FB Cost & HP Containment

[R. Pare]

How much weight would you need to remove or aero development would you need to do to overcome 2-5 HP?

Weight at the moment isn't an issue - getting to minimum weight is pretty easy for everyone, I suspect.

Aero improvements can easily overcome a 5 hp difference, at least for everywhere but the slowest of corners - without bothering to do the calculations, I think that a 1% reduction in drag would do the job quite nicely, and 1% isn't all that hard to gain at this stage of the aero development we are seeing. Once the cars have been developed to the maximum that the rules allow, that may be another story, but not at the moment.

All that said. I believe that a 2 or 3 year engine rule could actually help more than hurt.

[RussMcB]

Richard, are you saying that if we started with two new identical Piper (or Phoenix, or Citation) F1000 race cars and you give one 5 extra HP, it shouldn't be too hard for the twin car to make aero improvements so that they are both even again? That doesn't sound right to me.

[tombeattie]

I like the idea of a 2-3 year engine rule. While it wouldn't eliminate the perceived need that some (not me) may see to upgrade every year, the 2-3 year delay would at least reduce the motor cost simply because more engines will be available as more bikes get parted out. An 07 GSXR motor was about $5500 (if you could find one) when they first came out but can easily be had today for $2000-$2500. Even that misguided person who wants to upgrade with the class legal Desmosedici RR motor would probably save $20k-$30k by waiting a couple of years rather than plunking down the $70,000 it would cost him now for that extra 25hp.

Also, I agree with JEREMY that the new more powerful and potentially unreliable engines will not help with the perception a lot of people have now about the class. I know at least 3-4 people who would have bought a car if it weren't for the stories they hear about blown up motors. A 2-3 year engine rule would help by letting the people in the bike world and other classes sort out many of the latest-and-greatest-engine problems, recalls etc.

Tom

[jonbaytos]

Engine 3,200
Dry sump and patterns 2,000
R&D for above IE testing 2,000
Exhaust ,one off and collectors in stainless 900
Chassis fab and engine mounts 900
Water pipes 300
Chassis loom [ good one ] 350
Airbox 400
Maybe BS but without a doubt possible.

[R. Pare]

Richard, are you saying that if we started with two new identical Piper (or Phoenix, or Citation) F1000 race cars and you give one 5 extra HP, it shouldn't be too hard for the twin car to make aero improvements so that they are both even again? That doesn't sound right to me.

It depends on how you define "not too hard" and "even".

If someone wants to play with the math to get a more exact answer (I haven't got the time at the moment to go back and look up the equations), the basics are this:

Drag goes up as the square of the velocity, and HP requirements go up as the cube - ie - with these cars, it may take the 5 hp to go from 140 mph to 142+ to overcome the jump in drag between those two very close together speeds.

Basicly, it takes very little in drag reduction to gain a certain speed compared to the HP change that would be necessary to gain that same speed with the original drag.

[RussMcB]

It depends on how you define "not too hard" and "even".

I substituted "not too hard" for your use of "easily", so I guess I should ask you what you meant when you wrote that. To me, easily might mean something like less than a few nights work, and less than a few hundred dollars.

"Even" could mean that a talented driver could hop in either car and do the same lap time (within something like .25s).

My gut feeling is that if we could all (easily) do aero work to our cars that would be equivalent to having 5 more HP, we would have already done them. I can't even guess what I could easily do to my car to improve the aero that much.

[Billy Wight]

First off, IIR vs. SIR - is there really a difference as far as how the computer will react? I have no experience with an IIR setup, but I highly doubt it would make a difference since it is performing the same function as a SIR. They both limit airflow to the engine; whether it is done individually at each cylinder or at one point upstream in the intake manifold shouldn't change much. Has anyone done testing with both on the same (motorcycle) engine to know whether there is a difference or not?

Second, I know there are people out there staying out of FB simply because of the current instability in the rules. To design and engineer a car that may or may not be compliant when things are complete is not too appealing... There doesn't seem to be much wrong with the rules as they are now, I certainly dont see a spec tyre or wheel being necessary. Rule stability could certainly help the class.

