FB Cost & HP Containment

[RussMcB]

Just wanted to start a thread to hear people's current opinions about rules that may help the class.

I'll start with mine: F600 is planning to move forward with the IIR to keep HP from exceeding a certain level, and to remove the need to buy newer engines periodically to stay competitve. There was a desire (among some people, certainly not all) to go with the SIR early in the rules genesis of F1000. At the time the thought was to hold the HP level at the current top of the line engines (i.e., a well tuned '08 GSXR), but we soon learned the SIR caused problems with motorcycle engine computers.

I bring this up now because the longer we go without some type of engiine performance rule, the more our current engines will fall behind each year. It seems a shame to have to choose between spending lots of money to keep up or accepting the growing gap as competitors get newer engines. Perhaps the IIR could save a lot of money that people would otherwise spend on entry fees, and could attract more people to the class if they see constant engine upgrades are not required.

[Mike B]

I started a similar thread in the FB committee forum about a month ago but nobody bit.

When the SIR was proposed some people thought it was a cure-all for the bike HP wars and a simple matter to just pick a size based on a math formula and apply it to everyone. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed and it was discovered that it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. BEFORE we got into a big mess.
I'm worried that the IIR might turn out like the SIR. While I respect and trust George Dean's data and judgement (he did suggest this when we were designing F1000), I'd like to see it play out in F600 before even thinking about it for F1000.
Some questions I have:

• What HP level is OUR target? Who gets to decide?
• Who determines what size restrictor my Yamaha gets? Russ' Kawasaki? Since we're currently the only FB owners with those respective engines, do we have to pay to ship our engines to GDRE? Do we expect GD to buy one of each to dyno? What about the guy that claims to have a Duc Desmosedici?
• Who dynos each new engine every year? I'm guessing that if we were to choose a single restrictor size and apply it to everything from here on out, factory engine development would begin to defeat it at some point. In other words, would a 2006 GSXR and a 2013 GSXR, both with the same IIR, have the same HP? I doubt it, but maybe I'm making it more complicated than it really is.

I'm concerned with the overall health of the class if we start tweaking the rules unnecessarily. Maybe it will be necessary at some point but I don't think we've reached it yet. That's just me, though.

[BoulderG]

Sorry, but what do IIR and SIR stand for? Thanks.

[RussMcB]

Thanks, Mike. I hope we have a good, healthy constructive discussion here.

My thinking wasn't that each different engine each new year would get dynoed or anything like that. Just come up with an IIR size and live with that for everyone (see last paragragh).

If you did that you would have (theoretically, ideally) a lot of various engines and years all within say 5 HP (WAG).

If we don't do something like that than your (imaginary) 2007 Yamasaki that is currently within 5 HP this year, might be within 10 HP in 2 years, then 15 HP down a couple of years after that, etc., etc. That would be true for every single FB competitor.

If you look at those two scenarios, the IIR option is a no brainer. Imagine keeping your exhaust, custom air box, harness, dry sump, Power Commander, etc. for years and keeping at the top of the HP war, at no great expense. Heck, if someone tried to cheat, as long as they have the IIR in place they wont have any noticable advantage.

Regarding how to determine the IIR size, I'd have GDRE do a little testing on the next 2009-2010 GSXR 1000 he has, and try decreasing IIR sizes until they begin to restrict power. I realize it wouldn't be that simple and easy, but maybe not much more complex. Let's ask him. Also, we can see how the F600 guys do it (although, admittedly, their primary goal is slightly different, keeping F500 cars competitive).

[RussMcB]

Sorry, but what do IIR and SIR stand for? Thanks.

SIR = Single Inlet Restrictor (positioned before the throttle bodies).

IIR = Individual Inlet Restrictors (positioned after the throttle bodies).

They both limit HP by restricting the amount of air volume, but the IIR apparently doesn't cause havoc with engine computers.

[Daryl DeArman]

IMO we should run for the hills away from SIR (Single Intake Restrictors) and IIR (Individual Inlet Restrictors). Here's why:

Motors with different cam profiles, cam timing, compression ratios, port shapes, port volumes, and rotating inertia will all be affected to a different degree by the same restrictor. Therefore, if parity is desired between a number of different motors a number of different restrictors will be required.

