Engine rules

[supersonicus]

I JUST took delivery of a 2010 Spec line E engine, that I and Jay Ivey built based on the f'ing rule book. I thought I had a reliable, cost-effective, and still competitive engine. It wasn't cheap. It has less HP than a Toyota and a little more torque, I wasn't going to be setting any records with it.

If I read all this correctly, now I'll have an overweight car with too low compression and a restrictor.

Is this a done deal? If so, I'm done with the SCCA. I have other places to race. What a crock of sh*t.

tim

Hi Tim,

There are a lot of people caught out with this mid season nightmare.

Regards,
Matt

[timos]

Thanks, Matt. My blood pressure has dropped a bit since I wrote my screed, and it's good to hear from other folks that this won't go down easy.

tim

[P.W. LeCain]

Hi Tim,

There are a lot of people caught out with this mid season nightmare.

Regards,
Matt

Mid-season? What does this thread have to do with hockey?

[Rennie Clayton]

Mid-season? What does this thread have to do with hockey?

4/1/11 strikes me as mid-season


Cheers,
Rennie

[Stan Clayton]

Mid-season? What does this thread have to do with hockey?

What is this "hockey" you speak of?

[P.W. LeCain]

What is this "hockey" you speak of?

Come on Stan. Whip out your old Dennis Maruk jersey. Its ok. Vintage is cool again.

And Rennie, we're still skating on ponds on 4/1. We tilt the front wings down and use them as snow plows for the April NHIS event. Mid season in New England is August.

[RSiler]

I have been following this thread with a lot of interest. Several years ago, I looked after a fellow who raced an RT-40. Most of my experience has been with various year model Van Dieman FC cars, and I found that from the standpoint of workload, there was not a whole lot of difference between the two cars, though of course the RT-40 was somewhat more labor intensive. That being said, the engine on that car was pulled every 1,000 miles or so for a freshening up and the conversation at the time centered around how to get more life out of the engine.

Seems to me that a larger displacement, low compression engine would be the ticket, but in looking at the engine table, it is not clear to me what engines, if any, would be the obvious choice for development into a new, lower cost power alternative for FA. FA is a wonderful class with some distinct advantages over the other small-bore formula classes, so it would be nice to see a more economical power plant come on the market. Any ideas or thoughts on this subject?

Thanks!

[campbell53]

Please let me qualify this post by stating that I am not in any way favoring bringing in a motor with huge development costs that will kill off 90% of the class (me included) that cannot or will not pay for it. I think the 4AGE is spendy enough (but at least I know what I have got) as it is. If there is something out there that is reasonable and bulletproof (I came from the rotary motor in the FM...the ultimate low cost motor short of a motorcycle) then I am in favor. But all of this covert and, no doubt, extremely expensive devlopment of the Mazda 2.5 (or whatever) is of no interest to me. Car count is imperative to the survival of the class. If there are 3 or 4 "haves" you can bet the "have not's" will stay home or leave the class.

Amen. I'm not that technically oriented but I instictively believe there should be an alternative to an extinct highly needy motor in our class. I love racing in FA but in this day and age we should have better motor choices. How will this end ultimately? Can someone make a reasonable prediction?

[nulrich]

There are some modern engines that look pretty attractive. I'm not sure how well they would perform restricted, but they are impressive in stock form:

Honda K20A, up to 240 hp at 8400 rpm, 11.7 compression
Honda F20C, up to 250 hp at 8300 rpm, 11.7 compression
Nissan SR16VE, up to 200 hp at 7800 rpm

Not sure why anyone would risk developing one of these, but who says racing has to make sense?

I don't think any of these would be "low cost."

Nathan

[JByers]

[FONT=Verdana]For one I am surprised that this debate did not show up a year ago after the inclusion of the 016 and new motor table. It was only a matter of time before someone developed a dominant package from the rules that were processed. This current debate would have a totally different view if Mirl deployed a plan to send Wilcox out in a 315HP FA. For those who have spent the time and finances to develop a motor and chassis to the current rules, I understand your pain. Mirl is spot-on to what would happen to the class if the majority of the fields’ development costs were transitioned to finding another 60-70hp. Using myself as an example I would most likely move out of the class because the development or replacement costs would be overwhelming after the market value of my current equipment was greatly depreciated.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]David and Keith do not deserve cheap-shots and I applaud them for doing what is necessary to retain health within the class. This proposed revision gives those of us with older chassis or limited budgets a continued opportunity to compete at a national level. It also leaves opportunity to help equalize the performance characteristics of the different packages that are currently available through due process. For those who run the 016 club/spec package, use the F/Fit or FC Zetec experience as to what to expect in the future. Adjustments have been given to those alternate engines but only after time to fully develope the package and data of track comparisons were submitted to the board & commetties. This involved alot of time and effort to prove that a package was not competitive or dominant within the class. I too feel this process could be expidited if the club would employ a non-bias firm that could simulate the performance outcome of the soup-dejour.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]Jason[/FONT]

[Stan Clayton]

Seems to me that a larger displacement, low compression engine would be the ticket, but in looking at the engine table, it is not clear to me what engines, if any, would be the obvious choice for development into a new, lower cost power alternative for FA. FA is a wonderful class with some distinct advantages over the other small-bore formula classes, so it would be nice to see a more economical power plant come on the market. Any ideas or thoughts on this subject?

That was precisely intent of the larger engines in FA and CSR; offer choices that combine competitive power with longer rebuild intervals to lower the engine-related costs of racing in those two classes.

Amen. I'm not that technically oriented but I instictively believe there should be an alternative to an extinct highly needy motor in our class. I love racing in FA but in this day and age we should have better motor choices. How will this end ultimately? Can someone make a reasonable prediction?

Agreed, which is why the engines were approved in the first place.

The "problem" with the changes imposed by the CRB is two-fold:

First, concern that submitting entire new engine tables and restricting previously unrestricted engines mid-season goes way beyond a mere "competition adjustment". Specifically, forcing previously unrestricted engines to add the expense and technical challenge of an SIR is to many here a fundamental rule change that should go through the formal rule change process, not be rolled out in the dead of night just before a major holiday.

Moreover, AFAIK the CRB has never imposed an SIR mid-season, nor to the best of my knowledge changed an SIR size mid-season. While an SIR size change might arguably be considered an adjustment, the fact remains that all the changes I'm aware of have occurred at the start of a competition season...not nearly half way through it.

The cases of GT3 and GTL are instructive. SIRs in GT3/L were initially required at the beginning of the season, not mid-season. And when the sizes were changed, as they have been in both classes, the changes were imposed at the beginning of the season, not mid-season. If these changes were considered drastic enough to be imposed at the beginning of the season for those classes, why is this consideration not extended to FA and CSR?

Second, the SIR sizes imposed guarantee that the larger engines will be rendered completely uncompetive due to low power levels; 10 to 20 hp down from a front running 4age. That means the whole idea is now dead on arrival because who will bother to invest in a long lived engine when it is rendered uncompetitive by fiat?

As to how it will end...that's simple. The CRB has spoken, and their decision with stand unless they're overruled by the BoD. Those of you who object must either live with the decision or you must engage your area director directly. That's the bottom line.

[Daryl DeArman]

Specifically, forcing previously unrestricted engines to add the expense and technical challenge of an SIR is to many here a fundamental rule change that should go through the formal rule change process, not be rolled out in the dead of night just before a major holiday.

Ethically, I agree 100%. However, two questions for you: (Q1) What specifically in the GCR prevents them from doing so?

Ever since the Jeremy Hill debacle illuminated the potential issues with comp. adjustments I've had a severe distaste for them.

(Q2)Do you think that it would be wise, considering unintended consequences, to pursue limiting the size, scope and timing of competition adjustments either up/down ?

[Stan Clayton]

Ethically, I agree 100%. However, two questions for you: (Q1) What specifically in the GCR prevents them from doing so?

It's important to keep in mind that the GCR governs competition events in SCCA, not the governance of the club. The CRB works for the BoD, and as such answers to them. For several years now the BoD's policy has been that competition adjustments (weight, inlet restrictors and tires) and rule changes (basically everything else) should occur once a year at the beginning of the season, unless there is an "emergency".

Those opposed to the FA/CSR SIRs question the presence of an "emergency" that would justify such a radical change of their status mid-season. After all, the big-engine GT3 and GTL cars ran as clear overdogs for several years at their old SIR sizes before changes were implemented, so what is the rush in FA and CSR where no such overdog has been demonstrated? Even if it has, folks have already committed lots of money to new engine programs under the understanding that the rules would remain in place for the balance of the competition year. If a deliberate pace was good enough for the GT classes what is the rush for FA and CSR?

(Q2)Do you think that it would be wise, considering unintended consequences, to pursue limiting the size, scope and timing of competition adjustments either up/down ?

Concerns about these very factors are why mid-season changes were curtailed in recent years.

[timos]

Thanks Stan for summarizing far better than I could.

I sent a letter to the BoD as you hinted, also my specific area director, and my region officials for completeness.

I was courteous and asked them to drop this, or at the very least talk to the engine builders (not just one) to ensure the SIR sizes are properly vetted.

No F bombs this time.

[P.W. LeCain]

Those opposed to the FA/CSR SIRs question the presence of an "emergency" that would justify such a radical change of their status mid-season. After all, the big-engine GT3 and GTL cars ran as clear overdogs for several years at their old SIR sizes before changes were implemented, so what is the rush in FA and CSR where no such overdog has been demonstrated? Even if it has, folks have already committed lots of money to new engine programs under the understanding that the rules would remain in place for the balance of the competition year. .

Do you really need a demonstration to see what a 315 horsepower overdog will look like? I don't.

[Stan Clayton]

Do you really need a demonstration to see what a 315 horsepower overdog will look like? I don't.

Paul, none of the Line E engines make anywhere near that horsepower. That is a number claimed by Mirl for an engine he was thinking of having built. Stan

[P.W. LeCain]

Paul, none of the Line E engines make anywhere near that horsepower. That is a number claimed by Mirl for a new 1600cc engine he was thinking of having built. Stan

Not according to his post. But you may have a different relationship with him and know something I don't. I read his post as saying that the larger engines "opened Pandora's box" and he was developing a larger motor with 315 HP. I just read it again.

-Paul (jr)

[timos]

OK, I really don't want to get specific, but lets get a number out there to put this in perspective.

My new 2 liter <9:1 engine (which by 2010 rules requires no SIR, but now they intend to choke down) is 20 HP down from a top-line Toyota.

I just wanna race something that doesn't need attention all the time, and has parts availability. So that's what I built, to rules I thought were stable.

If I had built it bigger or with more compression, I'd need the SIR and there might be an argument.

tim

[bill gillespie]

Hey Tim,
If your new engine is 2.0, it would be allowed 10/1 CR with no SIR ( 2010 rules )
Pick up some lost ponies that way.

Regards,
Bill

A quick look says IF your engine was 230 hp @ 9/1, it should be around 237 @ 10/1.

[Stan Clayton]

I too was considering a different motor for our FA cars. I had done research, computer simulation, etc. on an engine that, to my knowledge, nobody else had considered. The numbers we ran showed the motor would produce about 315hp. I was going to put that motor in our 014's. I did this in the effort to not be one upped by a few others that had been pursuing their own programs. While I considered that it would be a pretty cool development, and probably be a very fun-fast car to drive. It would arguably be not just a fast car... It would've been a dominant car. I also realized no matter how cool and fun this project may have been for us.. I also, felt that it would hurt the class. I don't believe that there would've been 30-40 FA drivers joining this concept, there would more than likely be 3-4. The project would've hurt the class.

I, too, reread Mirl's post, Paul, and nowhere does he give a displacement.

More to the point, none of the engine builders we spoke with thought these engines would make substantially more than today's best Toyota, and this has been borne out with the high-compression SIR engines in GT3 (same displacement rules as FA and CSR), as well as in FA and CSR. If the 9:1 2.5L overshot the mark a bit, then using the rule change process is, in my opinion, the correct way to deal with it. Not a mid-season wholesale engine change.

And lest anyone wonder, no, I don't have one of these in the works. I still have my carb'd Toyota. I'm not buttering my own toast here.

[timos]

Bill: Oops, my bad memory. It's 2.3L, 8.9:1.

But still under runoffs-level Toyotas by 20 HP, as I said. It wouldn't run right with a 31mm SIR so we dropped the compression instead.

It's just a NA simple engine. Maybe you could get a little more with injection.

