changed in mid-stream and costing a fortune, been there, done that (with the exception of saftey). If you want to limit engines years then do so.
What we did in our series, was kept all rules and discussion about them pertaining to cars private among registered car owners, the reason being, it turned a lot of people off from our series because they felt that there was instability in our group. Now i know i have no vested interest in this class yet, i would like to because i really like these cars and have followed them from there inception. The one thing i have learned is that it is not about the cars, manufacturer's, builders etc, it is about the people and how well they present themselves which makes a group, these are memorable, chassis are only memorable when they are on top, as with engines.

[Daryl DeArman]

If you accept that Laguna Seca is a handling versus a horsepower track, we were within a second a lap of most of the FA's lap times at the closing Regional earlier this year. The glaring exception was the Runoff's winning FA, which was a good 7 seconds a lap faster than us; none of the other FA's could get within 5 seconds a lap of him!

YMMV.

Marty

So, about 5-7 seconds between front running FB and FA at that track on that weekend. Granted I am comparing to a run-offs winning quality FA but that demonstrates the potential of the FA package. I've beat FF's in my FV, doesn't mean that my FV is a threat to FF performance. Maybe there is another 2-3 seconds to be found in chassis setup in a FB car without any more horsepower. How much more HP for the next 2-3 seconds ? Is that much horsepower gain 4 years away, 5 or 10? Whatever number it is, it isn't going to be 20-30 or more years like the FF/FV/FC engine situation.

Maybe the FA's need a new motor to increase the performance spread!

[Wren]

as i understood it, pritchard was going as fast at the end of the back straight as a good FC

[Mark H]

Wren..you ment a good FA??? Right? Now my FC 10a trap speed was right around a good FF speed .

Sean with his old soon to be blowen up engine, sure looked quick down the back at RA in the vid? He pulled the Photon 10 cars a few times and it diden't look like it was his T7 lanch either?
Im waiting to hear about someone buying a new bike just to pull the engine out of it?
I mean look a new car is 55k so what is another 20k for a fresh engine & trans?

Adding 5.5 lb per. for some more power, to an already light car ..... shoot Ill take that bet.

[Jay N]

I think that engine stability is a fairly important factor in the growth of FB. There is no question that there are a few guys who will pony up to have the latest & greatest engine no mater the cost. That does not mean that they will blow everyone away but there is a strong chance that someone will & this will cause significant cost escalation for the class.

As has been suggested by many others on this forum I think the answer is to control the model years of high production quantity engines. This will control the engine development by controlling the engine model years allowed and also will eliminate the use of extremely specialized engines out of limited production bikes.

I think that a committee needs to be formed to propose some very solid engine rule recommendations. No mater what happens there will not be ANY rules changes prior to Jan 1 09. Now is the time to do this when the class is very new & the impact of any changes will have MINIMAL effect on current cars & those that are nearly complete.

PS: we are now doing a 6 kit production run of our updated & simplified Van Diemen conversion kit. Our chassis design allows for the installation of just about any bike engine by using very simple aluminum mounting brackets.

Thanks ... Jay Novak
www.NovaRaceCars.com

[blewbayou]

Jay N: No mater what happens there will not be ANY rules changes prior to Jan 1 09.

That makes me feel better.

[Matt Conrad]

Just about anyone can go down to their local motorcycle dealer and buy a new "mass produced" bike and part it out and keep the engine. I would guess by the time you were done you'd have no more than $3,500 in your brand new motor. Obviously you will have to dismantle and sell the remaining parts, but if you've got some spare time...not a bad way to get the new engine you need for a pretty decent price.

As far as somebody running the new Ducati Desmosedici RR V4 engine....I'll believe it when I see it. I just can't imagine anyone would be willing to spend over $100K on an engine program for our little ol' FB class.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[Wren]

Wren..you ment a good FA??? Right? Now my FC 10a trap speed was right around a good FF speed .

~140mph

heck, what was JR2 running at the end of the back straight?

[kma4444]

I would think that the engine manufacturers are getting close to maximizing the MEP for the literbikes and any real power increases we see will be through extension of the engine's RPM limit.
If the idea is to limit power of the engines, then having an RPM limit is probably the cheapest and easiest way to do so.

[RussMcB]

I would think that the engine manufacturers are getting close to maximizing the MEP for the literbikes and any real power increases we see will be through extension of the engine's RPM limit.
If the idea is to limit power of the engines, then having an RPM limit is probably the cheapest and easiest way to do so.

How easy or hard would that be to implement? Is anyone else (racing organizations) using RPM limits?

[John Robinson II]

~140mph

heck, what was JR2 running at the end of the back straight?

Most laps were very close to that speed, but I was gaining on everyone at the end of the straight, hills really help. I would think the fast Fb were closer to 150+, they pulled me down the whole straight. The majority of the FB group that I ran with pulled away at the same rate as a FSCCA car.

John

[kma4444]

It has been done quite a bit. Trans-Am used a limit, they used a spec MSD unit that you picked up at the track, but it was done that way to discourage traction control.

If I was the rule maker, I would just spec a limit and use a random data miner to see if folks were being honest. The mechanics of limiting the engine would be simple enough.

[jerry freeman]

Russ,

I said it earlier in one of the other threads that the NHRA limited the speeds of the Top Fuel cars with engine rev limiters set at 8,400 RPM's and they set the rear end gear ratio at 3:20 final drive. No one seemed to have much to say about that. It's easy to measure the sprocket teeth and regulate rev limiters. If you need to raise the gear ratio to keep the motor off the rev limiter on the tracks with longer straights you can make the gear ratio's track specific.

