New engines for 2012

[F1000champ]

I'm starting this thread for the purpose of feedback from participants in this year's Formula 1000 Championship Series. This thread does not pertain to club racing.

As you know, there are a couple new engines that are potentially coming into the series that have claimed stock HP significantly higher than that of what is currently running in the class. The last thing anyone wants is for these new engines to run away from the competition rendering current equipment obsolete. However, at the same time we don't want to discourage development of new engines and make them uncompetitive either.

IIR's have been discussed, but our firm position is that we will not go that route.

We have examined the possibility of placing a weight assessment on such new equipment. However, to this date, none of the engines in question have run a race distance in a car and therefore are questionable as to their effectiveness or reliability.

I would like feedback from participants as to whether we should leave the weight for cars with these new engines the same as everyone else until such time they are proven to be significantly faster or should there be an increased base weight from the get go and adjusted over time.

I'm interested in hearing what everyone thinks.

[F1000champ]

just bumping this up to the top

[Brett Lane]

Jon,

As I said on the other thread, it is too early to tell how this engine will actually perform on the track, for a race, a weekend, or even a season.

I say don't even suggest anything until a few of these cars are actually on the track giving you real data to work with.

Brett

[allof6]

Instead of all the Bull**** of SIRs,IIRs or weight penalties save your self the headaches and just limit the eligible engines for the next 3 years. Head this whole BS off at the pass.

You will save yourself a lot of time and your competitors a lot of money.

Thats the only reasonable thing to do outside of making it a one engine class.

So either limit the eligibility to 2010 and earlier and risk loosing one or make it 2011 and earlier and live with it.

My two cents.

[bill gillespie]

Jon,

First of all, I commend you on the superb job you've done on organizing and promoting this series.

Equalizing engine performance is such a slippery slope, I have no idea how to do it fairly. Equalizing lap times is dependent on many factors : crew, engineer, tire chassis, driver ability, horsepower, etc.

If I am unable to run anywhere near Brandon, do you really need to penalize me if I get a new Kawi ? On the other hand, do you need to restrict Brandon if he gets a new Kawi ?........Isn't this kind of like trying to handicap golfers ?

If you are thinking of equalizing engines ,why not handicap drivers, engineers, chassis, prep shops, etc. I NEED a 2 litre unresticted motor to be competitive with the best guys....see what I mean ? I'm only being slightly facetious.

Maybe leave the rules as they are written......if the best driver gets the best chassis, engine, team combiation, he will be fast but still may not win. Racing being racing.

I guess you can tell I'm not a big fan of what Table E engine rules did to FA.

Outsiderrant over,
Bill

[F1000champ]

So, what I'm hearing is that it would be better to take a wait and see attitude. See what the first race brings and if there is such a thing as a new engine and it without a doubt outperforms the rest of the field, we should take a look at an equalization assessment at that time as we have adequate data. Am I correct?

[bill gillespie]

So, what I'm hearing is that it would be better to take a wait and see attitude. See what the first race brings and if there is such a thing as a new engine and it without a doubt outperforms the rest of the field, we should take a look at an equalization assessment at that time as we have adequate data. Am I correct?

Jon,
I'm an FA expat, and not currently a driver in your series, but I think wait-and-see is a prudent approach.

Once again, I'll use Brandon as one example out of a fine group of drivers. Apparently he has optimized all elements of his ride, and is enjoying well deserved success......why not add 50 lbs to him ? Seems like his chassis tuning may exceed the benefits of a Kawi engine for others, like me .

Best regards,...........adding weight to Brandon was facetious !
Bill

[F1000champ]

Bill,

I certainly can't penalize anyone for doing their job correctly (chassis tuning, etc.) but when it comes to a clear measurable difference (HP) I can see the potential of some sort of equalization process, should it deem necessary. Can't penalize someone for being a better driver or for tuning their car correctly. That's just racing. The cream will always rise to the top.

[F1000champ]

Instead of all the Bull**** of SIRs,IIRs or weight penalties save your self the headaches and just limit the eligible engines for the next 3 years. Head this whole BS off at the pass.

You will save yourself a lot of time and your competitors a lot of money.

Thats the only reasonable thing to do outside of making it a one engine class.

So either limit the eligibility to 2010 and earlier and risk loosing one or make it 2011 and earlier and live with it.

My two cents.

