Engine rules

[bill gillespie]

I was expecting a new FA engine rules/table on the 20th............anyone hear anything ?.......crickets, crickets.........

Regards,
Bill

[Paul LeCain]

They're still under discussion. There's some hope for a resolution this week, but I wouldn't count on it.

[RSiler]

Just curious, but is there any development going on regarding FA engines? Seems like restricted, larger displacement engines are now allowed in the rules, but has anybody actually developed one and raced it? Seems to me a long-lived engine that produces competitive horsepower would be very attractive for FA as long as the conversion cost was not entirely outrageous.

Thanks!

[Rick Ross]

[SIZE=1][SIZE=1]Posted in Fastrac today:

FA
[/SIZE][/SIZE][FONT=Arial,Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial,Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial,Arial][SIZE=1]The F/SR advisory committee and the CRB are considering adjustments to weights and restrictors for up to 2.0 liter and up to 2.5 liter engines in FA and CSR. These adjustments will result in all such engines (regardless of compression ratio) [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial,Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial,Arial][SIZE=1]using Single Inlet Restrictors. Every effort will be made to balance performance within these classes while maintaining the [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial,Arial][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial,Arial][SIZE=1]attractiveness of longer service times for larger displacement engines. No adjustments will be effective before 4/1/2011.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[bill gillespie]

Looks like Mr Mucha and a few others just spent a butt-load of money on development to the current rules....for nothing.

[Paul LeCain]

Looks like Mr Mucha and a few others just spent a butt-load of money on development to the current rules....for nothing.

I'd be happier if we just went back to 1600 cc engines. Everyone had more-or-less the same engines under that formula. The drivers could duke it out on the track.

[VehDyn]

Looks like Mr Mucha and a few others just spent a butt-load of money on development to the current rules....for nothing.

I am sure someone from SCCA will chime in to say, "I know we took way all that horsepower you spent that money on, but in return we gave you increased longevity. Why arent you happy?"

[bill gillespie]

I am sure someone from SCCA will chime in to say, "I know we took way all that horsepower you spent that money on, but in return we gave you increased longevity. Why arent you happy?"

Hey Ken,

I may be reading between the lines, but guys way smarter than I, tell me the only way to make any horsepower with an SIR, is with substantial compression increase.

Bye bye longevity.........a9/1, or 10/1 motor will last way longer than with the compression of a SIR race motor............sorry boys......I kinda like Paul's plan, now.

I think this must be very discouraging to any potential FA newcomers, or maybe it's just me........but I'm not a 4AGE owner, and I don't sit on the advisory board.........but, I did sleep in a Holiday Inn last night.

[Dave Gomberg]

Hey Ken,

I may be reading between the lines, but guys way smarter than I, tell me the only way to make any horsepower with an SIR, is with substantial compression increase....

That is true if the only goal is to gain maximum horsepower from a given engine at a given size SIR. However, by limiting compression and allowing a bigger SIR, equivalent horsepower can be achieved. That is the approach being used. Stay tuned for the details and don't give up on the low compression engines yet. Another aspect of the scheme trades increased weight for an increase in SIR size (both high and low compression). This will allow owners of different chassis to make a choice that fits their situation.

Dave

[Stan Clayton]

January Fastrack is up.

[bill gillespie]

That is true if the only goal is to gain maximum horsepower from a given engine at a given size SIR. However, by limiting compression and allowing a bigger SIR, equivalent horsepower can be achieved. That is the approach being used. Stay tuned for the details and don't give up on the low compression engines yet. Another aspect of the scheme trades increased weight for an increase in SIR size (both high and low compression). This will allow owners of different chassis to make a choice that fits their situation.

Dave

Hi Dave,
Thanks for your reply. This surely seems like a completely new engine table. Would this not be a rule change vs competition adjustment ?

Were member comments ever solicited concerning this rule change ?

Regards,
Bill

[nulrich]

Any thoughts about allowing Zetec 2.0 engines to be prepared to the new FA engine guidelines for "Pro Formula F2000" converted FC cars? That is, allow more than just a cam and different map? That might make them marginally competitive on some tracks. I've had several inquiries about converting a Radon F2000 car to FA spec, but the current engine rules make it unattractive.

Nathan

[Dave Gomberg]

Any thoughts about allowing Zetec 2.0 engines to be prepared to the new FA engine guidelines for "Pro Formula F2000" converted FC cars? That is, allow more than just a cam and different map? That might make them marginally competitive on some tracks. I've had several inquiries about converting a Radon F2000 car to FA spec, but the current engine rules make it unattractive.

Nathan

That spec line was put there to give the cars a place to run when the series died in their Pro form (they couldn't run in FC that way). It is still on the books. But, there is nothing to prevent someone from running the cars under the standard FA rules and putting in whatever engine they choose or updating the 2.0 Zetec to run under the FA engine table specs.

Dave

[Dave Gomberg]

Hi Dave,
Thanks for your reply. This surely seems like a completely new engine table. Would this not be a rule change vs competition adjustment ?