Jerry

[formulasuper]

Russ,

I said it earlier in one of the other threads that the NHRA limited the speeds of the Top Fuel cars with engine rev limiters set at 8,400 RPM's and they set the rear end gear ratio at 3:20 final drive. No one seemed to have much to say about that. It's easy to measure the sprocket teeth and regulate rev limiters. If you need to raise the gear ratio to keep the motor off the rev limiter on the tracks with longer straights you can make the gear ratio's track specific.

Jerry

Ya Jerry, this kinda reminds me of the TV commercial company meeting where the little guy brings up an idea & nobody pays any attention to it until the boss repeats the idea like it was his, then everyone thinks it's a great idea!

[Daryl DeArman]

Rev limiters have merit, but how is it to be enforced? Multiple programs for different circumstances and you could have someone depress the accelerator 3x with ign on in a 5 second time frame and unlock a hidden limiter---or a certain sequence on a cool down lap to reset max rpms recorded.

Something needs to happen, but whatever rule is implemented needs to be enforceable.

[carnut169]

Rev limiter on a bike engine? No!

Some were designed to red line (and produce max hp) at 14k, some at 12k... where you set it could kill some good engines.

[formulasuper]

I know it's way too late now but, what you FB guys should have done is made this a stock Suzuki Hayabusa engine class. There are a zillion of these engines out there, I just bought a complete 06 car kit setup with 950 miles on it for $1525, the engines & specs have never changed since the first one was built in 99 thru 07, they have about the same HP as a 1000cc sport bike engine & a lot more torque, red line at 10,500 & have a strong tranny. Just keep the water in them & they're bullit proof! Formula Busa (FB) anyone?

[John LaRue]

This same excersise has been in motion in the TAG karting class for the past few years. Originally IAME came out with a nice water cooled 125cc engine package which gave good service/value and power. Thereafter other engine manufacturers came in and their packages produced more power... let the wars begin! The sanctioning bodies began to pile on weight and limit things such as pipe length to find equality. Depsite the best efforts of some pretty talented people and lots of testing (remember track time is cheap and plentiful) there was no equality. If you wanted to run fast you had several different engines, each of which had benefits on different tracks. The only answer to the equaity game was to restrict the class to one specific engine which is what Dismore essentially decided for his track. (He does I believe allow the other engine to compete, but with such a handicap it is not really competitive.) While not a popular decision at the time, it did solve the problem and now everyone has settled down and participation numbers are good.

I applaud your thoughts and efforts to reign this in, but from what I can see at this point there really is no good way to do it that won't in all likelihood gore someone's ox. It seems to me as though the engine performance race is on unless and until a line is drawn in the sand.

[Shawn Kozlowicz]

This same excersise has been in motion in the TAG karting class for the past few years.



Depsite the best efforts of some pretty talented people and lots of testing (remember track time is cheap and plentiful) there was no equality.

If you wanted to run fast you had several different engines, each of which had benefits on different tracks. The only answer to the equaity game was to restrict the class to one specific engine which is what Dismore essentially decided for his track.

As a TaG racer and someone who has been following the development of F1000 over the past year with great excitement not everything is exactly true with these statements.

Mark Dismore Jr. did create a IAME only class, actually it is a complete spec class, spec engine, spec chassis, spec tires and on and on (He also has a true TaG class). Nor Cal has created a similar class as well. For the majority of the country TaG is run with various engines, Rok, Rotax, Leopard, Sonik, Biland, etc. The performance issue is complicated further with a mixture of 4 stroke and 2 stroke engines. The weight handicap has worked well at equalizing all engines with each one having its own characteristic. Some are better on the straights, some off the corners, some a balance of both. Look at the results from any of the big TaG events, you will find a mixture of engines in the top 10. Put those same drivers on a kart with a different engine and they will still be in the top 10. In the road race series I run, Rotax's, Leopard's and Sonic's all had wins this year.

It really comes down to driver ability and chassis setup, but it is easier to blame an engine for the poor performance. The fast drivers are fast with whatever engine is pushing them.

With TaG all the motors are built by karting companies for karting and within 6 or so HP. The situation is different with F1000/FB. The engines are built for commercial bikes which will continue to evolve year after year. The easy answer is a specific brand and year of engine but what about the other cars already built? Maybe capping engines at pre-2008? Rev limiters could work but would be hard to police if someone really wanted to cheat, unless they are issued at the track. Weight could work but would require an extensive amount of dyno and track testing every year.

Probably the simplest and best solution is to only allow engines x, y, and Z pre-(fill in the year). If one engine seems to have a performance advantage then add some weight. The baseline can be established by the cars that currently exist but a solution will need to be found sooner rather than later. If more cars are built with more engine variations this problem will only become compounded.

[RussMcB]

It really comes down to driver ability and chassis setup, but it is easier to blame an engine for the poor performance. The fast drivers are fast with whatever engine is pushing them.

I could only agree with this if you're talking about small differences in engine performance. A slow driver can beat a fast driver if the engine performance difference is great enough to overcome the talent deficit.

In my opinion (and I assume most people's), the ideal situation in F1000 would be if the engine had the least amount of influence when determining who is fast. Things like driving talent, race strategy, chassis design (incl. aero) and tuning should be much more important factors. The unfortunate reality is that our current rules and circumstances allow for ever changing engine output. Also unfortunately, it's a real challenge to rectify that situation.

[Shawn Kozlowicz]

I could only agree with this if you're talking about small differences in engine performance. A slow driver can beat a fast driver if the engine performance difference is great enough to overcome the talent deficit.

I agree and may not have been clear. I have edited the prior post a little to hopfully add some clarity to my thoughts. Unfortunatly this is the problem when commercial products are used in a niche market such as racing. There are benifits such as cost but obsolesecnces becomes a major issue as these componies continue to develop their products. Unfortunatly this should have been given some thought early on, maybe it was I don't know?