40 LBS

[Stan Clayton]

Stan:

Why would that matter? The series rules are the series rules, regardless of the sanctioning body and what it's rules might be for a similar class, aren't they?

I only asked the question because that series made a very big deal of waiting to publish the official Seattle race results pending SCCA enforcement action against the on-track winner, JR Osbourne. When SCCA DQ'd JR from the race for a fuel violation, the series took away his points, as well.

That implies to me that the series has been insisting on compliance to SCCA rules. Hence my question to Thomas...if the BoD enacts the new rule, will the series go along with it, leave, or by implication, award points irrespective of whether SCCA DQ's a driver?

Gets messy in a hurry, eh?

[glenn cooper]

Okay, I wrote my letter stating that I am against the weight penalty. This is on behalf of the entire F1000 class, as I am one of the few who would actually benefit from the proposal.

I will explain...

Currently I am significantly above the 1000 pound limit - and yes, I have a Geartronics. So, for me, the 40 pound penalty means nothing as I am already well beyond the minimum.

So, if I were really selfish (instead of just marginally selfish) I would not have voiced any opinion and let it run its course, and if they instituted the penalty it would merely bring the field closer to me in terms of weight.

However, because in my view "moving the goalposts" in this class is horse manure, I wrote my letter indicating as much. So I am just another person who voiced to the CRB to 'leave FB alone'.

Anyone who agrees can buy me a cold Grape Nehi when they see me.

Cheers,

John

Pretty amazing, our letters had much the same content and implication...

[Mike Devins]

I would just like to mention that the rule as proposed would impose the 40# addition to anyone who has a wire in the system. It is not limited to air shifters, if you have a strain gauge in order to sense when the auto blipper actuates then you would get 40#'s added as well. This is the way the Flat Shifter works

Now you can have an air shifter so long as it is not actuated by a solenoid, if your shift lever was attached to a shuttle valve that would not result in a 40+.

A wire is worth 40+ no matter where it is in the system.

[Mike Devins]

how did the Quote funtion turn cold beer into a cold Grape Nehi

[glenn cooper]

I made a beverage change (sue me).

The Grape Nehi now comes without HFCS, and as I'm doing everything I can to get a few pounds off, the beer was definitely out of the question.

[Thomas Copeland]

Does this mean that if the BoD approves the rule you'll be running your races at non-SCCA events? Just asking...as I couldn't find anything about the 2012 schedule on your website. Thanks.

We are looking at that possibility, yes. We do have SCCA Pro Race sanctioning for next year so we can organize our own events. I am in conversation with several tracks and with at least two other series about running at venues where we would split costs. I've also talked to an SCCA region about running as a separate "pro" race group during a national weekend. I'm exploring all possibilities right now. What I'm trying to achieve here for 2012 is that for the same cost or for alittle more than the cost of an SCCA weekend we can run as our own run group at our own race event and get nearly twice the track time while doing it. No more alphabet soup racing.

I've examined the possibility of running as a support race with IndyCars and GrandAm (talked to several tracks about this) and also the possibility of running as top bill at our race event rather than as some 5th billed race at an major event where our track time would be greatly limited. I think if we have most of our events as our own with maybe 1-2 events runned as a support race with Indy/GrandAm that could be a good balance.

We are also looking at some very interesting venues for our events next year. Things that are out of the ordinary and break the mold a bit and provide a bit of buzz factor, but at the same time also providing the traditonal road course venues everyone wants to compete at.

I have mentioned all this at the series driver's meetings over the course of the last 2-3 weekends. I will be sending out a survey to the series registered competitors in the next week or so and get their feedback on the direction they want the series to go in and whether these venues are acceptable. But from a driving standpoint, I find them exciting.

In the interest of keeping costs down we may end up with a mix of what we did this year along with our own events. Maybe half-half, 60-40, whatever. Don't know yet. Way too early to get a schedule up. Most tracks don't even have the major events plugged in yet. But I really hope not. The series needs to move in its own direction, but to do that it needs the support of the drivers that are going to compete in it. What we do in 2012 is primarily going to be up to them.