IMO this will lead to a constantly moving target, lobbying for certain models to have larger restrictors and others to have smaller restrictors. Each change will result in more testing and tuning to optimize the current package. Before that is ironed out at least 6 new motor models will become eligible. On track data has way too many variables to be considered. Even if "we" all agree on a target HP number there will always be motors that make that same peak number with more area under the curve. Until parity is reached there will ALWAYS be a motor that is more desirable than others and constantly changing rules in never containment.

I further believe that the only cost effective way to slow the progression of the HP wars is to limit the model years eligible. No restrictors.

SCCA can't seem to get parity between the IRON head, Aluminum head, and Zetec in FC after how long? Do we really think a couple of different Suzukis, Hondas, Yamahas, Kawasakis, and perhaps a Ducati, Aprilia, Triumph or MV thrown into the mix every season could ever be worked out?

[RussMcB]

I would agree that true 100% parity is not a realistic goal. However, "near parity" is lot more desirable than "guaranteed, constant growing gap, my engine is falling more and more behind every year".

Let's say we decide to go with the IIR and it turns out that the 20xx engine from XYZ motorcycle company is the best engine because it makes 1 HP better within a certain range of RPMs. Isn't that a million times better that the circumstances the class is sure to be in with the current rules?

What's better, to have a field of cars within 5 HP, or a field with a much wider variance in HP?

I'm surprised that I seem to be the only person that thinks ever-increasing HP is not a problem. Do most people not mind spending a lot of money to get newer engines, or do they not mind that what they have now isn't going to cut it in the future?

[RobLav]

I'm with Quickshoe here again. Either 1 year old or 2 year old engines (pick one) min.

[Bernard Bradpiece]

I would agree that true 100% parity is not a realistic goal. However, "near parity" is lot more desirable than "guaranteed, constant growing gap, my engine is falling more and more behind every year".

Let's say we decide to go with the IIR and it turns out that the 20xx engine from XYZ motorcycle company is the best engine because it makes 1 HP better within a certain range of RPMs. Isn't that a million times better that the circumstances the class is sure to be in with the current rules?

What's better, to have a field of cars within 5 HP, or a field with a much wider variance in HP?

I'm surprised that I seem to be the only person that thinks ever-increasing HP is not a problem. Do most people not mind spending a lot of money to get newer engines, or do they not mind that what they have now isn't going to cut it in the future?

As an old FF player who has degenerated into geezerdom, I am watching this class with great excitement. This should be the FF of the future. Engine performance management issues can get very messy and will be a risk if ability to spend gobs of cash is the only way to win; engine issues are hard to police. Given where the class seems to want to go there probably is no appetite for a single engine formula. We know that its impossible to stop progress in engine technology and it probably does not want to end up like NASCAR policing. Maybe one way of KISS is that there can be an engine freeze for a period of time say 5 years at which point the clock is reset with the latest versions of available engines. That way an owner knows there is a maximum of 5 year life in a particular engine and can manage engine rebuilds so that it can be competitive for a fixed 5 year term at the end of which period the engine can be replaced. The second hand engine would probably find a market in the more cash strapped competitor (assuming there are now second hand cars available) and there may even be a "B" class!
Just a thought.
BB2

[glenn cooper]

I really like the idea of a multi year engine freeze arrangement, say 3 years.
Once the bikes are out and crashed for a year or so, a man could get a few, pickle 'em, and re-animate as needed.
I have heard from a reliable source that the '09 GSXR1000 already has a recall/update due to crankshaft issues. Going to the newest/greatest thing is perhaps not the ticket it is thought to be.
The Suzuki seems to be the best thing out there right now, going with another manufacturer is IMO attempting to reinvent the wheel.
Hell, who knows, maybe someone w/ a brand H/K/or Y will start raging soon and folks will flock that way...
GC

[cparsons]