This is a change to a single line in the table. The CRB is allowed to adjust weights, intake restrictions and (for the classes where it applies) tire sizes as competition adjustments at any time. (In practice, we try to get such adjustments done in the first half of the year.)

Dave

[bill gillespie]

Any thoughts about allowing Zetec 2.0 engines to be prepared to the new FA engine guidelines for "Pro Formula F2000" converted FC cars? That is, allow more than just a cam and different map? That might make them marginally competitive on some tracks. I've had several inquiries about converting a Radon F2000 car to FA spec, but the current engine rules make it unattractive.

Nathan

Hi Nathan,

A noted engine builder told me that he thought they could get 230hp out of an all-out Zetec. f you had to bolt on 10"/14" wheels to comply with FA rules, and ballast up to FA weight, I don't think 230 will get the job done.

Regards,
Bill

[nulrich]

That spec line was put there to give the cars a place to run when the series died in their Pro form (they couldn't run in FC that way). It is still on the books. But, there is nothing to prevent someone from running the cars under the standard FA rules and putting in whatever engine they choose or updating the 2.0 Zetec to run under the FA engine table specs.

Dave

Thanks, Dave, I understand that.

Unfortunately, the market does not justify redesigning the car to meet the FA rules, specifically the requirement for wider tires and wheels. Putting 8 and 10 inch wheels on and different wings and/or diffuser are simple changes, and the smaller tires would provide enough of a drag reduction over standard FA cars that it might be competitive at faster tracks with a Zetec prepared to FA specs.

It wouldn't be close to competitive with the current engine rules.

As I said, I've just received a few casual inquiries, so I'm not invested in the idea, just throwing it out there. Might be a way to add a few FA entries.

Nathan

[VehDyn]

Submit a proposal for the Zetec. What is there to lose?

[Dave Gomberg]

The revised FA engine table announcement is posted at http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=9595&PN=1

Dave

[bill gillespie]

Dave,

Do the Note 1,2,& 3 weight penalties in the basic engine table also apply to the new Table E weights ?

Thanks,
Bill

[Engine Guy]

Will some version of this be applicable to CSR, i.e. what weights?

[Dave Gomberg]

Dave,

Do the Note 1,2,& 3 weight penalties in the basic engine table also apply to the new Table E weights ?

Thanks,
Bill

Yes.

Dave

[Dave Gomberg]

Will some version of this be applicable to CSR, i.e. what weights?

Yes. A note was posted on the Sports Racer forum, but the CSR table announcement is here: http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=9596&PN=1

Dave

[Rennie Clayton]

The revised FA engine table announcement is posted at http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=9595&PN=1

Dave

Dave,

What are the HP, torque and RPM targets at each displacement and restrictor level?


Thanks,
Rennie

[Dave Gomberg]

Dave,

What are the HP, torque and RPM targets at each displacement and restrictor level?


Thanks,
Rennie

The target was to approximate overall performance of the Toyota 4AG which is the "standard" for both FA and CSR. The combination of SIR and weight assignments are aimed at achieving that performance level with the larger engines in a variety of chassis. (A simple assignment of a single SIR/weight combination would have precluded running the larger engines in older, smaller chassis; thus, a trade of less horsepower for less weight in the smaller chassis compared to more horsepower and more weight in the larger chassis). The CRB will continue to adjust these parameters as necessary.

Dave

[Rennie Clayton]

The target was to approximate overall performance of the Toyota 4AG which is the "standard" for both FA and CSR. The combination of SIR and weight assignments are aimed at achieving that performance level with the larger engines in a variety of chassis. (A simple assignment of a single SIR/weight combination would have precluded running the larger engines in older, smaller chassis; thus, a trade of less horsepower for less weight in the smaller chassis compared to more horsepower and more weight in the larger chassis). The CRB will continue to adjust these parameters as necessary.

Dave

Dave,

Thanks, I get the aim, but that doesn't actually answer my question. To wit, what were the HP, torque and RPM targets at each displacement and restrictor level?


Cheers,
Rennie

[Dave Gomberg]

Dave,

Thanks, I get the aim, but that doesn't actually answer my question. To wit, what were the HP, torque and RPM targets at each displacement and restrictor level?

Cheers,
Rennie

That is not how the table was developed. The center column restrictors and weights were chosen to give performance as close to that of a 4AG as possible based on the information available to the committee. Then adjustments of SIR/weight was built off that for the heavier and lighter chassis. In all cases, the trade offs were weight for horsepower because a single horsepower assignment (for each band of engine displacement) would have resulted in the larger chassis being incapable of getting down to weight or the smaller chassis having to carry unsafe amounts of ballast (if they could find somewhere to put it).

Dave

[bill gillespie]

Dave,

Thanks, I get the aim, but that doesn't actually answer my question. To wit, what were the HP, torque and RPM targets at each displacement and restrictor level?


Cheers,
Rennie

" Bueller....Bueller?"

[bill gillespie]

Dave,
OK, what were the baseline hp/tq/rpm for the center column (4age) engines ?