If we do have a situation like that where we split between national and our own events then the events we run as our own we will run without the weight penalty (I'm really hoping that is going to be true at all our events next year).

To really grow this class any further I believe that growth has to come from outside the SCCA. Primarily from go-karters. I believe to get them interested and involved we need a real pro series that is similar or less in cost that what they would spend racing in a shifter kart season. But having said that, I also don't want to overreach for too much too soon. I'm not sure of at what kind of pro series level that we can really support right now. We need more cars. I prefer to take a cautious approach.

But a lot of this will probably get shaken out within the next 2 months or so.

[R. Pare]

I only asked the question because that series made a very big deal of waiting to publish the official Seattle race results pending SCCA enforcement action against the on-track winner, JR Osbourne. When SCCA DQ'd JR from the race for a fuel violation, the series took away his points, as well.

That implies to me that the series has been insisting on compliance to SCCA rules. Hence my question to Thomas...if the BoD enacts the new rule, will the series go along with it, leave, or by implication, award points irrespective of whether SCCA DQ's a driver?

Gets messy in a hurry, eh?

My apologies - I was actually thinking of the other pro series when I typed that question ( waaaaaay to little sleep lately!), but I guess it would just as equally apply to Copeland's series, depending on just how he has structured it and his agreement with the Club.

Basically, his series could also ignore a weight penalty if it wanted to, IF his structure is that the series runs it's own rules (and the Club agrees to it, of course). I would expect, however, that if his rules varied from the Clubs, the races would no longer qualify participants for National points.

[Northwind]

John,

This is the same scenario for me. The original post on this thread was to get some idea of how the additional weight effects our cars. I am much heavier then just forty lbs over and am currently putting the car on a diet and hope to get it to the 40 lb heavy weight class.

[Stan Clayton]

I would expect, however, that if his rules varied from the Clubs, the races would no longer qualify participants for National points.

Yes, and my concern is that having both pro series stepping out of SCCA's National structure might endanger FB's status as a National Class. FB is not like FC or FA, where there were hundreds of cars to support Club racing and the pro series posed no threat to their status with the Club.

Thomas, thank you for the comprehensive answer. I wish your series all the best, but I also hope you'll stay in National racing until the class is on more solid footing.

[Northwind]

Thomas,

The one very positive thing your series did this year was support the national participation for Formula 1000. The boys running on the west coast did a great job this year in helping secure the future of FB. Thank you to all that participated! Strategic thinking tells me that if you were to follow with a majority of events formated like this year the FB classes future would be brighter.

[R. Pare]

Yes, and my concern is that having both pro series stepping out of SCCA's National structure might endanger FB's status as a National Class. FB is not like FC or FA, where there were hundreds of cars to support Club racing and the pro series posed no threat to their status with the Club.

I agree, with the caveat that at the moment it seems to be only the Club that wants changes to the rules - rules that the Pro series are happy with as-is - so it would behoove the Club to quit rocking the boat, or they will probably find the Club participation in this great class go down the tubes.

If, on the other hand, the Pro section of this class gains even a medium sized portion of the success of the old FC pro series (before it shot itself in the foot by separating itself from the Club), there will be some of the same sort of trickle-down effect of used cars into the Club, thereby strengthening the Club side of things as time goes on.

Here's to keeping our fingers crossed for good luck.

[Jnovak]

IMHO for FB to continue to grow we need both National & Pro events. Therefore it is important that the rules be the same for both venues or National Racing will suffer.

While I have not (in the past) been a fan of assisted shifting I now think it should be allowed and have sent my letter in to the club.

We will, of course, continue the development of our very simple system in conjunction with using Dan Robinson's DR Blipper system.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[glenn cooper]

Resistance is futile, you WILL be assimilated...