Russ, you bring up a valid point, and one that should be of concern for all involved in FB. One of the primary reasons I got so excited about this class, and continue to be, was the "economic factor" that use of liter motors makes possible. The engines and trans are very reasonably priced. I agree though, that I don't want to swap motors and potentially change wiring, exhaust, motor mounts etc, because I want to stay competitive and buy a crate motor every year and shucks the manufacturer changed the engine configuration again and now it won't fit! (Yamaha has done it every 3 years or so since 2000 that I know of) 2000 -2003, 2004-2006, 2007-? So, yes it is a concern of mine also. But having YET to turn a lap in this thing, and being somewhat of a "johnny come lately" to FB I defer my opinions on cost containment to those of you actively racing them, with great deference given to the "FB founding fathers." A lot of thought and work went into creating this class, I am grateful to those that produced that effort, and will play according the rules.
disclaimer: opinion subjet to change when I roll off the grid.

[BoulderG]

Russ' efforts to foster positive discussion on this is great. As a newbie, I love the idea of FB and its reliable, affordable engines that avoid the "powerplant of the month" developing in DSR and other classes.

I think NASA, for some classes, requires "signed" dyno slips and adds real weight penalties for horsepower beyond a target range. I suspect the Formula 1000's compact size, complex aero, and chassis sophistication make this a lot harder for FB cars, but is it worth considering? Could this be a useful part of the solution?

[RobLav]

Good comment from the old FF Geezer... I think 5 years might be too long and would agree with Coop's three.

I couldn't agree to signed dyno slips and weight penalties. Look at the FA and especially the CSR rules for that kind of stuff.

[jerry freeman]

I agree with the 3 year freeze. I want to get a newer motor every so often but not every year. Easy to tech also. I don't think the restrictors are the way to go. Have no idea why we need dyno sheets.

Jerry

[Brands]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - limit year models. I've raced in a series back home (UK) with a two year freeze on the motor year which allowed me to be competitive for two seasons. These motors are not mega bucks anyway, so a new motor every two years is pretty good. As Glen mentioned sometimes the latest motor has hidden issues which can get expensive. When we switched to the Honda FX series CBR 600 lots of people lost motors with cam failures before a fix was found.

[RussMcB]

Good discussion.

I think I'd like to take one step backwards because I may have been assuming something that may not be true, or a consensus. That assumption was that we are headed towards a problem.

What do you folks think? Do we have a problem that needs to be addressed? Or, conversely, is our current rule set and expected future just fine as is?

IMO, there is (going to be) a problem that will adversely affect the class. But, we should get a feel for consensus (or lack of) on that point. Knowing that will affect what and how we talk about this topic.

[Mike B]

Help me get my head around this.
If we implement a 3 year engine freeze now, that means that nobody can have anything newer than a 2009 until 2012. In 2012, you can then upgrade to a 2012 model year engine. Right so far?

Now, if you grenade your 2009 engine in 2011 (this is for you Suzuki guys ), you need to scrounge for a 2009 engine, assuming you didn't plan ahead like GC suggested. I haven't trolled Ebay for a 2 year old engine lately, but logic would say that the older model year engine you're looking for, the more miles and more abused it is likely to be (this is where Sean O. posts 5 links to Ebay auctions and proves me wrong ).

I know this is one of the options that we discussed when developing the F1000 rules but I don't recall why we nixed it. Anyone remember?

[ReynardF1000]

I race with an '03 R1 with the original EFI. It is way down on power but is fine for now while I develop the car and whip the driver into shape. I'm hoping the economy turns around by the end of the year so I can purchase a 'new' engine to compete more effectively.
I really like the moving window three year limit on 'new' engines as one means of reducing costs without reducing the fun factor.
Another thought: Looking at the development of these engines over the years, RPM's have been skyrocketing. The new GSX R1000's red line is 14K RPM. Horsepower is produced when more air/fuel is used effeciently by the motor. One way to increase air/fuel flow is through RPM increases. New manufacturing methods, materials, electronics and coatings make higher RPM's possible every year.
We could go with three year old motors, limited electronically to 12K RPM for example, and make the class very reasonably priced, at least for power plants.