Thanks for making me recheck!

tim


[FONT=ArialMT][FONT=ArialMT]"Under 2000cc, 33
[/FONT]

[FONT=ArialMT]mm SIR required [/FONT][FONT=ArialMT]except under 10:1 CR,[/FONT][FONT=ArialMT]unrestricted; [/FONT]

[FONT=ArialMT]under [/FONT][FONT=ArialMT]2500cc, 31mm SIR [/FONT][FONT=ArialMT]required except under [/FONT][FONT=ArialMT]9:1 CR, unrestricted."[/FONT]

[/FONT]

[P.W. LeCain]

You left out some major pieces to your cut and paste. Particularly the part where he states "larger motor"...My point was that you stated he was developing a 1600.

A side note... The larger motor that we were considering to develop, would not have had the longer service life some have mentioned.
Mirl

You can say that "none of the engine builders we spoke with thought these engines would make substantially more than today's best Toyota." But the top FA team owner and one of the better FA drivers said they would.

-paul (jr)

[timos]

One last thing I'll add, then I'll get out of the way. I've said too much already.

I heard from a director (out of my area) a few moments ago that polite (please!) notes to the CRB could still be effective, the subject is still a matter of some debate within the CRB.

Please, if you feel this mid-season rule change is not the right way to handle what may or may not be a real competition issue, send a nice note to the CRB via the SCCA website process.

This is in addition to contacting the BoD area directors that Stan recommended, which got me instant results.

If you think this is an awesome rule change, just sit back and wait.

tim

[Stan Clayton]

You left out some major pieces to your cut and paste. Particularly the part where he states "larger motor"...My point was that you stated he was developing a 1600.

Yes, and I corrected myself within few minutes. You were just too quick to click the quote button.

You can say that "none of the engine builders we spoke with thought these engines would make substantially more than today's best Toyota." But the top FA team owner and one of the better FA drivers said they would. -paul (jr)

With all due respect to Mirl's accomplishments, his thoughts about these engines' power potential has not borne out in practice. And since he decided not to actually build the engine, I guess we'll never know.

In any case, the objection to the mid-season change is to its timing and severity. None of Mirl's speculations change that.

[Charles Warner]

The Slope steepens . . . . .

[Todd Butler]

One last thing I'll add, then I'll get out of the way. I've said too much already.

I heard from a director (out of my area) a few moments ago that polite (please!) notes to the CRB could still be effective, the subject is still a matter of some debate within the CRB.

Please, if you feel this mid-season rule change is not the right way to handle what may or may not be a real competition issue, send a nice note to the CRB via the SCCA website process.

This is in addition to contacting the BoD area directors that Stan recommended, which got me instant results.

If you think this is an awesome rule change, just sit back and wait.

tim

Folks....what Tim said. Forums are nice for dicsussion and gauging the pulse of the community but they are not official.

Pro or Con, drop a note to CRB at http://www.crbscca.com/
ditto for BOD@scca.com
Cool, calm, and professional gets the most attention. Screaming, insults, questioning our parentage (or CRB) and profanity typically gets less attention

This issue is under debate right now and it's a long way till April. I've got to believe there is time to influence the direction this goes.

Regards,

Todd Butler
NorPac Area 13 Director

[JByers]

Does anyone remember what lap time Tonis turned in Mucha's car during runoffs practice before he cut the tire down?

[DB4 Tim]

In so many ways....and gaining a bit of speed on the way down....of course that is only because we are talking more HP

The Slope steepens . . . . .

[RSiler]

At the risk of showing just how ignorant I truly I am, here's a question for this group: Has anyone thought of talking with HPD or Mazda about an engine package for Formula Atlantic that is along the lines of what HPD did for Formula F? Nathan posted in this thread a bit earlier, citing two Honda engines that are probably about the right size (dimensionally and displacement) and in stock form, put out about 240-ish HP. Seems to me a process similar to what HPD did with the Fit engine would make a lot of sense and in time, would be a boon to Formula Atlantic (just as it will be for Formula F).

Not to stir the pot, just asking...

[Charles Warner]

Seems to me a process similar to what HPD did with the Fit engine would make a lot of sense and in time, would be a boon to Formula Atlantic

RIP Formula Atlantic.

[Paul LeCain]

What are you who are writing to the SCCA's BOD asking for?

a. To overturn this CRB decision and revert to the engine table that existed in 2010?

b. To throw out the whole 'Line E' part of the table and make the engine choices what they were before the introduction of 'larger' engines?

c. To keep this 'Line E' table as it was recently changed, but put off the implementation date until 2012?

d. Something else?

