ARRC race leads to major changes? Not Good

[John LaRue]

Sean, the point that I was simply making is that there was a great deal of effort to get things equal with the TAGS and in the end they still aren't. As you indicated each engine in TAG has its own characteristic and is stronger in one situation than the other, the same thing will occur here. Perhaps overall things are equal if you look at the scorecard after a season, but not on a given track. The definition of equality needs to be considered; what is acceptable? Something else to take into consideration is the amount of weight they are using to handicap in karting, such being in excess of 12% of the total kart/driver weight! Assuming that F1000 would see similar differences in engine performance you could be looking at astronomical weight differences to achieve equality. Also remember that weight only works as a handicap under acceleration. Once the mass is in motion the weight is not of much issue.

[Shawn Kozlowicz]

John,

Yes, weight won't work if we are talking extreme differences in performance, or at least not practical as you indicated. But with similar performance as in Tag, about 12% in power it can work.

These different characteristics are actually part of the charm of TaG. Utilizing the advantage of your engine while defending against a competitors strength. In the end I have seen three different engines win on the same track this year. Comes down to race craft. is there a track that suits a single motor, I am sure there is but of the tracks I run, I have not seen a single motor dominate.

Weight does only effect acceleration, but acceleration is lateral, longitudinal, positive, and negative. Once moving it has to be slowed and change direction.

Not saying this is the solution for F1000, but it might be part of the solution if all engines are comparable. But that doesn't answer how to handle the HP wars from the bike companies and the engines in 2010.

[Lee Stohr]

If you want equal engines, go get a Pinto. F1000 is supposed to be high performance at reasonable cost. Some of you want to restrict F1000 engine technology to the year 2007. So in 10 years will everyone be laughing at our old engines, like Formula Fords? Is that the answer?

My point is that unlike FF/FC, F1000 has dynamic rules. It can change with the times, and stay fresh, at least with engines. If you restrict the engines too much, F1000 will end up like FF.

[RussMcB]

Some of you want to restrict F1000 engine technology to the year 2007

I don't recall hearing that suggested.

Maybe they want to restrict the engine output to 2007 levels, but I hesitate to speak for them (whoever they are).

[kma4444]

I don't know if the engines need to be limited or restricted, time will tell I suppose. Certainly doesn't need to be a spec class.

But as far as a rev limit, it wouldn't be too difficult to enforce, everyone runs a Electrosparkyinterrupto brand revlimiter, it's hardwired to the ignition circuit in plain view. This unit has an external button that a tech inspector can push to test the unit, the engine will shut off when pushed. It can have no wires hidden in the harness, it would have a dedicated 6 wire harness, one to each negative coil wire, power and ground. For big races tech hangs an external monitor to see how many RPMs the engine is running.

Sure folks could get around it, but that's the case with any restriction. As far as different engines being designed to run different RPMs, sure they are. But in the litrebike world if they are making competitive power they will be up in the 13+K area. Restricting them to say 14K would encompass all current litrebikes and probably through a new generation.

[Daryl DeArman]

Some of you want to restrict F1000 engine technology to the year 2007. So in 10 years will everyone be laughing at our old engines, like Formula Fords? Is that the answer?

No. They would be laughing if in 40 years we were still running 2007 motors

Let it evolve, but control the evolution. Keep it 2007 prior until 2010. In 2010 allow everything up to 2010. You'll never have to use engines more than 3 model years old. Yet you won't be forced to update every year. Engines with stock internals should last 3 racing seasons so it isn't like you will need a new "old" motor every year anyway.

[RussMcB]

<snip> ...Keep it 2007 prior until 2010. In 2010 allow everything up to 2010. You'll never have to use engines more than 3 model years old. Yet you won't be forced to update every year. Engines with stock internals should last 3 racing seasons so it isn't like you will need a new "old" motor every year anyway.

One argument against that is some people really want to be able to buy a zero mile engine and put it into their race car without worrying about the engine's history. When it was explained to me it made a lot of sense. It would be nice to spend $4,000 or thereabouts and have that peace of mind. For example, at the end of the 2008 racing season, there may be zero mile 2008 engines available reasonable prices.

[Daryl DeArman]

I hear that argument Russ. What I don't get is where all these "zero" mile motors are coming from. I buy a brand new bike and it doesn't have "zero miles" on it. I've been riding long enough to realize that people that buy too much bike for their tallent end up babying it at first because they are intimidated. They start to get too comfortable on it after 500-1000 miles of riding while still having very little skill---those are the new bikes that end up in salvage yards. If these zero mile motors are coming from dealers as new "car kits" then why would they not be available 1-2 years later? Can I go to the local Suzuki dealer and tell them I completely grenaded my 05GSXR and buy a new replacement motor? What if the bike is still under warranty--what do they do for a replacement motor?

If I am running an 07 GSXR and want a zero mile motor available as a back up in 09, then why not buy one anytime in 08 and set it in the garage?. If you need it, it will be there. If you don't there will still be a good market for it when you can upgrade to 2010. If you buy it for $4K, don't need it and sell it in 09 for $2500, that is only a $1500 loss for the piece of mind. That loss is cheaper than one upgrade to a new model motor.

[jerry freeman]

If you read my last post closer you'll see that I made two suggestions.

1. electronic REV limiter (nobody can agree on that, no problem)

2. sproket limits (If you can count to 50 you can police that in 2 minutes)
This will limit performance that seems to be an issue. If you want to slow the cars down
run small sprockets and you want over rev the motors but you also can't come of the
corners as quick and therefore run as quick down the straights and you won't over rev.

More food for thought. Now pick that apart and give some pros and cons.

Jerry

[Daryl DeArman]

Electronic rev limiters---1) Too easy to overide.
2) Too many different engines that would require different rev limits to keep their power where it "needs to be".

I don't even want to think about the process involved in determining what the different rpm limits are going to be.


Final drive restrictions: 1) Limit the number of teeth on the rear sproket and I'll change the front.
2) Limit the final drive ratio and I'll find a taller geared donor motor.

3) If the aim is to control top speed you'll need a different ratio for the 13K motor, and another for the 12,5K motor and another for the 13,5K motor.

3) Different motors not only have different max rpms they have different primary ratios. See #2

4) Are you also going to spec a rear tire diameter? And at what pressure and load?

In other words as soon as you tell me this is how you are going to limit my top speed, I'll find another way around it. All these changes increase the gap between the haves and the have nots as the haves have the time and money to explore.

The only way to decrease the gap between the haves and have-nots (if that is the goal) is to make the ROI non-linear. Lots of money spent for very little advantage.

If you are truly successful at limiting my top speed then I'll still go for more power and just run more downforce. You aren't going to be successful and keeping the cars slow, all you can do is slow the rate that they become quicker.

Top fuel limited final drive ratio, now their rear tires grow more than ever.

Sorry, I don't have the perfect solution--guess I am part of the problem.