[jjstecher]

First off let me apologize up front. Bottom line I think if you want to save money go racing SRF's or FE. Next bottom line is that if people have money they will spend money no matter what class they race in. If you limit engines people with cash will spend it on aero developments. If you limit that then people will spend it on tires. If you limit that then people will spend money on testing. You limit that people will run two classes to get the extra track time. You can't draw the line in just a random spot. People will spend what they want on racing to matter what you do. If you want to limit the cars developments and thus costs you have to limit everything (FE/SRF) versus selectively picking stuff off cause otherwise all your going to have is arguments over what gets limited with everyone siding on the side they have a current advantage in (I'd bet the Piper guys would love to limit aero developments) which doesn't work when everyone has different cars.

To me there is nothing wrong with the class. It being open and free for all these different manufactures to play and for you to pick and choose your engine (lets get serious a 1500 engine is massively cheap compared to anything else in racing) makes it fun and makes it exciting to the outside world and the new driver. You start limiting stuff and I think a lot of folks will look else where. Do people moving to 09 GSXRs really bother people that much. If people want to move there let them and let them learn the lessons so that next season all of us can benefit from it.

[RussMcB]

OK, Let me lay out my POV and see if I'm unique, or if other people are in similar situations.

I have a good set of 04-05 Kawasaki parts and spares (starters, heads, transmissions, etc.). My chassis has motor mounts for that engine. My harness has been modified ($300). I built a custom header (and I know it wont fit later engines without modification, and it's been coated). I have about $2000 invested in a dry sump that wont fit anything else. I have a GIPro/ATRE for the 04-05 ZX-10R engine. There are a few other details that would add challenges to an engine model change. 04-05 ZX-10R engines are pretty reasonably priced. My current one cost about $700. I'd like to buy a Power Commander some day and do some tuning. A custom air box would be nice. Those things (and the custom maps) will not be transferable to different engine models.

I would have guessed that many others in FB would be in a similar situation, with an investment and not thrilled to see it fall further behind. Wouldn't it be great to spend the money on engine refreshening, entry fees, tires, etc., rather than updating to a newer engine?

PS. John, I agree that you can never limit costs because, as you say, people who have it will use it somewhere. HOWEVER, the class will be better if non-wealthy people can be *closer* to front runners' HP without spending as much money. In other words, let someone spend $200,000 a season (can't stop it anyway), but have rules so someone who spends a fraction of that can still be within a few HP - maybe close enough so that great driving and engineering can close the gap. A great driver/engineer can't overcome a gap once it gets too big.

[RobLav]

I know we discussed this Mike... and Ben mentioned his UK rules of 2 years. I think we were happy to get a reasonable agreement on ALL the rules at the time.

I could go for a 2 year window. Kindof a compromise. (Although I was planning on picking up a new 09 R1 engine next winter.)

[jonbaytos]

I refer to my post [ in the wrong section it seems ] Don't haggle over the details call it 1 call it 2 call it 5 but call it. This is small group at the moment call it now so it can become a big group. Forget restrictors and all the testing ,who will pay. We have stock engines with exception being who put's them together. Suzuki,Yamaha,Honda,Kawasaki have spent Millions to get them where they are.If you follow World Superbike make a call now what can be used in the next 1-5 BMW KTM APRILLA BUELL DUCATI make the call.
This group from what I can see has brought this formula to this point,yes the rules got it going thanks to Mike and Stan and Steve/Richard and Lee and Don. But even Lee would agree that it was never going to be without a tweek here and there.
It would be my suggestion that a new rules group be formed to see that it takes the correct path to get the CRB's attention and not waste time with personal interest's.

This should be made up of the Constructors,Engine Builders, 1 owner of each chassis.And two at large persons,Mike B and J Novak.And Possibly the bartender at the Harborage, Drew. He is a good guy knows how to poor the JD for Zip and I,and will vote yes for what we want.
Well that was easy.

[Purple Frog]

[color=purpl
Just a few thoughts from the weekend at Roebling.

