Back to the Future of Restrictors
Here we go again. Regardless of whether or not the proposal comes from present and past members of the F/SRAC, what bothers me the most is that the proposal is not from someone who owns, pays for, labors over, nor drives an FB. It smells like backdoor dealings. Anyway, I sent in my negative comments.
This is referring to the May Fastrack concerning restrictors.
Last edited by RobLav; 04.20.12 at 9:36 PM.
???
Brandon doesn't count?
#7130 (David Gomberg/Stan Clayton)
I don't see Brandon on there. If he is, please point it out.
Some people seem to need someone looking over their shoulders ready to blast them with a spray bottle full of water and tell them "NO!" in a firm voice every time they start to write a proposal.
Someone had to try somthing as a distraction from trying to define a forward facing bodywork gap or opening!
For the record, the letter that Stan Clayton and I wrote to the CRB did not request that current F1000 engines be restricted. We suggested that newer engines (e.g., the 195 hp ZX10R) be restricted to the level of the current best engines (GSXR1000) in the interests of not forcing current engines to be replaced.
The response by the FSRAC to restrict all engines to 175 hp is something they came up with on their own. They may have a reason for choosing this power level, but you will need to ask them what it is.
Dave
Brandon may be one of those in the opinions from within the class.After reviewing the information provided which included opinions from within the class and Mr. George Dean
It has been in the rules from the beginning to use restrictors if there was an escalation of horsepower by the manufacturers.
The power level has been about the same for several years and the class has grown.But now there are a couple of engines with 10 percent more power which if allowed unrestricted will be a total game changer.
How many of the current FB's will pony up the $25k plus it would take to convert to one of those with a dry sump and spare engine with dry sump,different headers different airbox etc. Or would a large portion of the current cars stay home or convert back to FC , FC Zetec or FF Honda.
I am sending in my input which is to follow the current rules to cap the horsepower escalation with restrictors.
Just to be clear these are the members of FSRAC; information on all boards and committees can be found on the SCCA web site and you have to log in
[FONT="]Bill Johnson[FONT="]F/SR Committee [/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Brandon Dixon
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Bruce Lindstrand
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Carl Wassersleben
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Chris Huskamp
[/FONT]
[FONT="]John Burton LaRue
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Keith Grant
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Sean Christopher Maisey
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Stephen Oseth
[/FONT]
[FONT="]David Arken
[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Chairman and Liaisons[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT]
[FONT="]David Arken[/FONT]
[FONT="]Chairman[/FONT]
[FONT="]Charles Fred Clark[/FONT]
[FONT="]Liaison[/FONT]
[FONT="]Mirl Swan[/FONT]
[FONT="]Liaison[/FONT]
The mindset of the collectivist cartel. I choose freedom and opt out.
Jon Lewis will never back this.
Jon Lewis doesn't define the F 1000 class. All the owners do. He has alot at stake for sure but he also has a lot less knowledge about these cars than many other people involved.
not saying he defines anything. My point is that his series won't follow. What is involved with install/removal of these restrictors? if it is simple enough it won't affect anyone but if not it'll suck to have a divided class between SCCA and F1000 series.Originally Posted by Northwind
My comments below expose the moral hazard and corruption within the unelected cartel called the F/SRAC:
From the May Fastrack:
1. Who was involved in the discussions?Based on discussions regarding this topic, the FSRAC has reviewed letter #7130 and agreed that the original intent of the FB Class was not an open ended engine output escalation race.
2. Where is letter #7130 and why is it not published?
3. Original intent - whose opinion of original intent?
The original intent of the class is not written in rules. The original intent exists only within the individual minds of those of us on the original rules committee. I was there. The original intent stated above was something that Sean Maisey probably subscribes to, but he is no longer an FB competitor. We never reached consensus concerning the use of restrictors. Dave Gomberg, our liaison, wanted to use restrictors to limit HP somewhere near 145-150 HP. I was adamantly against that.
Secondly, how is it that the one current FB member of the F/SRAC now wishes to use his influence on the F/SRAC to limit future HP by implementing the "intent" justification when that same member exploited the lack of written "intent" with Geartronics and the floorpan width to bodywork width rule. I specifically recall our F1000 rules committee phone discussions years ago when we created the bodywork width rule to allow the Speads, and that we specifically discussed and tried to prevent the potential exploitation of a full width floor with narrow sidepods. Additionally, my understanding of our original "intent" never would have allowed a shift system like Geartronics.