Bill

[Rennie Clayton]

That is not how the table was developed. The center column restrictors and weights were chosen to give performance as close to that of a 4AG as possible based on the information available to the committee. Then adjustments of SIR/weight was built off that for the heavier and lighter chassis. In all cases, the trade offs were weight for horsepower because a single horsepower assignment (for each band of engine displacement) would have resulted in the larger chassis being incapable of getting down to weight or the smaller chassis having to carry unsafe amounts of ballast (if they could find somewhere to put it).

Dave

Dave,

If your methodology was to approximate the performance of a 4-AGE, then you should have readily available HP, torque and RPM numbers at each restrictor level from which to have made your decisions. If you don't have them, how did you go about approximating the performance of a Toyota?


Thanks,
Rennie

[Paul LeCain]

If one of the goals was to get people with older, sometimes lighter, chassis back in the FA/CSR game, I applaud that goal.

For better or worse, though, I don't see the owners of those chassis coming out to play - I see these (FA/CSR) classes being populated by those who can afford to run 'modern' chassis (if you can call my 16-year-old RT-41 'modern').

At first glance, as I told Dave Gomberg, this table looks like it will keep the 4AG as the prime option. Maybe there are some diamonds lurking in that table that will compete with the 4AG. Only a lot of work ($$) will discover any such gems. I don't see the older chassis' owners spending those dollars.

[supersonicus]

These engine tables are nothing short of a major rule change without BOD approval or member input. A competition adjustment, you must be kidding. I can't believe that our representatives in positions of power and influence would try to pull a trick on the FA and CSR competitors like this. This type of action threatens the viability and respect of our classes and the SCCA. Without question the due process of the SCCA has been violated.

Shame on those involved with trying to pull this on us.

[DB4 Tim]

It is SCCA...what do you expect.

[Rennie Clayton]

Dave,

Will you be supplying HP, torque and RPM values that were used for Toyota 4-AGE equivalency at each displacement and restrictor level in the new chart?


Thanks,
Rennie

[Daryl DeArman]

Exactly why I don't like classes with "competition adjustments"...the rules allow them, they don't require a transparent process, and the decision makers might just happen to have a vested interest.

[bill gillespie]

Exactly why I don't like classes with "competition adjustments"...the rules allow them, they don't require a transparent process, and the decision makers might just happen to have a vested interest.

Uh, what he said.....+1

[supersonicus]

Exactly why I don't like classes with "competition adjustments"...the rules allow them, they don't require a transparent process, and the decision makers might just happen to have a vested interest.

Yes the rules allow competition adjustments, but not sweeping rule changes like this. Anybody who says that changing one line item to 8 deep sweeping line items is a competition adjustment (albeit unjustifiable) is lying to you. Unrestricted to heavily restricted plus a 150+lbs weight adjustment, what an insult. This type of collusion between Keith Grant and Dave Gomberg to favor Keith's package is illegal and spineless. You know we can't be treated as school children like this.

Call your area BOD member.

In the meantime eat, drink and be merry!!

[RussMcB]

What is Keith Grant's package? I assumed he had a "regular" FA.

[Daryl DeArman]

Yes the rules allow competition adjustments, but not sweeping rule changes like this. Anybody who says that changing one line item to 8 deep sweeping line items is a competition adjustment (albeit unjustifiable) is lying to you. Unrestricted to heavily restricted plus a 150+lbs weight adjustment, what an insult.

While it may have not been a competition adjustment of customary magnitude, where do the rules stipulate how minor a competition adjustment must be?

A competition adjustment IS a rule change...it's just one that is permitted without going through the regular process.

Yes, I'd be insulted. But, I'd also be pissed for allowing myself to be so vulnerable.

Perhaps a RULE CHANGE is needed where limitations are put on the magnitude and frequency of competition adjustments. For example, perhaps: 1 per year per line item and no more than +/- 5% (area of SIR, IIR, weight, compression ratio, cc's)...pick your weapon and race. Miss the bullseye and know you aren't going to get much help in one season. Hit the bullseye and know you are likely to be slowly reeled in.

[Dave Gomberg]

Dave,

Will you be supplying HP, torque and RPM values that were used for Toyota 4-AGE equivalency at each displacement and restrictor level in the new chart?


Thanks,
Rennie

No. And I haven't stopped beating my wife.

Dave

[Dave Gomberg]

Yes the rules allow competition adjustments, but not sweeping rule changes like this. Anybody who says that changing one line item to 8 deep sweeping line items is a competition adjustment (albeit unjustifiable) is lying to you. Unrestricted to heavily restricted plus a 150+lbs weight adjustment, what an insult. This type of collusion between Keith Grant and Dave Gomberg to favor Keith's package is illegal and spineless. You know we can't be treated as school children like this.

Call your area BOD member.

In the meantime eat, drink and be merry!!

If you have any evidence of the accusation you have made, please make it available to the Board of Directors who I'm quite certain will ask me to resign. Absent such evidence, please be more careful of what you say in a public forum such as this.

Dave