The Formula 1000 class = it is pretty clear to see that this thing is going to be big. Not sure where formula B came from, but we will continue to call it F 1000 if for nothing else marketing.I would hate to try and explain what FB is to someone new.

F 1000 is simple and carries two points that even my grandmother could understand.
It is kind of like Formula Continental,why, most people think of some cheap breakfast that you get in a cheap hotel.

The Engines = We at Cape/ Primus have been running MC powered formula cars since the winter of 2001, with the first VanDiemen RF 281 with a the Honda Blackbird. In that time we have only ever had one blow up that was totally self inflicted. For what it is worth our 2006 GSXR has close to 10,000 miles on it and has been abused about as much as you can. It is a Vic Fasola wet sump and we have put oil & filter and a clutch in it. The 281 runs at about 170 water and 190 oil on the hottest of days. We rev it to 11,000.
The new RFR 009 is the same it seems when really hot,[ make sense it was designed by the same design team ]we can take off 10 degrees with the install of the chimneys on the sidepods. It has a Quicksilver package of dry sump,electronics, and fuel system.We use Spectro 20w 50 Syn
We also rev it to 11,000 period.To us it has always been about cooling or the lack of.

I think that the Ralph Firman came up with a good idea about the engine. It is not a problem yet, but it will be and it would be much easier to put in place now than when the thing becomes more important to win,and this time is coming.
His idea is to stave off new engine use for at least a year. Example. You would not be able to fit a new 09 GSXR until Jan 2010. This will enable some time to get some in the market ,the price to stabelize,basically slow the R&D curve a bit for the sake of all concerned. It might even be worth looking at a longer cycle at the moment most have 07/08 GSXR but Quicksilver has the Honda going, and although I would not want discourage different options,I think that there is merit in looking for stability at least for a period when growth seems to be imminent.
Having run Pinto and Zetec,Duratec LD 200etc for 25 years,these things are a snap.No Starter problems, No battery issues,no driveshaft,no brake no gearbox ,no clutch slave,I purchased my new drive gear from VORTEX for 17.60 lees freight.

Tires Wheels: Anyone that knows me undertands that I have no use for an open tire rule,at the club level it seems just plain dumb.I also believe that like the above having different sizes is not in anyones best interest long term.I understand that it made sense for conversions but it will be easy to consider a change now instead of later.
We used a pretty conservative Cooper Tire this past weekend on the RFR 009 and Jared Beyer's 281. It is a very heavy case F3 and the compound seem to be able to lap without problem for 50-60 laps. This is a lot around Roebling. Jordan got down to a 2.9 on weds and I'm sure that there is a lot more to come. With our wheel,tire package and a prototype chassis that we ballasted to simulate a 200lb driver we weighed 1090 and still able to lap fast enough to win.
My point is as the new chassis come online there will enough to keep up with,let alone flash tires and wheels,and engines.


There will be a time when you will need to own the options and use them.
Enter wheels,why have a mag wheel? It does nothing but waste money that could be put to better use elsewhere. At best that I can tell if there was the need to change ,8 and 10's could be had used for as little as 700 to 900 a set. I would imagine that there are about 100 plus set's left over from the Cooper cars.This would be a straight changeout with the sale of your mags to the FC guys. We used a very heavy alloy whell from OZ it is about 1,200 for set of four. The Mag version is going to be about 1,800.
The cost of a new RFR is 38,000 less engine.That is a lot of racing car nothing comes close except another Formula 1000. Why litter it with costly add ons.

The point is the is nothing but growth for this formula,but what will serve growth and keep it stable. There can be a lot of lessons learned from DSR and FC on how to kill a good thing,it would seem silly to tread the same ground if the info is there. JB
e]Since Jon went to talk to Drew about pouring JD, there's no way we can expect him to retype this message. So I'll cut and past it in this thread for history's sake.
[/color]

[Sean Maisey]

I think to some extent we are trying to fix a non-issue at the moment. Right now anyone with a good 2005-8 GSXR has the 'right' motor. I think the newer bike motors are reaching an area of diminishing returns (ala power verses reliabilty).