Finally, the engine thing - if people aren't spending money on an engine, they will be spending it somewhere else. Aero improvements, weight loss (even to get below the minimum - placing ballast low and near the centre has performance gains of its own), etc.

[Mike Devins]

An 07 GSXR motor was about $5500 (if you could find one) when they first came out but can easily be had today for $2000-$2500.

Those numbers are not comparing apples to apples. $5500 got you a brand new motor with 0 miles and a 2000 to 2500 now gets you a junk yard motor with questionable history that should be opened up and rebuilt before track use. BTW in 07 I was able to buy two used motors off Ebay with low miles in the 2400 range.

[Mike Devins]

. A good driver can overcome the difference in engines - JR Osborne won last years DSR national championship running a stock 2006 GSXR using an 07 fuel injection system by quite a large margin (11 sec?).

Sorry - just confirmed this with JR 2006 bottom end fully built with rods pistons and cams. 07 fuel injection. Per JR "a stock motor would not have had a chance".

[Billy Wight]

Sorry - just confirmed this with JR 2006 bottom end fully built with rods pistons and cams. 07 fuel injection. Per JR "a stock motor would not have had a chance".

I was under the impression they just changed the injection system. Anyways, I don't think the 11 sec all came from the motor...

[RussMcB]

First off, IIR vs. SIR - is there really a difference as far as how the computer will react? I have no experience with an IIR setup, but I highly doubt it would make a difference since it is performing the same function as a SIR.

I Googled Individual Inlet Restrictor thinking I'd get hits and info, but no luck. I've been assuming that it is something that people have used or tested and found that it does a better job of letting the sensors and computer understand what's happening. I guess it's time for George to tell us what he knows about them - if they are just theory, or if they have been tested/proven.

Regarding the ability of a driver or an engineer being better than another driver or engineer and winning with less HP is a foolish argument. You need to remove as many variables as possible. For instance, we can all think of 2 or more competitors that are always very close to each other, battling for wins. Give one of them 5 more HP and I'm pretty sure the one without that extra 5 HP is going to notice the difference. If that 5 HP was gained by installing a 2010 engine, you can bet the guy with the 2008 engine is going to have a very strong urge to get him a new engine.

[Mike Devins]

I spoke to George Dean this afternoon and he has not tested the 09 motor yet but his information says it is worth about 2-3 hp in the RPM range that we use the motors. As soon as he tests one he will publish the dyno graph.

His impression is that the manufacturers are working more on handling and weight than on HP because they can not get the power to the ground that they have now with the current tires.

Also for reference average rebuild cost for a "good" salvage motor is in the $1500-$2000 range if it does not need a crank ($900) or valves $(1000). So a $2000 - $2500 salvage motor can cost you any where from $1500 to $3900 to refurbish. Kind of make that $5500 dollar new motor seem reasonable.

[Billy Wight]

Regarding the ability of a driver or an engineer being better than another driver or engineer and winning with less HP is a foolish argument. You need to remove as many variables as possible. For instance, we can all think of 2 or more competitors that are always very close to each other, battling for wins. Give one of them 5 more HP and I'm pretty sure the one without that extra 5 HP is going to notice the difference. If that 5 HP was gained by installing a 2010 engine, you can bet the guy with the 2008 engine is going to have a very strong urge to get him a new engine.

Sure, but the point I was trying to make is that it's not a huge difference. I understand the concerns in trying to control costs, but this is racing - it's not possible! People will always be outspending the competition if they have the money and the desire, limiting engines in some way will not change that. The engine is an easy target because it has a quantitative performance value (horsepower and torque numbers) whereas aero, weight, etc. improvements are not so clear cut. The more things are limited, the more spec the class becomes - one of the best things about this class is that it is not a spec class!

[RussMcB]

It's not really about controlling costs, but more so making it less advantageous to spend large amounts of money on a newer model engine and installation.