- Da Borg

[Stan Clayton]

I agree, with the caveat that at the moment it seems to be only the Club that wants changes to the rules - rules that the Pro series are happy with as-is - so it would behoove the Club to quit rocking the boat, or they will probably find the Club participation in this great class go down the tubes.

If, on the other hand, the Pro section of this class gains even a medium sized portion of the success of the old FC pro series (before it shot itself in the foot by separating itself from the Club), there will be some of the same sort of trickle-down effect of used cars into the Club, thereby strengthening the Club side of things as time goes on.

Here's to keeping our fingers crossed for good luck.

Yep, I agree 100% (Hey everybody, quit looking so shocked! ).

If we get enough feedback, hopefully the CRB will see its way to recommending the Advisory Committee's recommendation that FB permit open shifting with no restrictions and no weight penalty.

[Thomas Copeland]

Stan, I would very much like to see continity between Pro Series rules and national rules because that actually might make it easier for us to do nationals as part of our series. But there seems to be a real split developing between the two. It would be nice if the competitors didn't have to change anything to go from one to the other.

I have talked to some drivers in other classes that would would like to make the change into F1000 but find the way the CRB are handling this class to be a huge reason why they are relucant to get involved. They want to solid rules that ensure a level playing field exists and for all the bickering to end.

Here are the areas where I see we need to be on the same page:

Engines: There needs to be rules that clearly define what a stock motor is and an inspection procedure needs to be developed that provides confidence that all the motors in the class are compliant. You don't have to be George Dean to inspect these motors for compliance if you have a proper inspection procedure in place. But we also probably need to bar the more exotic motors from the class. We need a list on what motors can be accepted for entry into the class. Keep costs down and stop them from escalating.

ECU's: There is no reason why we can't use aftermarket ECU's in this class that I can see. In fact, we are going to need them to keep a healthly supply of engines flowing into this class. The wiring harnesses on these engines are getting too difficult to defeat. George tells me there really is no difference between aftermarket, racing, or open ECU's. So let's find a few of the cheaper ones and let them in. We can limit the ones we want to allow. No big deal. But lets do it soon so we can start getting some of the newer models of engines developed for this series.

Shifters: Leave it alone. If it ain't broke don't try and fix it. Simple. That goes for all this weight penalty nonsense too.

It's as easy as 1-2-3. Engines, ECU's and Shifters. The two pro series are going to do whatever it takes to make sure there is an even playing field without causing unneccessary grief and harrassing the competitors. The CRB would do well to follow that example.

[Stan Clayton]

Well said, Thomas.

Please put this into a letter to the CRB using the link I posted up above. I know some folks here are convinced the CRB is off their collective rocker, but they are not and their recent revision to the rule is proof they read and consider your input.

[jaltaman]

Coop, you are a funny guy! Grape Nehi - LOL!!

Northwind, I am also going to be putting my car on a diet in order to get closer to the minimum. Like you, I'd be happy to be just 40 lbs over.

[Wren]

I know some folks here are convinced the CRB is off their collective rocker, but they are not and their recent revision to the rule is proof they read and consider your input.

The CRB is immune to the members wishes. They advanced the mechanical shifter only thing against the FSRAC reccomendation and the member vote. If the CRB had their way it would be mechcanical shifters only in 2012. The proposal was only withdrawn when the BOD told them it would not pass. There was nothing about the member input that suggested they wanted a weight penalty assigned and the CRB came up with an entirely ridiculous number because their don't listen to the members.

[F1000champ]

I'll chime in here a bit. First of all, we are very interested in increasing national numbers as well and therefore have kept our rules in line with club as close as possible. You can see by our rules that they are very similar with just a bit more clarification. There are a few additions to our rules due to the nature of our operation, however they don't precluded a car from running in either class.