Allof6, the cats already out of the bag. There are already those who are working on the Kawasaki and BMW engines, who have put a lot of time and money into making them work. It's not fair now to outlaw them. We'll just have to wait and see how their hard work comes out. We need to look towards new engine option for the future. Maybe they will evolve towards these engines, maybe not. Only time will tell. It's our job to try to keep things somewhat equal in the process. We'll make that assessment once we have adequate data to support any such assessment.

[R. Pare]

I certainly can't penalize anyone for doing their job correctly (chassis tuning, etc.)

Glad to see you finally admit that fact, since that is exactly what you are doing if you use a weight penalty - you cannot separate adequately separate the chassis performance from the performance gained by the excess hp - way too many variables to adequately identify and quantify.

Let's say someone comes up with a chassis that is clearly faster than anything else out there, even with the same HP - it has less mechanical drag, less aero drag, more downforce, can pull higher cornering G's, and the driver is clearly better than anyone else, but before you get to see it run, they also stick in an engine with more HP than anyone else.

Now, explain to me just how you separate out the chassis/driver parts of the increased performance from the HP parts - remember, the car would be clearly faster in all regards even with the same engines as everyone else. Remember also that the team and driver are smart enough to know exactly how to sandbag whatever you are trying to measure, in a manner that you can never detect or prove.

Guess what? You can't.

Frankly, anyone who puts in one of these new motors and doesn't sandbag their performance when you are looking, isn't doing their job correctly!

but when it comes to a clear measurable difference (HP) I can see the potential of some sort of equalization process, should it deem necessary.

Yes, and that is where dynos and restrictors come in. Talk with any engineer that knows what he is doing and he'll tell you the exactly same thing.

In the meantime, I'd side with those who say leave things as they are for now.

[F1000champ]

Let's say someone comes up with a chassis that is clearly faster than anything else out there, even with the same HP - it has less mechanical drag, less aero drag, more downforce, can pull higher cornering G's, and the driver is clearly better than anyone else, but before you get to see it run, they also stick in an engine with more HP than anyone else.

All very hypothetical. To date, no one has come up with a chassis that is clearly faster than everyone else. Some may be better at tuning their chassis to be so, but there hasn't been one and nothing on the horizon. If someone can come up with a design at does this, more power to them as its within the rules. We're talking about the current potential of engines with a measurable increase in HP.

Again, you can argue your point all you want, but we will not go with restrictors....period. I'd like to see the day when all these cars have 200 hp, but until that time we'll examine the performance of these cars and place performance assessments in other ways...if needed to keep somewhat of an equalization, and only once we have adequate and complete data.

[R. Pare]

All very hypothetical. To date, no one has come up with a chassis that is clearly faster than everyone else. Some may be better at tuning their chassis to be so, but there hasn't been one and nothing on the horizon. If someone can come up with a design at does this, more power to them as its within the rules. We're talking about the current potential of engines with a measurable increase in HP.

Again, you can argue your point all you want, but we will not go with restrictors....period. I'd like to see the day when all these cars have 200 hp, but until that time we'll examine the performance of these cars and place performance assessments in other ways...if needed to keep somewhat of an equalization, and only once we have adequate and complete data.

Very revealing to have you totally avoid answering the question.

[F1000champ]

Then state your question clearly

Currently there is no chassis that is clearly faster than others with the same motor. Not by a significant amount anyway. It someone comes up with such a chassis and the chassis is within the rules, more power to them and it will probably become the chassis to be had.

Separate situation. If someone uses a new engine with significanly increased stock HP in a chassis used by other participants and the car is significantly faster, you have to take the position that its the engine that is making the difference.

If that is the case to have to look at reducing the overall performance of that car to equalize the field. Adding weight changes the performance of that chassis and thereby levels its overall performance. Its a trade off and everyone's choice whether to take the weight assessment with the new engine or stay with what is currently being run a stay with the 1000 lbs weight.

[R. Pare]

Then state your question clearly

"Now, explain to me just how you separate out the chassis/driver parts of the increased performance from the HP parts

Can't get much clearer than that.

If that is the case to have to look at reducing the overall performance of that car to equalize the field.

I certainly can't penalize anyone for doing their job correctly (chassis tuning, etc.) ................ Can't penalize someone for being a better driver or for tuning their car correctly. That's just racing. The cream will always rise to the top.

Those 2 statements are diametrically opposed to each other. Adding weight IS penalizing someone chassis-wise.

Try again.

[Northwind]

Now, explain to me just how you separate out the chassis/driver parts of the increased performance from the HP parts


Hmmmm,

One logical choice= Restrictors

Weight will start changing the way the car handles in comparision to the other cars on the track. Cornering events with this car mixed in a group of cars running in a pack now become unstable and disruptive.

[RobLav]

Richard - you're asking a difficult question that you know can't be answered! But I agree with you to leave it all alone.

And there is no way whatsoever I'll be faster even with this new Kawi. I do this solely for fun. But I also don't want to be cut off at the knees for exploring the boundaries. IIR's would immediately stop my incentive.

[R. Pare]

Richard - you're asking a difficult question that you know can't be answered!

Exactly!

And when it can't be answered, then it indicates that the person is leaning in the wrong direction - a direction that cannot be adequately justified engineering-wise.

And since I am not involved in the championship, I can safely play Devils' Advocate - gotta have something to do to relieve the boredom when the machines are all running!

Rob - call me at the shop when you get a chance.

[allof6]

There are many flaws in the situation which over time you may or may not get sorted, however it is your playground. Good Luck!

[carnut169]

Want to equalize the field? How about something like this: Winner gets 10lbs, 2nd gets 7lbs, 3rd gets 5lbs for the next 3 races. Win 2 in a row and you get 20lbs for the next two, 10 for the 3rd (assuming no more podiums). Adjust as necessary.


You'd be penalizing the best teams (regardless of chassis or equipment), but you'd have more interesting racing and sand-bagging would be pointless.

[F1000champ]

FYI,

There will be no assessments at the first event of the Championship. But, let there be notice that we do reserve the right to assess a weight penalty on a new higher horsepower engine, should we deem necessary.

[JakeL]

Jon -

My initial thoughts as a new entrant to FB:

1.) Don't penalize the new engines, especially not before one has ever turned a wheel. Competitors should still get some benefit for the time/effort/cost to convert and develop a new package.

2.) If you do enact a penalty, then do it on the engine, not the weight. Adding weight to combat hp seems kinda strange to me. As in the other thread, Jay Novak has done a lot of very applicable testing on the 600's. restrictors do their job and are extremely cheap/simple to deal with. They will more effectively equalize a performance difference than just weight will.

3.) If you do penalize the engine, then don't penalize it to complete parity - the new engine should enjoy an advantage of some sort, maintaining the motivation for forward progress. (See #1)

4.) I *think* I support the future notion (both in pro and club FB) of instituting a rolling X-year cap (2? 3?) on new engines. That allows for continuing to advance technology (so we don't end up like FC and FF), but does lower cost somewhat when the time comes to make the change.

My considerations.

-Jake

[Thomas Copeland]

Probably a bit to early to start thinking about any sort of restriction. The engine operates wonderfully on the dyno but it's a long way from the dyno to the race track as our experience in developing the 09 Suzuki engine showed us.

After seeing the parties that are involved with bringing this engine to the race track it's a pretty good bet that we will all hear about how well the Kawi performs in track testing way before it ever shows up at a race event. That's when we will probably get a better understanding of what, if any, advantage it might have over the Suzuki/other engines.

If it does show itself to have an advantage over other engines, depending on how great or small it is, then i think we could probably find the appropriate action to take then.

But I would like to think that all options for levelling the playing field should be open. Why restrict ourselves to a course of action this soon?

My gut tells me there's no rush. While one engine may show up this year this engine won't be ready for sale (as a fully sorted engine) until 2013 at the earliest.

If you wanted to Jon, you could just write a supplement to your rules that all new engines operate on a developmental basis and those cars can't score points until they are fully developed for racing. You can set the rules on what "fully developed" means. Set up some perimeters.

That allows for development of new engines without the headache of having to deal with some engine that shows up outta the blue with a super advantage in some knee-jerk reactionary manner. Like immediately throwing weight at it. The payoff for any engine developer is going to be in selling engines not in scoring points anyway. This way you can control the situation without having it get quickly out of hand.

It's probably the best way around this problem in the short-term. Unlike most racing classes we run neither spec motors or set competition rules that limit the design of engines. Only way to set a control without either in place is to restrict how new engines are allowed in.

[F1000champ]

All very good points. As I stated eariler, we'll wait and see what happens before and if we do any kind of equalization. I'm just dead set against restricting HP.

[JohnPaul]

Jon, restricting a car based on anything (engine or chassis) is completely wrong and fundamentally goes against the entire concept and spirit of the FB class. You will completely stop forward progress and FB will become a quasi-spec class by default. Even though I completely agree with not restricting HP a Weight penalty is not a good idea, plain and simple, in any case because it is a penalty to the chassis and not the engine (which is your focus). It's a catch 22 and you need to make a decision right now on how to stablize the class before you lose any interested teams on the fence.