I absolutely, 100% agree that there is nothing that rules can do to restrain costs (except maybe a claiming rule). If someone is willing to spend $500,000 on their FB racing, so be it. No problem. BUT, you can come up with rules that make money less effective. IF the IIR turns out to be a good thing (I know that's far from determined at this point), then $20,000 thrown towards an engine development program might result is small increases in certain RPM ranges. Isn't that much better than that same $20,000 resulting in a much bigger advantage?

The other thought I keep having is, why have this built-in extra cost if it isn't necessary or helpful to the class? Not only does it not help the class, it will be a big negative factor in several respects.

I can't think of anything more exciting that a large field of a wide variety of very interesting F1000 chassis, all with 180-185 HP. That will make the front half of the field a much closer battle of the best drivers, designers and engineers. The engine & tuning is still a factor, but much less so.

[glenn cooper]

Whew, Russ you may have opened up the proverbial Pandora's can of Worms!

What exactly is the problem or perceived problem we are experiencing or about to possibly see?

I'm not seeing any!

I choose to run a narrow track (supposedly NOT the hot ticket, and worth a sec or sec an a 1/2 per lap according to some) suspension, and 6 and 8 inch magnesium rims.
The car came with them, no additional cost...

JB - Why exactly is this an issue to the health and growth of the class?

I currently use tires from Indiana, but have won races on tires from Ohio (OK, China or S. America, whatever) as well. We need a spec tire, why?

FB engines are a disposable commodity. There is really no financial point in rebuilding them, as a new(ish) one can be had quite affordably.

I hope to get 8-10 events from a powerunit, quite possibly a season. I know Sean O got over a year from his R1.

FC folks refresh after a similar time frame, at a cost of how much?
Factor in a "new" FC National level engine is (IIRC/Pinto) 8-10k, and of course that does not include the transmission as it does for us.

Again, where exactly is the "problem" we are about to experience?

If we are so concerned about some chump (Yeah, you heard me!) spending NASA spec $'s for a Desmosedeici RR engine so they can win a 5$ trophy, let's change the rule to exclude anything but Big 4 Japanese 1000cc street bikes, sold in N America.

None of this Harley Davidson VR1000 Bullship, either ("Yeah we sold all 50 required for homologation in Poland").

In regard to the folks shying away from FB due to engine longevity issues (Damn - am I good or what?), please be sure to tell them we are working on it and getting better and better all the time, AND that suitable ones are only a few thou, AND include the transmission).
Please also inform them of how much it used to cost to acheive the lap times we are now seeing (Damn near 1:20's at Rd Atl, 1:05 Roebling, and 2:10's at Road America).

Racers can pretty much have a complete converted Van Diemen FC for what an FA engine costs...

Can't we just debate things that really matter to the betterment of mankind, like did A Rod take steroids, and should he be allowed in the baseball hall of fame, or does that fat cow Jessica Simpson really look better all zaftig now?

Coop Out, but never cop out, Bitches!!

[jonbaytos]

Sorry MR. COOPER I will now go back to my normal job.You have put things in perspective. Thanks PS A=Rod should be out of baseball

[Dave Gomberg]

First off, IIR vs. SIR - is there really a difference as far as how the computer will react?...

Yes. The SIR is before the intake - the ECU sees the restricted air flow and reacts to it (in very negative ways). The IIR is after the intake and is "invisible" to the ECU. Yes, they have been tested and used in other venues. Note that the rules (H.5) allow the CRB to impose intake restrictors at any time.

Second, I know there are people out there staying out of FB simply because of the current instability in the rules. ...

Just what are you referring to? There have been no significant changes to the rules since they first appeared in the 2007 GCR. There have been several clarifications made as builders raised questions about the meaning of certain of the original rules, but no changes of real consequence. (The fact that the rules were beaten to a pulp in this forum for about a year helped make the rules very stable from the beginning.)

Dave

[Mike B]

Note that the rules (H.5) allow the CRB to impose intake restrictors at any time.

This scares the crap out of me. What circumstances would cause the CRB to impose an intake restrictor? What recourse do the people most affected by it have to prevent it or at least have a say in its size/application?

I'd really like to hear from George Dean on the function of the IIR. I'm kind of in Billy W's camp. If the IIR is downstream from any sensors, won't the engine run rich? More info needed.