As far as the proposed 40 lb rule for assisted shifting, I'm against it, period. There is no need to mess with this formula in this way. However, should club decide to go this route, it isn't that difficult to remove ballast to run in both club and pro. Actually, the hardest part is adding the ballast initially to conform to such a club rule.

I hope that club will vote against the 40 lb rule.

[drdestructo]

Though I will continue to run with a stick and two boulders, I told the CRB to leave you all alone as you needed your shifter systems without additional weight.

I think that if everything that comes along in this class goes this way, we will be looking at $100K cars in a few years, one rule "clarification" at a time.

Bring on the carbon tubs..............

Russ

[carnut169]

It may be possible that the CRB is focusing on the wrong thing.. I believe the shifter is an advantage and thus for some competitors, required. That's unfortunate, but the Genie is already out of the bottle and it seems most FB owners don't want the change. Got to put the customers 1st, and therefore, leave it alone. If there are FB owners who feel otherwise they are definately not vocal about it.

Engines however- well, the Genie is still in the bottle there, but not for long. You already need a late model motor massaged by a builder to run at the front. That massage can be a quickie or not... I'm sure lots of dough can be spent on a "stock" motor. Now we are hearing talk about the BMW motor- 190hp and not available everywhere like the Suzuki. So if you want to win you may need that motor, or you may need to spend thousands to make your stock motor perform at max. I'm thinking an SIR should be considered. You'll still be able to get an advantage but it might be 1-2hp, not 10-20hp.

I know, leave it the f-alone... my arguement against that: it's the original philosophy of the class that made it successful (fast, fun, inexpensive) and if it evolves into something else (which is where its heading) that may effect the numbers. I know of several people that have left the class because of the cost creep. Just as I said above, it should be the decision of the majority of the active FB competitors. Maybe you get a vote for each event you've run- folks on the sidelines (like me) don't get a vote.

[starkejt]

we will be looking at $100K cars in a few years

More than one of those out there already.

[ASRF1000]

I find it a little odd that I see so many posts about all these "several people" who have left the class for one reason or another. It sounds like this class was huge at one time, yet I don't see that anywhere.

I think we need to concentrate on keeping the rules consistent and stop looking at changing things on a whim. The Formula 1000 Championship Series reverted back to the stock engine rule from its original Open engine to be more aligned with club racing. The rules, if kept consistent and properly enforced, can provide a stable platform for this class.

Of course there can be new engines coming along, that's just evolution, but as long as they fall within the parameters of the rules, they are legal. You can't stop progress. Our sport isn't cheap. But keeping them "Stock" can help to control some of the costs.

That doesn't mean to say that there can't be alterations in the future as things evolve to keep everyone on an even playing field. But, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's see people develop new engines first. If we find them to be way over in HP, then at that time we can determine any measures to even them out, but not by random numbers pulled out of a hat that have no basis on true performance advantages.

[Wren]

You already need a late model motor massaged by a builder to run at the front. That massage can be a quickie or not... I'm sure lots of dough can be spent on a "stock" motor. Now we are hearing talk about the BMW motor- 190hp and not available everywhere like the Suzuki. So if you want to win you may need that motor, or you may need to spend thousands to make your stock motor perform at max. I'm thinking an SIR should be considered. You'll still be able to get an advantage but it might be 1-2hp, not 10-20hp.

Sean, you really don't need a motor massaged by an engine builder to run up front. The podium at the runoffs was a 1.wrecked bike motor 2.bone stock, untouched motor out of a bike that was damaged in shipping to the dealer 3.George Dean motor (George doesn't do any of the illegal things that other builders do to make horsepower). Brandon has continued to run this year on a bone stock motor and George's motors that have only been rebuilt, not massaged.

No one is spending a bunch of money on a stock motor and having a legal motor when they are done. Someone might be able to make 1-2 hp by massaging the motor with a builder, but no one is making 10-20 hp and has a stock motor when they are done. This is an enforcement problem, not a rules problem.