If 'a.', then I predict that what Mirl feared will happen. Some will build killer engines according to that rule set. Those engines will make obsolete all the 4AGs and BDDs (and probably rotary Mazdas). I was pursuing this option myself, and fully expected to have engines that would be far better than my 4AGs.

If 'b.', then we'll see the argument that the current batch of 1600cc engines is too expensive or too unreliable or both. I disagree with that claim, but that's just my opinion. The 'b.' option is my choice.

If 'c.', then we'll have one year of big engines, after which they'll be not very useful. I don't see how that helps anyone, or the FA class, in the long run.

If 'd.', then someone please explain what that is. Something I've missed, obviously.

[Charles Warner]

If 'b.', then we'll see the argument that the current batch of 1600cc engines is too expensive or too unreliable or both. I disagree with that claim, but that's just my opinion. The 'b.' option is my choice.

Bingo. Those factors are part of what defines the class. There are other options if one wants a dumbed down class that requires little skill to drive. Sequential boxes have removed the need for the ability to shift properly. New "reliable" engines remove the need for any ability to manage your engine. Proper shifting (I.e. not missing shifts) and caring for one's engines is part of the equation. More's the pity.

[Rennie Clayton]

Bingo. Those factors are part of what defines the class. There are other options if one wants a dumbed down class that requires little skill to drive. Sequential boxes have removed the need for the ability to shift properly. New "reliable" engines remove the need for any ability to manage your engine. Proper shifting (I.e. not missing shifts) and caring for one's engines is part of the equation. More's the pity.

Charlie,

We usually see eye to eye on things, but I'm calling shenanigans on this. You have outlined a very specific roster of features which you find appealing and desirable for yourself, but they have nothing to do with what "defines" the class. It's a formula, remember?

Sequential boxes aren't the devil, and engine reliability doesn't remove any need to manage the engine properly. A new engine spec does little to change any of this, other than to provide more and more options - it just means that the class is evolving to reflect the present rather than being mired in the past. Keeping things the way they were just for the sake of dogma is called vintage racing.

Personally, I think the big engines are a good thing for the class. Perhaps they need to be restricted to the point where it doesn't create a new de-facto category-within-category, but isn't that precisely what happenend with carbon tubs and the class isn't exactly on its death bed as a result? Anyway, some restriction would probably be fruitful, especially with regard to engine longevity, but the proposed levels simply sound the death knell for the big motors - they'll be about as competitive as the F3 spec line, which is ridiculous as well as punitive in a very targeted way.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Charles Warner]

Charlie,

We usually see eye to eye on things, but I'm calling shenanigans on this. You have outlined a very specific roster of features which you find appealing and desirable for yourself, but they have nothing to do with what "defines" the class. It's a formula, remember?

Rennie,

I'll see your shenanigans and raise you a curmudgeon crossed with a Luddite.

Just because it is a "formula" doesn't mean the formula has to change. Not all change is progress. (Look at what "progress" finally did to the pro atlantic series.) IOW, if it ain't broke (one's personal definition I understand) don't fix it. Each class does not have to be all things for all racers.

BTW, when the class was defined originally it did involve highly stressed and temperamental engines and straight cut non synchro boxes that required certain skill sets to use properly. The ability to properly operate these items was very much a part of those racers who could successfully compete in the class.

This slope started way back when the first request to allow the pro-spec atlantics into the Club arena was entertained.

Unfortunately the horse is way over the hill by now and ain't coming back.

[P.W. LeCain]

Personally, I think the big engines are a good thing for the class. Perhaps they need to be restricted to the point where it doesn't create a new de-facto category-within-category, but isn't that precisely what happenend with carbon tubs and the class isn't exactly on its death bed as a result?
Cheers,
Rennie

Rennie,
You can't be serious. Carbon tubs, sequential boxes, 15" wheels, and big valve fuel injected motors combined didn't have the impact that a 30% increase in horsepower will have. Large motors are terrible for FA and have been since the first proposal to allow the 016 in 2008. Who does it benefit? The few people that own an 016 and a handful of others who put bigger motors in their chassis. It does nothing for the majority of the community who own an RT-4, DB-4, Reynard, Raven, RT40, RT41, 008, or 014. What do larger engines do for them? How can alienating nearly the whole FA community be good? Especially with no Pro Series for crossover or development. We're going to change the 40 year history of Formula Atlantic for the few years that the 016 was a spec car.