I think GC summed it up quite well in his usual inimitable way. Problem? What problem?

And Jessica Simpson always looked good. But that's just me.

[RussMcB]

Whew, Russ you may have opened up the proverbial Pandora's can of Worms!

What exactly is the problem or perceived problem we are experiencing or about to possibly see?

I'm not seeing any!

Well, I made a few various attempts in my previous 15 posts in this topic, but I've never been a great communicator. I doubt a 16th attempt will be any more successful.

I surrender. If most people think their engines (and related peripherals) are disposable then I don't want to be out here sword fighting with windmills. In a few years I may be able to say I told you so, but I wont get much satisfaction from that.

[glenn cooper]

Russ, u r still my bud.
We've just agreed to disagree!

PS How about comin' over this weekend and helping me put the dang Hero Cam on my car already?

GC

[Billy Wight]

Just what are you referring to? There have been no significant changes to the rules since they first appeared in the 2007 GCR. There have been several clarifications made as builders raised questions about the meaning of certain of the original rules, but no changes of real consequence. (The fact that the rules were beaten to a pulp in this forum for about a year helped make the rules very stable from the beginning.)

Dave

Perhaps "instability" was the wrong word, rather I should have written "uncertainty".

[Dave Gomberg]

Perhaps "instability" was the wrong word, rather I should have written "uncertainty".

O.K. I'll ask again: what uncertainty? Despite this thread, there have been no membership proposed changes to F1000 and, to date, there have been no discussions within the advisory committee or the CRB about changes to F1000.

Dave

[Dave Gomberg]

This scares the crap out of me. What circumstances would cause the CRB to impose an intake restrictor? What recourse do the people most affected by it have to prevent it or at least have a say in its size/application?

H.5 was put into the F1000 rules so that if the one liter bike engines got to the point where the power levels were too high for the safe operation of the cars, the power could be capped.

I'd really like to hear from George Dean on the function of the IIR. ...

George is the one who developed these restrictors. Does that help?

Dave

[RobLav]

We beat these rules, as Dave says, to a major pulp when we created them. Especially the restrictor issue. We have a compromise. Don't tamper with them as we continue building critical mass. Read any process improvement literature and you'll understand the effects of system tampering.

We beat the pulp out of the following - for a year.

- Sir vs no SIR - beat the most -
- 6/8 and or 8/10 wheels
- Engine claim rule
- XX year engine moratorium rule
- Tube chassis vs stressed aluminum
- Weight - 900 or 950 or 1000
- Body width
- Overall car width
- Diffuser and underbody aero

What else was beat to a pulp? Remind me.

Dave says we've had a few clarifications (diffuser width definition) and a fix (cam tensioner). That's precisely all they've been.

The goal has always been to create the critical mass from converted and new new cars. If the rules had been created as Jon and/or Ralph wish, then fewer cars would have been converted. Spending money on converting an older FC is much less than buying a new car. How's that for cost containment?

Let the class continue to grow and developmentally evolve by leaving the rules stable.

[cparsons]

Russ, doesn't the white flag mean "go around one more time?"

[Jnovak]

In my opinion the rules are quite functional at the moment. The proof of the pudding is in the fact that Coop has a 98 converted narrow track Van Diemen & can keep up with the latest technology on the track.

We need to focus on building and racing as many new cars & converted cars as possible, Once the critical mass is there to get Runoffs elegibility F1000 will grow to be the 2nd most popular Formula class in the SCCA (IMHO).

Near atlantic speeds at the cost of a Formula Ford!

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[carnut169]

FWIW when I swapped from an 03-04 to an 07 it did cost some $$... (from memory)

$4500 engine & loom (Dean)
$500 wet sump pan (Dean)
$1000 headers (Comprent)
$1000 frame/ engine mount changes (Comprent)
$300 Power Commander (Ebay)
$300 07 GSXR dash (Ebay)

I also changed out oil/ water coolers:

$500ish (C&R)
$300 (Setrab)

Then throw in the braided hose, coolant lines, oil, etc. PLUS, the airbox/ intake is different as well so ??