The SIR thing would be a train wreck as the CRB would do different SIR's for different motors. Can you imagine what that would be like? Look at FA or any of the other classes with an engine table and how much bitching they do. There is way too much room in that for agendas to come into play.

There were certainly things that could have been done in the rules to make FB cheaper, but even I have to admit that the goals of "fast, fun, and inexpensive" were probably met. The class is very close to FA fast and cheaper to run at the front than FC.

[Daryl DeArman]

To all those that are pleading/screaming "leave FB alone";

How are you going to approach things when FB has evolved into something you don't like and the rules need a little tweaking?

Already mumblings about engines. That sure didn't take long. The factories aren't going to push pause on their development programs because of FB. Again I suggest a moratorium on engines is likely the only workable solution... 2011 model year and older engines only through 2014. In 2015 open it up to 2015 and older engines and keep it there until 2018, etc. NO SIR's.

[RussMcB]

Wren, a purely hypothetical question:

What if a new BMW or Kawasaki or whatever is put into an FB and the driver/chassis/engine/engineering combo is a step up from what Brandon can do with his chassis and current Suzuki. Will you (your team):
a) Upgrade your engine so you can continue to compete for first place at the Runoffs?
b) Be satisfied with an engine that is not as good as others are running?
c) Decide to leave FB and race in another class?

Personally, I think all three options are not great.

Regarding people leaving the class: I'm one, but most probably think I should not have been in it in the first place. :-).

I was attracted to it because it was awesome performance obtainable for much less than front running FC cars. I left mainly for budget reasons (I did not have enough $ to put forth a reliable effort), but it is sad to see the gap widen between low budget racers and people with lots of money. I'd rather see rules to keep low budget efforts closer to the rich guys.

But, I'm not in the class and wont be again, so my opinion isn't really important now (rightfully so).

[carnut169]

I did not leave b/c of costs (sort of) but definately decided to go the FC Zetec route when it was time to buy another car because I believe I can run a competitive FC program for less than what an FB will cost to run.

Rob L is another (also went FC Zetec), Russ M (went FF Honda)... We can probably come up with a couple more.

It's not huge numbers, but it is several people like stated.


My only dog in this hunt is wanting the class to be successful and if the majority of the FB owners/ drivers want less rules and more freedom it will definately be interesting to watch the progression. Not sure if it would be as interesting as watching a close race with a lot of cars...


Your call.

[carnut169]

Sean, you really don't need a motor massaged by an engine builder to run up front. The podium at the runoffs was a 1.wrecked bike motor 2.bone stock, untouched motor out of a bike that was damaged in shipping to the dealer 3.George Dean motor (George doesn't do any of the illegal things that other builders do to make horsepower). Brandon has continued to run this year on a bone stock motor and George's motors that have only been rebuilt, not massaged.

No one is spending a bunch of money on a stock motor and having a legal motor when they are done. Someone might be able to make 1-2 hp by massaging the motor with a builder, but no one is making 10-20 hp and has a stock motor when they are done. This is an enforcement problem, not a rules problem.

The SIR thing would be a train wreck as the CRB would do different SIR's for different motors. Can you imagine what that would be like? Look at FA or any of the other classes with an engine table and how much bitching they do. There is way too much room in that for agendas to come into play.

There were certainly things that could have been done in the rules to make FB cheaper, but even I have to admit that the goals of "fast, fun, and inexpensive" were probably met. The class is very close to FA fast and cheaper to run at the front than FC.

Fair enough. You and Brandon have done a fantastic job with your program. However you should say no one "yet". We're talking about the future and my comment was to prevent issues...

I agree FB is great!

I believe you can have a single SIR that maxes out the hp an engine can produce and should work for any/ all engines. Not saying that's the right solution only that some solution should be considered.

[RussMcB]

I believe you can have a single SIR

I think GDR indicated that SIR's are problematic, but IIR's are more compatible with the stock ECU's.

[R. Pare]

How are you going to approach things when FB has evolved into something you don't like and the rules need a little tweaking?

As it is usually done - on a case by case basis. At the moment the case is shifters, not engines, and the process as regards shifters is progressing as per the proscribed process.

but it is sad to see the gap widen between low budget racers and people with lots of money.

Judging by how little Brandon has spent compared to some, the low-budget guys are doing quite fine, thank you. This class, like many classes, rewards using your brains instead of just your pocketbook.

[Daryl DeArman]

As it is usually done - on a case by case basis. At the moment the case is shifters, not engines, and the process as regards shifters is progressing as per the proscribed process.

Just pointing out the possible hypocrisy.

Certainly everyone has their right to their opinion as to what direction they would like to see FB evolve and how far that direction is desirable. However, if their letters to the decision makers are "leave it alone" and someday they are saying "please do something about x...." might just fall on deaf ears.

[DonArm]

[/quote]I believe you can have a single SIR that maxes out the hp an engine can produce and should work for any/ all engines. Not saying that's the right solution only that some solution should be considered.[/quote]

You can not without having the ability to "tune the ecu" realiably use SIR on a bike engine. They will not run. period. The electronics in these motorcycle engines are not like cars. Just because it is a 4 stroke combustion engine doesn't mean it's the same.

[ASRF1000]

Probably one of the easiest ways to handle the engine debate would be to have one spec engine. The unfortunate part of that equation is you can't buy a crate motor from Suzuki, Honda, etc. It looks as though you will be able to from kawazaki (the new engine), but no one's been able to have one running in a car yet.

Suzuki engines are getting harder to find on the salvage market.

If a company like Suzuki offered crate motors to F1000 competitors it would make life a lot easier. However, they don't.

I'm not saying that there should be a spec engine, as I think the class needs to evolve over time, and there are those out there looking to run Honda, BMW, Yamaha and Kawazaki as well.

If a new motor comes down the line that produces 10-15 more HP than all the others, in stock form...there may be a need for an additional weight assessment at that time. But such an assessment needs to start at a realistic number and be either increased or decreased by closely monitoring its performance.

This is one reason why we may very well have a surprize chassis dyno at a select event to check any new suspect engine against others in the Series.

There is no doubt that performance values need to be kept as equal as possible, within realistic parameters, and to keep costs down.

If everyone is dynoing between let's say 170-180 hp with current engines running and all of a sudden Brand X comes out with a stock motor that produces 190-200 hp, well it wouldn't be hard to figure out what engine you'd want to have.

It may be a case of additional weight for the Brand X motor initially. However, it has to be a realistic weight increase and be closely monitored and adjusted as needed. They do this successfully in World Challenge and they have a lot more different engines than we do.

It may be that over the course of a year or so, everyone starts switching to the Brand X motor. Once and IF the vast majority changes to that motor and the playing field is again leveled, the weight assessment gets abolished. It's just evolution.

The supply of K7 Suzuki's won't last forever, etc. We have to enable more manufacturers engines to participate. It just has to be closely monitored and evaluated.

This maybe difficult at the club level...I can't say for sure. But, it can certainly be handled at the pro level.

Right now, we are not at that point, however we can be down the line and we have to look at each situation on a case by case basis.

[carnut169]

Jon-

Since you already have a relationship with Suzuki, have you tried to get them to supply a crate motor? Seems like they are already supporting your series...

That (IMHO) would be a fantastic solution for eliminating the motor variance- the series supplies (sells) and seals all motors.

Oh, and mentioning the weight... watch out! Is it the engine, the chassis, the shifter? Just adding weight for engine advantage does not make sense when everyone is so against adding it for other "advanatges".

[ASRF1000]

I've had conversations with Suzuki, but there is currently no interest in offering crate motors and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.