So how is it that now the F/SRAC wants to implement "intent" to protect the current state of affairs and prevent future competition? This is moral hazard and is, therefore, corrupt.
The SCCA BOD needs to disband the advisory committees, which are nothing more than unelected cartels, and create elected representatives for each National Class.
Rob, you have no idea what you are talking about. Brandon had nothing to do with it. Did you really not even think about trying to get some basic facts before calling someone corrupt on here? Was this somehow easier than picking up the phone?
WTF does that even mean? Freedom, really?The mindset of the collectivist cartel. I choose freedom and opt out.
Last edited by Wren; 04.21.12 at 2:17 PM.
Btw- they never publish the letters and 7130 is clearly labeled as the letter from Gomberg and Clayton. What exactly is the question?
Why not just have a list of approved engines .... or a list of unapproved engines?
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
I guess my question would be:
1 - Is this really a problem that needs solving at this point in time?
Comments:
1 - "Original Intent" as regards restrictors in the class was set in stone at the adoption of the class rules - what the "intent" was before that is totally irrelevant.
2 - 1. A Competitor wishing to run an engine in the class must submit an appropriate, and predetermined, data set to the CRB that adequately demonstrates that the engine does not exceed the 175 hp output limit for a prescribed set of tests (see note below).
And just what does this mean in practice? Does it mean that EVERY individual engine being used has to have this data developed? If so, you've just escalated the baseline engine costs a fair amount by elimination the use of untouched-and-just-installed-as-found junkyard motors - you now have to pay for cross-country shipping and the requisite dyno runs.
So far, this proposal doesn't give me any warm and fuzzy feelings.
Here is what the GCR has stated from DAY 1 of the FB rules.
[FONT=Univers-Bold][FONT=Univers-Bold]H.5. Inlet Restrictors[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]The air inlet system is unrestricted at this time. However, the CRB may[/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]require the use of an inlet restrictor at any time by publishing the requirements [/FONT][FONT=Univers]in FasTrack.[/FONT][/FONT]
No one is proposing anything with this concept that was not stated up front in the GCR. They are simply trying to define a workable process that makes sense. In my opinion the concept they are trying to achieve is decent and has potential. I think that the weakness is in the process, not the concept.
(quote from Fastrack)
1. A Competitor wishing to run an engine in the class must submit an appropriate, and predetermined, data set to the CRB that adequately demonstrates that the engine does not exceed the 175 hp output limit for a prescribed set of tests (see note below)
The reality is that, even if the rules stated that you could only use 2007 Suzuki GSXR1000 engines, engine development would not stop. Exhausts and a few other items would continue to be developed and HP might grow another 5 to 10 HP over the next few years. The real problem is the potential major escalation in costs required to develop and race a new engine such as the new Kawasaki or the BMW. These engines have another 10%+ HP over the prevalent GSXR engines. Is this a good or a bad thing for the class? That is the REAL QUESTION.
Hey, I am just like any other competitor, I want a 200HP Kawasaki, BMW or Desmodici engine in our car and that's what we will have to do for next year. I think that's what all of us will have to do if we want to run up front.
As I stated earlier in this post, the concept of controlling HP growth and attendant costs is a good idea (in my opinion). However the devil is in the details. The people resources required to manage the proposed process are way beyond what the SCCA can muster (another opinion). Additionally all testing would have to be completed by a single source and the costs associated with the proposal could be very significant.
I think a good goal for discussion on this forum is to try to define an engine control process that will provide for the best future for this potentially great class. It may be that controlling HP is good or perhaps it is best to continue as is for now. However we had better have this discussion sooner rather than later.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
Agreed. Controlling HP growth is a good idea.
Agreed. Suggested it years ago and the popular response was cross that bridge when we get there. When it was apparent that the bridge was getting the closer, the popular response was "has anyone even got motor XYZ to work in a car yet?"
Now it appears some protectionism is in play.
I'm of the same opinion I was years ago: no restrictors, no competition adjustments. