FB Cost & HP Containment

[Billy Wight]

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?

Rennie-

I was originally arguing for the SIR to be put in place for this class to even out the HP numbers and deter the "engine of the year" phenomenon, but later changed my mind because of the necessary aftermarket ECU and dyno costs. The SIR's work just fine on a bike engine provided it has an aftermarket ECU and proper fuel map (dyno tuned) which ends up being pretty expensive...

[Misterkris]

From my perspective as someone who hasnt eatin the cost of much so far: I dont want anything to do with IR's. Sounds like a mess to me. Also ive been mentally budgeting needing a new motor at least every other year, or untill its known knowldege of how to keep them from popping (which seems like were getting close). Also when comparing other series for cost its seems replacing a whole drivetrain is cheaper in FB than any other comparitive class. Also im wondering why some who are concerned with engine parity would be ones to not use the obviously more powerfull engine for their car in first place. Ill definatly have my car set up for a gixxer. And if I get 3 years out of it that'd be great, but I dont think those who have an engine 2 years newer will be that much faster.

[WRD]

One other thing worth noting... It might turn out to be rubbish but who knows.

Bikes are seriously traction limited and the latest trend in street bikes is something that Moto GP has been doing for years, big bang on the ignition timing. The new Yamaha R1 is apparently a giant killer, however, it only has 178 hp according to the mag I saw last night, but it does have big bang, giving the bike better traction, whereas the 2009 GSXR has 190+ hp and no big bang. If the bike manufacturers are all leaning towards big bang over the coming years it might be that the 2009 GSXR motor is the most powerful bike engine coming our way for a while. It could well be that the latest trends in bike engineering will make this conversation a moot point for quite some time.

Like I said, It might turn out to be rubbish but there may be something in it.

Lee Williams

[Dave Gomberg]

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)?

First, I have to ask: what SIR application are you referring to? If you mean the Zetec vs Pinto in FC, that did not involve SIRs at all. The Zetec uses a plate restrictor. If you are talking about something else, please be clear.

Second, let me repeat: the purpose of H.5 - and which was clear at the time the rules were being discussed - was to be able to limit the power (and thus speed). You may or may not remember that there were serious concerns voiced about the possible speeds of these cars and the consequences of not allowing/requiring composite tubs. With that in mind and comments that have been made about F1000 being "close to FA lap times at the cost of an FA engine", where do you think we should draw the line? (I don't necessarily mean horsepower, but speed of the cars.)

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.

The CRB did not create a "loop hole". H.5 was (as I've said above) included in the rules because of serious concerns about safety. No one thought a cap was necessary at the time, but many recognized the seriousness of the situation and H.5 was the compromise solution. This is not something that was "slipped in" under cover of darkness as you seem to be implying.

Dave

[Rick Ross]

Dave,

In my opinion, the safety concerns which have been raised regarding FB speeds are completely valid. These cars have the potential to go even faster than they are going today. Meanwhile the rest of the world is slowly moving away from tube-frame formula cars, even in the junior formulas (FBMW, F Renault, etc.) It is unfortunate that SCCA does not have a class similar to FB with a modern carbon tub.....but that is a discussion for another day. I personally think that the H5 rule makes sense given its intent and the context in which it was developed. Who knows......unforeseen events may occur in the future which lead to a consensus within SCCA that FB hp must be limited. I am not predicting that this will happen, but it is possible.

As for FB cars costing less than an FA engine, that is of course somewhat of an exaggeration. While you can probably spend as much as you want on an FA motor, you can also buy a complete Swift DB4 (with motor) for less than $30K, a car that is faster than any FB currently on the market. I have also seen complete Swift 008's and Ralt RT-40's sell for less than $40K.

[Mike B]

First, I have to ask: what SIR application are you referring to? If you mean the Zetec vs Pinto in FC, that did not involve SIRs at all. The Zetec uses a plate restrictor. If you are talking about something else, please be clear.

The SIR was discussed in private conversations between you and me, and with the F1000 rules committee. At the time, we were led to believe that it was a simple formula based on displacement and some other parameters developed by Raetech. In your defense, I believe that you were also the one that later brought to our attention that it may not work like you thought it would and it probably isn't an option. Had that not happened and we blindly went forward with the SIR, I feel that F1000 might have been stillborn. That's the narrowly averted-disaster.

Second, let me repeat: the purpose of H.5 - and which was clear at the time the rules were being discussed - was to be able to limit the power (and thus speed).

Then the rule should read as such. It's currently a very specific method for limiting the power, a method that may or may not work. Rewrite the rule to be more general and state specifically what you want: to limit the speed. This could be done in other ways beside tampering with the engine.

With that in mind and comments that have been made about F1000 being "close to FA lap times at the cost of an FA engine", where do you think we should draw the line? (I don't necessarily mean horsepower, but speed of the cars.)

Gosh, Dave, thanks for asking. I don't know how fast is too fast but I'll know it when I see it. We're not there yet. At least not in my car...
There are lots of F1000 competitors that would be affected by a change to limit speed. I hope when that time comes that you (the CRB) will ask them all, in Fastrack, the way it should be.

This is not something that was "slipped in" under cover of darkness as you seem to be implying.

It wasn't in the proposal that our committee submitted to the CRB...


Dave, my comments may seem combative but that's not how I mean them. Maybe I should put some more smiley faces in there to soften the blow. However, as you might have noticed, I've put a lot of time and money into both creating F1000 and helping it grow. You were instrumental in assisting us in the genesis of the class and I truly appreciate it. I just don't want to see all that work go out the window because of one, seemingly innocuous, afterthought rule. Maybe that's an alarmist point of view, but that one little sentence in the rulebook could have major repercussions in the health, possibly the existence, of the class. I'm certain this is the "instability" that Billy Wight referred to.
That rule ignores the fact that this a club "by the competitors, for the competitors." Or something like that...

[formulasuper]

One other thing worth noting... It might turn out to be rubbish but who knows.

Bikes are seriously traction limited and the latest trend in street bikes is something that Moto GP has been doing for years, big bang on the ignition timing. The new Yamaha R1 is apparently a giant killer, however, it only has 178 hp according to the mag I saw last night, but it does have big bang, giving the bike better traction, whereas the 2009 GSXR has 190+ hp and no big bang. If the bike manufacturers are all leaning towards big bang over the coming years it might be that the 2009 GSXR motor is the most powerful bike engine coming our way for a while. It could well be that the latest trends in bike engineering will make this conversation a moot point for quite some time.

Like I said, It might turn out to be rubbish but there may be something in it.

Lee Williams

Lee, I have to admit I haven't heard of this latest "big bang on the ignition timing". Can you explain this big bang theory?

[Mike B]

This helps a little:
http://blogger.xs4all.nl/daisy/archi...21/354910.aspx

[Stu Waterman]

Here's a great overview of the "big bang" vs "screamer" engine wars in MotoGP:

http://www.cbr250.com/cbr250/forum/t...TOPIC_ID=50019

Absolutely fascinating, but it's not clear what (if any) relevance this has to the current debate, though.

FWIW, we're building our F1000 with an '08 Suzuki. Hopefully we will be running for our season opener April 5. While I wouldn't have a big problem with an "x" year engine freeze, I don't think this is our biggest issue for the class going forward.

I've always felt that the 800 lb gorilla in the room is the "stock" engine rule. It will be enormously difficult, if not impossible, to police this rule for the ever-proliferating variety of engine specifications in the class. I'm sure this issue was beaten to death by the rules committee (and thank you all for your tireless work getting the class up and running, by the way!), but I'm pretty sure it will return. If an '09 Suzuki is fast, a gently massaged '09 Suzuki will be even faster. I know we're all honorable racers, but...

Having raced in a junior formula with a stock engine rule (and limited to just a single make and model, not any stock engine of a certain displacement), I can tell you it ain't pretty. Cheating ran rampant, requiring ever more rigorous post-race tech inspection. Once we started running well, we were taking our engine home every week as a basket of parts after a post-race teardown. Not fun. And there is no way that a volunteer tech inspection team could have handled 5 or 6 different engine specs. Maybe the SCCA infrastructure can handle this sort of thing, I'm too new to the club to know.

It was our concern about the F1000 stock engine rule that kept us from jumping into the class last year. But it just looked like so much fun that eventually we went ahead and did it anyway!

[RussMcB]

Temporarily rejoining the conversation ...

If an IIR is used, it almost doesn't matter if someone tries to cheat. Everyone will have to make their power with the same restricted amount of air. Theoretically, a hopped up motor would be within a HP or two of a totally stock, to the limit engine.

Back to lurking mode ...

[formulasuper]

This helps a little:
http://blogger.xs4all.nl/daisy/archi...21/354910.aspx

Ok, so after reading this does anyone believe that a screamer engine isn't better for a F1000 car than the more rider (driver?) controllable engine?

[carnut169]

Temporarily rejoining the conversation ...

If an IIR is used, it almost doesn't matter if someone tries to cheat. Everyone will have to make their power with the same restricted amount of air. Theoretically, a hopped up motor would be within a HP or two of a totally stock, to the limit engine.

Back to lurking mode ...

True, but I've heard it argued that people will spend even more money finding the package that works best with the IIR/ SIR, and it may be that the "02 Whatever" is the engine- (or the 95 whatever), and those engines will be hard/ expensive to find- not to mention all the required testing.

It's not all that hard to determine if an engine has been massaged- it would just take someone like Dean to do it.

Another possibility is requiring the engines to be inspected/ sealed. Have a (or several) certified inspector in each region/ State and that inspector is required to determine the engine is stock and seal it. Bet 90% of the engines come from reputable builders anyway. Works in Rotax karting, but that's only 1 type of motor...

[WRD]

Absolutely fascinating, but it's not clear what (if any) relevance this has to the current debate, though.

I guess re reading it I didn't get my point across very well!!

What I was trying to say is that while the big bang engines are better for a bike, they are not necessarily better for a car as, compared to a bike, we are not so much limited by traction.

So, all the bike manufacturers care about is making fast bikes, and, in the case of Yamaha at least, a horsepower drop and big bang achieves this. Next year I have no doubt that Suzuki and the others will follow suit which would make the 09 Suzuki still the most powerful motor available.

Unless I got confused along the way which is entirely possible!, this debate began as how are we going to stop people having to purchase the latest and greatest engines, my point was that in a car I would rather have a 'screamer' and horsepower than a 'big bang' with less horsepower due to the extra traction available. If the current trend continues then it may be a while before we see an engine more suited to a car than the 08/09 Suzuki which would make this entire debate moot.

Like I said above, it may turn out to be rubbish but I was just trying to throw another point out there to wait and see what happens and don't mess around with the rules as they are currently written, it could well be that the latest, greatest bike engines are worthless for cars, after all, Suzuki and Yamaha probably don't care about our class as much as they care about making fast bikes!!!

[RussMcB]

True, but I've heard it argued that people will spend even more money finding the package that works best with the IIR/ SIR, and it may be that the "02 Whatever" is the engine- (or the 95 whatever), and those engines will be hard/ expensive to find- not to mention all the required testing.

Yep, and if I heard someone was going to all that trouble and expense, my response would be, "Big deal.", or maybe, "What an idiot.". What would they gain from it? 1-2 HP? That is a pretty small advantage, especially after hearing a lot of posts by people saying a 5 HP disadvantage can be overcome by a good driver or aero improvements.

Regarding the Big Bang engine, I'd agree with Lee's hunch. It may be an advantage on a bike with it's unique handling/tire challenges, but doesn't sound like it would be in our cars. That might be a good thing and help slow the HP wars a little bit over a short period of time.

Sorry. I'm trying to stay low and lurk, but just don't have the will power. :-).

[Billy Wight]

Yep, and if I heard someone was going to all that trouble and expense, my response would be, "Big deal.", or maybe, "What an idiot.". What would they gain from it? 1-2 HP?

The idea would be to find the engine that makes it's power down low in the RPM range. (typically smaller bore, longer stroke, i.e. an older model). A restrictor (any type) limits airflow, and therefore the RPM's that it can operate well at - the engine will work just fine until the flow restriction reaches it's choking point (flow becomes sonic at the restriction), and if your engine makes most of it's power before this point you're not that restricted... When I was doing FSAE, we ran a 10 year old engine to accomplish this. Running restricted, it's the area under the curve that counts, not so much the peak.

[RussMcB]

The idea would be to find the engine that makes it's power down low in the RPM range. (typically smaller bore, longer stroke, i.e. an older model). A restrictor (any type) limits airflow, and therefore the RPM's that it can operate well at - the engine will work just fine until the flow restriction reaches it's choking point (flow becomes sonic at the restriction), and if your engine makes most of it's power before this point you're not that restricted... When I was doing FSAE, we ran a 10 year old engine to accomplish this. Running restricted, it's the area under the curve that counts, not so much the peak.

Understood, and I agree, but I doubt that would come into play because ...

I'm assuming that if/when an IIR is ever implemented, it would probably not be restricting our current engines, so maybe around 13,000 RPM, 190 HP (WAG). If that's true, a 1 liter is going to need RPM's to accomplish that. No stock engine produced thus far (except for maybe an exotic) is going to be restricted very much. Only future engines will begin bumping into that restriction.

I can't imagine someone getting a 10 year old stock engine that's going to make more power under that curve compared to a 2009 GSXR.

I think the FSAE restriction is a different animal. I could be mistaken, but aren't they modified 600cc engines all choked down and not allowed to make what they are capable of? What kind of RPM's are they limited to?

[Dave Welsh]

From the 2009 FSAE rulebook

http://students.sae.org/competitions...9fsaerules.pdf

ARTICLE 8: POWERTRAIN
8.1 Engine Limitation
8.1.1 The engine(s) used to power the car must be four-stroke piston engine(s) with a displacement not exceeding 610 cc per cycle.
8.1.2 The engine can be modified within the restrictions of the rules.
8.1.3 If more than one engine is used, the total displacement can not exceed 610 cc and the air for all engines must pass through a single air intake restrictor (see 8.6, “Intake System Restrictor.”)
8.1.4 Hybrid powertrains utilizing on-board energy storage are not allowed.