That's $8400 for my swap. I could see it being $10k if a shop did the motor install/ airbox changes.

[tombeattie]

Those numbers are not comparing apples to apples. $5500 got you a brand new motor with 0 miles and a 2000 to 2500 now gets you a junk yard motor with questionable history that should be opened up and rebuilt before track use. BTW in 07 I was able to buy two used motors off Ebay with low miles in the 2400 range.

Mike, your right. A better comparison would have been that I purchased a brand new 0 mile 07 GSXR in September 07 for $3800 vs. the $5500 I would have had to pay to get one when they first came out. My point was that motor cost is driven by suppy/demand and an engine rule could help to reduce the cost by eliminating the "need" to get one when they first come on the market.

FWIW the guy in Vegas that I bought my new motor from on Ebay is taking pre orders for new 0 mile 09 GSXR's for $5699. I think I'll wait a few years.


Tom

[John]

I suppose it could cost 10k to change engines, but last year we upgraded my DSR from a 02 GSXR 1000 motor to an 06. The 06 stock had more power than the built 02..

2 used 06 motors with wiring harnesses and injectors $2500
Have new wiring harness adapted to car, $300

Take old motor out, move over billet clutch ( I do not like slippers)
Move over dry sump from old motor, they are the same except for the drive pin for the pump
Install wiring harness
Move front motor mounts up 1" (took about 2 hours)
install motor
Bolt on headers

Total cost beyond a new motor $350

Unless there is a major generation change, you can move from motor to motor within the same familiy pretty easily. This also keeps parts and availability from being a problem, so if you do a generation change once in the family for less than $1000 and a major change every 5 years for more or so seems that would be reasonable.

Parts for old bike motors do get to be a problem

[Mike B]

H.5 was put into the F1000 rules so that if the one liter bike engines got to the point where the power levels were too high for the safe operation of the cars, the power could be capped.

I knew that, but my question is what is that magic, double-secret power level at which the CRB will pull the trigger on a restrictor ? Will they force it on us with the same amount of real-world data (on bike engines) as the SIR (nil)?
What concerns me most is that the CRB has created a rule-making loophole with that rule, a loophole that allows them to arbitrarily make a VERY significant change to the F1000 rules with the normal due process. In fact, I intend to write a letter proposing this "rule" be removed.

George is the one who developed these restrictors. Does that help?

I knew that, but my question is how it works in the real world. In my feeble mind, any restriction, whether it's before or after the TBs should affect the fuel map and make ECM tuning necessary. If installing it after the TBs doesn't affect the fuel map, it surely must adversely affect the A/F mix (richen it).

As I said, I trust George's data and technical expertise but those of us that were on the rule committee are more than a little gun-shy after the SIR near-disaster.

[Daryl DeArman]

IMO any class that allows for "competition adjustments" at any time is the very definition of "uncertainty". Frankly, that scares the crap out of me and the wallet I had to pry open in the first place.

[Rennie Clayton]

IMO any class that allows for "competition adjustments" at any time is the very definition of "uncertainty". Frankly, that scares the crap out of me and the wallet I had to pry open in the first place.

"Competition adjustments" can be made to any class, at any time, so I don't see how this is something specific to Formula 1000, or makes this class in particular any more susceptible to "uncertainty".

For example, over the winter of 2002, we spent a considerable amount of money converting our fuel-injected Formula Atlantic engine over to carbs, allowing us to take advantage of what was a 50lb weight break at the time. Just in time for the 2003 season opener, SCCA reduced that to a 25lb weight break. Just like that, our investment went down the drain, although we stuck to our guns and went out and won races anyway. And yes, I realize this is more fuel for the "arbitrary, capricious and EVIL constantly-rule-changing SCCA" bonfire, but having seen what kind of constant rules-fiddling goes on in Pro series, I can live with the occasional rule shift from SCCA.


Cheers,
Rennie

[JEREMY HILL]

[quote=Dave Gomberg;205560]O.K. I'll ask again: what uncertainty? Despite this thread, there have been no membership proposed changes to F1000 and, to date, there have been no discussions within the advisory committee or the CRB about changes to F1000.

dave, does this mean that scca/crb 'lost' my email the second time i sent it as well? regards, jeremy hill

[Beartrax]

Russ, doesn't the white flag mean "go around one more time?"