I personally would support a 2 year age limit as I think "Brands" suggests. I think it would be fair and limit the 'engine of the year'.

To be clear though I see this as a rolling limit. This year you could use any motor of 2007 vintage or older. In 2010, you could use any production motor from 2008 or older and so on... (I think this is different than what Mike B. describes above).

In any case, I will be happy as a member of the FSRAC to help advance whatever proposal you guys come up with (personal thoughts aside).

Sean

- man I need to post faster. Frog's repost of JB's thoughts pretty much renders this as redundant.

[ghickman]

I think to some extent we are trying to fix a non-issue at the moment. Right now anyone with a good 2005-8 GSXR has the 'right' motor. I think the newer bike motors are reaching an area of diminishing returns (ala power verses reliabilty).

I personally would support a 2 year age limit as I think "Brands" suggests. I think it would be fair and limit the 'engine of the year'.

To be clear though I see this as a rolling limit. This year you could use any motor of 2007 vintage or older. In 2010, you could use any production motor from 2008 or older and so on... (I think this is different than what Mike B. describes above).

In any case, I will be happy as a member of the FSRAC to help advance whatever proposal you guys come up with (personal thoughts aside).

Sean

Sean-
Outstanding idea and I'm on board with your suggestion. Since it appears that the Litre bike motors change HP ratings every 2 years this makes good sense.

GH

[jonbaytos]

Good on ya Frog, Drew, one more please, and then log me out,I mean check me out, or throw me out. In the immortal words of "Matt M "JB has left the building.

[RussMcB]

How does a rolling 2 year limit prevent the need for a big "re do" of your car (along with the associated costs) every couple of years?

Can you think of any other car class where there are periodic major drive train changes?

[Sean Maisey]

It doesn't. BUT, right now, without such a rule we are faced with the potential ANNUAL need to change.

On the other hand, the Geriatric engines in FF, FC and S2000 aren't exactly bringing in the new crowds are they.

IMHO - we need to forge a compromise between bleeding edge and endless entitlement program for success.

Sean

[Daryl DeArman]

I'm surprised that I seem to be the only person that thinks ever-increasing HP is not a problem.

I think most would agree that it is a potential problem. Differences of opinion appear to be in regards to the best solution.

I personally would support a 2 year age limit as I think "Brands" suggests. I think it would be fair and limit the 'engine of the year'.

To be clear though I see this as a rolling limit. This year you could use any motor of 2007 vintage or older. In 2010, you could use any production motor from 2008 or older and so on... (I think this is different than what Mike B. describes above).

An observation from someone who did race in a series with bike powered cars---our rules originally limited eligible motors to "2 model years old or older"--this did nothing to change the motor of the year issue as every year there were new eligible engines and they were all used engines. Nobody could buy a new motor to use this season. You still have a motor of the year with this approach.

suggested possibility: 2009 and prior required until 2012, in 2012 all motors will have to be 2012 or older, etc. While the class is being built people will be able to source NEW 2009 motors, the folks who just built or are building their cars they won't need a completely different motor to be competitive two seasons from now. Folks won't be struggling with tuning to SIR/IIRs or different ones from year to year AND they don't have to worry about needing a different model this year or next year. They can spend money on entry fees and travel. Get the numbers up.

I too want to thank all those who have invested effort and time into making this class what it is and what it hopefully will become. I don't own an FB, probably not likely to be in one in the near future. However, I'd love to see the class succeed. For my own selfish reasons, I would love to see it something I still find attractive about 5 years from now, when I am an empty nester. Hopefully, it hasn't morphed into something too different than I hope (DSR). Granted, that should be decided by those racing and building them.

[Mike Devins]

It would be my suggestion that a new rules group be formed to see that it takes the correct path to get the CRB's attention and not waste time with personal interest's.

Jon even you had to cringe when you wrote that one, for 2 years or so I have read this forum everyday and I have only seen you post a hand full of times and that was mostly when you had something to sell.

Of course this is based on personal interests - it always is. You want to sell cars!