8.6 Intake System Restrictor
8.6.1 In order to limit the power capability from the engine, a single circular restrictor must be placed in the intake system between the throttle and the engine and all engine airflow must pass through the restrictor.
8.6.2 Any device that has the ability to throttle the engine downstream of the restrictor is prohibited.
8.6.3 The maximum restrictor diameters are:
− Gasoline fueled cars - 20.0 mm (0.7874 inch)
− E-85 fueled cars – 19.0 mm (0.7480 inch)
8.6.4 The restrictor must be located to facilitate measurement during the inspection process.
8.6.5 The circular restricting cross section may NOT be movable or flexible in any way, e.g. the restrictor may not be part of the movable portion of a barrel throttle body.
8.6.6 If more than one engine is used, the intake air for all engines must pass through the one restrictor.

[RussMcB]

If you put a FSAE restictor on the most powerful stock 600cc bike engine offered today, would it lose power?

[Billy Wight]

If you put a FSAE restictor on the most powerful stock 600cc bike engine offered today, would it lose power?

Wierd, I replied earlier, but somehow my post dissapeared??? Maybe the attachment was too big?

Anyways, our engine didn't suffer much from the restrictor - it redlined fairly low (11,500) and you couldn't really see an effect. The other teams using the newer engines definatley saw a power hit as the newer engines all redlined at about 13,000.

When we added the supercharger to our engine though, you could very much see the choking point (and then tune for it), not that forced induction is an issue for F1000.

To more directly answer your question, yes, it would lose power.

[glenn cooper]

Dave - "FA lap times" I really meant "Slow FA lap times".

Rick - "Complete FB car costing less than FA engines" - It seems to me I recall a fresh/new Hasslegren Toyota Atlantic Pro Series engine price of 40k, right around the time I was oh-so-close to weasling one of Johnston's FA stable (of 3!) for the first San Jose pro race, a few years back.

I know, or at least feel that some folks are trying to head off some kind of potential disaster that may befall F1000, but there's currently more of 'em for sale than are racing (or so it seems!). Maybe we ought to just get out there and run 'em...

Jeremy, I'm close to putting together a road trip from June Sprints to Mosport 1 week later. You better be there!!

PS I'd be for a claiming rule. Let's say $7500. basic engine, no induction, oil system, or electrics.

THAT ought to keep things straight... (Or not).

GC

PS Big Bang is not in ignition timing, rather in cylider firing (all 4 fairly close together), AND crankshaft rod journal placement; each seperated from the other by 90 degrees, not the regular 180 degree phasing (2 up while 2 are down).
Current issue of Roadracing World magazine has an excellent overview/test of new '09 Yammie R1...

[jim morgan]

jon,

you're now claiming to have a normal job?

[jonbaytos]

jon,

you're now claiming to have a normal job?

Hi Jim, just kidding you know that I would not be caught dead working. Sorry we missed you and the lad at Roeb,had to back home to have some sleep. JB

[Rick Ross]

Hey Coop,

Congrats on your good weekend at Roebling. I think that you are correct about FA engine prices. I'm pretty sure that if you called up Hasselgren and ordered a complete "new" motor it would be at least $40K....ouch! My point (which I failed to make very well) was that comparisons between the FA and FB classes are not particularly relevant. You can currently purchase a complete FA with engine for under $30K that will be faster than any FB. The problem with this plan of course is that the operating costs will be considerably higher. With the exception of lap times, the FA and FB classes have very little in common.

Although I'm not part of the FB club, I think that your current rules package is not that bad. And as you correctly pointed out, the best thing for the class now is for you guys to all get out there and race and continue to develop your cars.

[T644HU05]

I actually paid attention to a F1000 car for the first time last weekend. As a spectator it made all the right noises, had the right look and it looked like a blast to drive. I even went over to make sure I fit in it. I did. A few mores years in FF then I might have to look into getting into F1000.

The rules state "up to 1000cc." You would have to make an exception for the 600, 750 800, 900 cc bike motors if you added restrictors. If you restrict a 1000 to the point of 750cc then you open up a whole bunch more available motors as competetive. Unless you change the rules to read 900 to 999cc only of course. Or a CC/Weight rule...oh oh..this is a bad path to go down isn't it? Sorry, I'll go play with my 40 year old pushrod, cast iron lump now.

[dc]

The discussion regarding the issues between Thomas Smith and Jon Baytos has been moved to the Seller/Buyer Feedback Forum.