Even though the current FB rules are pretty cool (at least from the outside, not spending the $$$) because it's a free for all and we'll see some pretty impressive cars and powerplants being put together (ala DSR level) I think equalizing the field for competitive fun racing with a 3 year restriction on engines is the best thing to do. You get the best of both worlds, progress and a level playing field (and keeping costs somewhat in check). I'd start in 2013, restrict new engines until 2015-16. I'd use this next year and the next to develop new engines and then lock it in.

This is without a doubt the best class in open wheel but without entries it isn't as fun as other big number classes. You need to get the rules in check to bring in the big numbers. I can't wait to see 30+ car fields.

[John LaRue]

It seems to me that with the HP figures being quoted the FB cars will possibly eclipse the FA cars in straight line speed. In mixed group racing this may not be a good thing. In the pro series my concern would be whether someone wants to be traveling that fast in a tube frame car. At some point the issue of safety needs to be part of the discussion.

[Brian.Novak]

There is a new engine out, great. If you want to put it in the car and run it in the pro series with an untested durability record, fine by me. If I have to play catchup due to that fact, so be it. Same as me playing catchup if somoene comes out with some new aero tweak on the car. This is racing, I fully expect it. I'd rather that then heavy handed control by the sanctioning body and rulesmakers.

I'm waiting till they live a few races and win a few races by a large margin before I get concerned. Weight penalties are fine if adjustments are needed, plenty of series with different chassis/engines do this as a solution.

[F1000champ]

There is a new engine out, great. If you want to put it in the car and run it in the pro series with an untested durability record, fine by me. If I have to play catchup due to that fact, so be it. Same as me playing catchup if somoene comes out with some new aero tweak on the car. This is racing, I fully expect it. I'd rather that then heavy handed control by the sanctioning body and rulesmakers.

I'm waiting till they live a few races and win a few races by a large margin before I get concerned. Weight penalties are fine if adjustments are needed, plenty of series with different chassis/engines do this as a solution.

and from one who will actually be racing in the Series. Well said.

[John Mosteller]

F1000champ

Currently there is no chassis that is clearly faster than others with the same motor. Not by a significant amount anyway. It someone comes up with such a chassis and the chassis is within the rules, more power to them and it will probably become the chassis to be had.

Separate situation. If someone uses a new engine with significanly increased stock HP in a chassis used by other participants and the car is significantly faster, you have to take the position that its the engine that is making the difference.

If that is the case to have to look at reducing the overall performance of that car to equalize the field. Adding weight changes the performance of that chassis and thereby levels its overall performance. Its a trade off and everyone's choice whether to take the weight assessment with the new engine or stay with what is currently being run a stay with the 1000 lbs weight.

If the BMW & Kawasaki powerplants end up being reliable with 15 to 20 horsepower more where do you expect those competitors to put the 125+ pounds of extra weight it would require to equalize the lap times? Hopefully if you go that route you will have rules as to where and how the ballast will be attached to insure it stays attached and not in someones face that is following.

If you use weight to equalize lap times you will be creating the exact conditions that have SCCA national competitors complaining with mixed race groups.You will have the new engine-heavy car group that is slow in the corners and drive a defensive line to keep the old engine- lighter cars behind but drive away on the straits. Or if the new engined car is right behind one of the older engined cars entering the strait they will drive right on by.

When the F1000 class was submitted to SCCA it was known that there would be horsepower creep so it was included in the rules to handle it with restrictor plates.That allows horsepower to be equalized without creating a car performance missmatch.

It sounds like you will have a very frustrating series that won't be much fun for the drivers.

[F1000champ]

John,

First of all, we have to wait and see if these new engines are going to be reliable. You state 125 lbs, but you can't just take a true power/weight ratio in your determination of a weight assessment in lap times. Extra weight means that these cars will handle differently and therefore the amount you suggest is not correct.

The club can do whatever it wants. We just WILL NOT go the restrictor route...period.

Sure, the heavier car may have to brake earlier, may not go through the turns as fast, and therefore not have as great an exit speed as the lighter car. And, will have to power more weight down the straight. But, and only if these new engines actually become over dominant, would the assessment be considered.

Let's have the guys spending the time and money to develop these engines have the opportunity to reap the benefits. If you restrict HP, there is no sense in developing a new engine and the Suzuki 07/08 isn't going to be around forever.

If and when we assess any type of weight to a new engine/car, it will be in a graduated method as to not render the new engine/car uncompetitive.

[Alex Pate]

So can you say it one more time, just for clarification. No restrictors