As far as weight assessments go, there is no clear statistics as to what performance value an assisted shifter gives to a car. Is it .2 of a second per lap, .5 of a second? Who can actually state in fact the value it may provide, if any from a guy who's very good at shifting a manual shifter? Is it worth 40 lbs to a 1,000 lb car? I certainly don't think so.

On the other hand, HP can be easily measured and 175 vs 190 (15 HP) can be a strong advantage to a very light weight car. So, weight can be an effective equalizer in this situation. But then again, we have to wait and see what comes down the pike and not be too quick to just throw weight at it in a non-calculating manner.

[JohnPaul]

I know most people are against spec engines but what would be the downside of running the new zx10 as a spec? It'll be the most powerful engine out (probably for a while), GD (and probably anyone) can get them in a crate, GD is said it shouldn't be an issue getting it to run in a car and he's already working on the wiring. Plus you can spec an ECU (lowest cost) to make it run even better.

The only downside is that the 2012 gsxr is supposed to be up there with the zx10 and bmw and maybe an easier swap for most but it's probably going to be harder to get as a crate. I'd say either of the two would be an awesome spec engine.

Run the series for the first year with whatever you currently have then switch over to spec for 2013 when everything is established: the engine kinks, supply, the series etc.

Just a thought dont be too rough on me

[DonArm]

A spec motor will increase the cost of the class!
When you are only allowed to deal with one source, that source will control the price.
You will not be getting motors in the $2-3000 range anymore if this class moves to a spec motor.

[Wren]

How are you going to approach things when FB has evolved into something you don't like and the rules need a little tweaking?

By following the processes we have in place. I think you will see that the issue we all have is that the CRB is ignoring what the members want and following their own agenda. I know that my feelings would be different if there had been overwhelming member input for mechanical shifters only. It would be incredibly disappointing, but there is really no room for complaining when the process is followed and the BOD does what the members want.

If there comes a time when the rules need tweaking, then the members can write letters and try to get things changed the right way.

Fair enough. You and Brandon have done a fantastic job with your program. However you should say no one "yet". We're talking about the future and my comment was to prevent issues...

Regardless of time and money, no one is ever going to be able to pour a bunch of money into an FB engine and have a horsepower advantage over stock. Once you change something to make horsepower, the engine is not stock anymore. I guess the only possible exception would be if a FSM was ever published that had listed a bunch of mods allowable that would increase horsepower.

Thank you for the kind words, but all of the credit goes to Brandon. He is the brains behind the operation and does all of the work. My primary responsibility is to stand around and look pretty and occasionally Brandon tricks me into doing something productive.

I believe you can have a single SIR that maxes out the hp an engine can produce and should work for any/ all engines. Not saying that's the right solution only that some solution should be considered.

That is going to be hard with all of the different airboxes around and as pointed out, George thinks there is a problem with SIR's. Any restrictor program is going to end up as an engine table thing and be subject to all of the sandbagging, whining, and agendas that go with them. No one is better off with an engine table.

Just pointing out the possible hypocrisy.

Certainly everyone has their right to their opinion as to what direction they would like to see FB evolve and how far that direction is desirable. However, if their letters to the decision makers are "leave it alone" and someday they are saying "please do something about x...." might just fall on deaf ears.

There's not hypocrisy in wanting the BOD to do what the members want. My opinion is that they are generally pretty good at it too.

I know most people are against spec engines but what would be the downside of running the new zx10 as a spec?

No one has even proven that the ZX10 will work in a car yet so there is some real danger in establishing it as a spec engine without thousands of miles of proven reliability. There is also a big time and money expense in putting new engines in chassis.

I have also heard some pretty crazy numbers for how much one of those is going to cost in a crate.

[ASRF1000]

Quote by Wren "I have also heard some pretty crazy numbers for how much one of those is going to cost in a crate."

The cost of a crate ZX10 when to add in the harness, injectors airbox, etc is going to be close to $10K

[RussMcB]

My primary responsibility is to stand around and look pretty

You should make sure your resume is current. Just sayin'.