If the people who put this thing together missed something then the SCCA already has a process for fixing it. Write the CRB and ask for a change but I think that this is at least the 3rd time I have seen the engine rule debated and I can tell you that consensus will be tough.

As far as spec wheels and tires go I am opposed, this would force all so the conversion folks to buy all new wheels - how many sets of the those aluminum Cooper series wheels did you say are available - what do I do if I want to run 6"s and 8"s?

I do not believe that the sky is falling, even with the rules as they are Ralph, Stohr, Pheonix and others have made the investment - more of us have made investments at much lower levels so there could not have been that much wrong to begin with.

[cparsons]

I previously stated that I was going to stay out of this until I hit the grid. I lied.
F1000 has a deadline to meet; 2.5 cars per national event by end of 2011 to become/remain a national class with invite to runoffs. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have the data available and don't want to look for it. I personally like the F1000 runoff at RA so it won't hurt my feelings much if F1000 stays at RA and never gets the invite to the runoffs. I digress
WHY NOT freeze engine models as they are (older than 2010) until that deadline date, concentrate on attendance, with provision that engine question gets revisited at that time? That will eliminate the "motor du jour" issue, levels the playing field, contains costs somewhat, etc. (all the attractive things about this class) and brings back into focus our "promise" to National that we can make it and be there. Break that promise to National and for some, F1000 is a mute point. Not for me though. I'm in until I can't.
Lots more to be stated here, and more eloquently, but I do have to get some work done. I think I got my point across. be glad to explain if not.

Wheels? Please don't go with spec tires/wheels. I like my Joenbleds and haven't commited to a tire yet. The "run what ya brung" concept is a huge part of the attaction of this class. Engine parity is the only issue that should be addressed at this point.

[Mike B]

I think to some extent we are trying to fix a non-issue at the moment. Right now anyone with a good 2005-8 GSXR has the 'right' motor. I think the newer bike motors are reaching an area of diminishing returns (ala power verses reliabilty).

Agreed on both points. There are some really smart dudes designing engines in Japan and they continue to amaze me every year but the HP wars must taper off at some point. If we knew when and at what level, writing the rule would be easy. It's a big unknown at this time.

Yes, it's a non-issue at this time because, with the exception of Russ and few others, everyone has a new car that was designed around a current engine. What will it look like in 3 years? There's that big unknown again.

To be clear though I see this as a rolling limit. This year you could use any motor of 2007 vintage or older. In 2010, you could use any production motor from 2008 or older and so on... (I think this is different than what Mike B. describes above).

As mentioned by others, this still permits someone to upgrade the engine yearly, albeit with a 2 year-old engine. This means you're still spending the money every year.
On the other hand, a 3 year moratorium means you only spend the money for an upgrade every 3 years, now on a 3 year-old engine.
However, it's my gut feeling that this will be case without a rule. Maybe that's an overly optimistic view but I think that most are level-headed and fiscally responsible enough to keep an engine for at least 2 years, possibly 3. Of course, there will be a few big budget exceptions. There always is.

My head-in-the-sand opinion is to let the rules stay the way they are for another year or so to see what happens in the bike world. It's a non-problem for most right now, but that could change.

In all these discussions, please don't lose sight of the fact that even if you need to upgrade every year, you get a brand-new engine and transmission with cutting edge, near-F1 technology for relative peanuts. That's so cool.

[RussMcB]

Chuck, don't forget there are two well know tracks with RA initials. :-).

I get confused when people say "PIR", too.

Mike, I guess you're right when you say "relative peanuts". From my point of view, upgrading from my current engine and everything related to it would certainly not be peanuts.

I understand that several thousand dollars is not a big number when talking about our hobby, but if it can be avoided, that is money that could be spent on better things.

[jjstecher]

Just to circle back to actual real number what is the true dyno difference between the 07/08 GSXR and the 09? 2-5hp maybe? What was the difference between the 05/06 and the 07/08? Probably the same. A good driver and setup can overcome that just fine or at least run with it I bet for the most part. That already gives everyone a 4-5 year window of running the same motor and being mildly competitive right there. You might not run at the tip holding everything else equal but your damn close.