Accepting change is a positive attribute. Change for the sake of change is silly.

The engine table should stay as the CRB suggested. Development should happen from there. That way, the few large motor owners can develop their cars to be competitive. What shouldn't happen is making 95% of the class obsolete first and then fixing it.

-paul (jr)

[Rennie Clayton]

Just because it is a "formula" doesn't mean the formula has to change. Not all change is progress. (Look at what "progress" finally did to the pro atlantic series.) IOW, if it ain't broke (one's personal definition I understand) don't fix it. Each class does not have to be all things for all racers.

Missing the part where a larger spec, lower-stressed relatively high mileage motor is converting FA into all things, all people....

BTW, when the class was defined originally it did involve highly stressed and temperamental engines and straight cut non synchro boxes that required certain skill sets to use properly. The ability to properly operate these items was very much a part of those racers who could successfully compete in the class.

You're confusing the original formula with the original implementation of the formula. Not the same beastie...

This slope started way back when the first request to allow the pro-spec atlantics into the Club arena was entertained.

How so?


Cheers,
Rennie

[Rennie Clayton]

You can't be serious. Carbon tubs, sequential boxes, 15" wheels, and big valve fuel injected motors combined didn't have the impact that a 30% increase in horsepower will have.

Paul,

Seriously, go back and re-read my post. Carefully. I'll respond when there is sanity-in-kind.


Cheers,
Rennie

[timos]

I really don't want to jump back in, but

"It does nothing for the majority of the community who own an RT-4, DB-4, Reynard, Raven, RT40, RT41, 008, or 014."

First of all, thank you for mentioning the Raven in the same breath as the others.

My "big motor" is going into an RT4. Same block config (well, at the gearbox end, anyway) as a BDD, which I can't afford to buy/run today.

I plan on getting a BDD, when funds permit, for vintage racing where it isn't balls to the walls all day long.

BTW, in case some view me as a philistine, I was totally against the Formula F debacle. There's nothing wrong with a FFord engine, the heads/blocks and such are now super available, affordable, and reliable.

This is not the case with Toyotas or BDDs, though the BDDs have some hope on the horizon.

I picked an engine with Ford Cosworth lineage to be as close to BDD as possible. I'm really trying to keep in the spirit here.


<signing off>

tim

[P.W. LeCain]

Paul,

Seriously, go back and re-read my post. Carefully. I'll respond when there is sanity-in-kind.


Cheers,
Rennie

Now you want sanity? That's tough for me...

I re-read your post and you did say some restriction may be good and that the new restrictions were too harsh and even punitive in a targeted way.

I think initially we need to make sure the "newer" engines don't outperform the majority of what we have. It should be up to those owners to develop and work with the CRB to create some level of parity. It shouldn't be up to those who have supported the class for years and played by the rules to make wholesale changes to satisfy the minority. If the new restrictions are too harsh then so be it. At least then most of us won't be running around and spending tens or hundreds of thousands to compete with those few.

If it were up to me, I would target them right out of the class. But that's my opinion and it is what it is.

-paul (jr)

[Rennie Clayton]

I think initially we need to make sure the "newer" engines don't outperform the majority of what we have. It should be up to those owners to develop and work with the CRB to create some level of parity. It shouldn't be up to those who have supported the class for years and played by the rules to make wholesale changes to satisfy the minority. If the new restrictions are too harsh then so be it. At least then most of us won't be running around and spending tens or hundreds of thousands to compete with those few.

Nobody is asking anybody to make wholesale changes to keep up with the status quo. What I have argued for from the beginning is to bring these motors in at a competitive level - and yes that means by definition that they will outperform the majority of what we have, because let's face it, not everybody has a Runoffs podium caliber lump in their machine. The status quo is the front of the field, not what most folks have. Yes Charles, I know what you think of this notion...

Personally, I would rather the class be just a smidge more accessible on the engine front, so that I have more competitive blokes to bomb around with rather than them being stuck on the sidelines because they already ticked over 800 miles on their good motor and won't be competitive until next year's rebuild. Or for that matter, ME being stuck on the sidelines because I'm bumping against my engine rebuild budget for the year. That's just dumb, and provides zero value to the class.

If it were up to me, I would target them right out of the class. But that's my opinion and it is what it is.

That's precisely what the currently proposed rules do - but my question is why would you want to do that? What value does it provide to the class?


Cheers,
Rennie