LMAO!!!

If only it could be just one more time around....

no horse in the race - sorry. I'll go back to my corner.

[Daryl DeArman]

"...I don't see how this is something specific to Formula 1000, or makes this class in particular any more susceptible to "uncertainty".

The more engine models that are allowed in a Formula class the more "adjusting" that will be necessary should some resemblance of parity be desired.

No, I don't want spec motors. I just want darwinism to work at a s-l-o-w-e-d (moratorium) pace.

[Daryl DeArman]

.

Speaking of competition adjustments and uncertainty.....

[Dave Gomberg]

...

dave, does this mean that scca/crb 'lost' my email the second time i sent it as well? regards, jeremy hill

My apologies for my less than perfect memory, Jeremy. We did receive your requests and they were considered. Not that yours was the only request for it, but we did add manual chain tensioners. Your other requests on limiting the years of engines and the manufacturers of engines were considered and not accepted because they weren't viewed as necessary. The CRB responses to these requests appeared in the April 2008 Fastrack.

Dave

[Rennie Clayton]

Speaking of competition adjustments and uncertainty.....

You'll not get an argument from me that SCCA pulled a sh*tball move on Jeremy at the Runoffs. Seriously, that was f*cked to begin with, as was what they did with us in Formula Atlantic back in 2003 (albeit to a lesser degree). It's not germaine to the conversation at hand, however, especially given that the action in question was taken against an FC competitor. That bolsters my contention that SCCA's capriciousness is not particularly aimed at Formula 1000, but is somewhat more pervasive.

It's also magnified by the sheer magnitude of classes - if SCCA had only one or two classes, and made 2 or 3 moves a year, it would be one thing. But since we have tens of classes, all these little changes get added up in everbody's head... that's when it turns into "ZOMG WTF SCCA CAN'T BE CONSISTENT FOR MORE THAN 1 MINUTE, LOOK 578 BRAZILLIAN CHANGES IN FASTRACK!!1!11!!ELEVENTY!!"

Anyway, that's a subject of discussion for another time - sorry for the threadjack. SCCA has process and communication issues, and I'll leave it at that for the time being.

The more engine models that are allowed in a Formula class the more "adjusting" that will be necessary should some resemblance of parity be desired.

No, I don't want spec motors. I just want darwinism to work at a s-l-o-w-e-d (moratorium) pace.

A moratorium does not slow progress, it halts it altogether. Smells an awful lot like spec motors to me. Not that there is anything wrong with that - but I don't think a moratorium on progress is really wanted.

I think nobody would be concerned with the cost issue of new engines, so long as there was not a (real or perceived) performance advantage from doing so. After all, I can choose to spend $3k a quart for Dupont's latest paint flavor of the month and nobody will give a horse's bollocks, right? Well, until I start going down the straights faster than everybody else! Anyway, most of the GTx classes have adopted the SIR approach to solve this problem. Apparently this was deemed insufficient for Formula 1000, and most of the conversation I see on the forums call it a "near disaster" or similar...

Talk about a marketing job. Any FSAE'ers out there care to comment on working with an SIR on 'bike motors?


Cheers,
Rennie

[JEREMY HILL]

thanks dave, perhaps we need to have a poll on the issue so that we can put it to bed (at least for another year or so) regards, jeremy

[Daryl DeArman]

A moratorium does not slow progress, it halts it altogether. Smells an awful lot like spec motors to me. Not that there is anything wrong with that - but I don't think a moratorium on progress is really wanted.

Rennie, if you freeze the eligible engines from 2009 to 2012 at 2009 or older models and then freeze again from 2013 to 2016 at 2012 or older, you will have progress and at least "eleventy bazillion" elible models. S-l-o-w-e-d progress and far from a spec motor. Perhaps a moratorium on progress isn't wanted, much less one like I am proposing, time will tell.

I am finally taking the on this one.