Also basically the cycle from the manufactures is already a 2-3 year one so they are dictating at this point in time how often we need to update.

I just would tool around with rules now when we don't even have a national class yet as I think you will spook as many people away if you start changing the ground rules under them as if you leave them the way they are now.

[JEREMY HILL]

i sent a letter to the crb in nov 2007 strongly suggesting a 2 year freeze on engines (which i had to resend because they claimed to have "lost" it) we need to get a handle on the engine reliability issue if the class is going to succeed, newer more powerfull and potentially unreliable engines will not help, regards, jeremy hill

[jonbaytos]

Sorry Mike,I don't like to wait on the sky,usally then it is too late. Size and material not manufacturer with regard to the wheel.What will the guys with 6' and 8' do when they find out they need 8" and 10" or 7" and 9" .
What if you need 8" and 10" with Cooper's for Road Atlanta and 6" and 8" with Hossier's for Road America? Not much point in that scenario.
Open is a good thing, But.
Personally, like Sean,and Ben I see two years on the engines. If it is not an issue, why let it become one.The developments in engines will not be so much HP, as it will size and weight.
Besides the cost of the engine,let's say a new 2009 GSXR is 3,200US you will need
Oil Sump
exhaust
Water pipes
Chassis loom and ECU
Engine mountings
Airbox
Throttle cable
Oil
Chain & Gears,Possibly
Fabrication if not able yourself
You could easily be at 10,000 in the changeover.

[RussMcB]

<snip>
Besides the cost of the engine,let's say a new 2009 GSXR is 3,200US you will need
Oil Sump
exhaust
Water pipes
Chassis loom and ECU
Engine mountings
Airbox
Throttle cable
Oil
Chain & Gears,Possibly
Fabrication if not able yourself
You could easily be at 10,000 in the changeover.

THANK YOU. That's what I've been trying to communicate, and that it is an unnecessary expense (IMO). There is very little value to the class to force frequent upgrades just to retain your competitiveness.

Imagine something like a 2-5 HP difference every year or two in another class, such as FC. People would go absolutely berzerk, and understandably.

[jjstecher]

10k...I call BS. Maybe if your frame is gold. I've done it three times now on the DSR and then in the F1k and I can tell you not one of those approached 5k even with cutting the whole back off the DSR and rejigging the chassis.

There is no proposal above from anyone that makes this cost just disappear...it just delays it for a year but the cycle time that racers have to pay the cost stays the exact same...once ever 2-3 years just like today.

If people don't spend it on engines they'll spend it on weight reduction, tire development, aero development, etc. and you're probably going to end up the same if not further behind than a 2-5hp difference would put ya.

Sorry I am just not buying the economics and perceived savings behind all this talk...its pay now or pay later but your always going to pay once every three years.

[RussMcB]

10k...I call BS.

I agree. That figure is way too high.

There is no proposal above from anyone that makes this cost just disappear.

I disagree. An IIR could keep an engine pretty competitve forever.

If people don't spend it on engines they'll spend it on weight reduction, tire development, aero development, etc. and you're probably going to end up the same if not further behind than a 2-5hp difference would put ya.

I was agreeing with the first part, but disagree with your conclusion. How much weight would you need to remove or aero development would you need to do to overcome 2-5 HP?

[Daryl DeArman]

Imagine something like a 2-5 HP difference every year or two in another class, such as FC. People would go absolutely berzerk, and understandably.

Absolutely agree. I think the 2-5 HP difference per year is being downplayed here as the cars and class are in their infant stage. There is enough difference between cars' level of development and tuning/setup that a couple of HP is not an issue now.

Sorry I am just not buying the economics and perceived savings behind all this talk...its pay now or pay later but your always going to pay once every three years.

Paying once every 3 years only works if that is your rebuild/upgrade interval. Nothing in the rules now to prevent upgrading to more HP every year.

I realize you can't control spending, if it isn't on motors it will be on something else. What the goal should be is to draft a set of enforceable rules that provide diminishing returns on that extra investment.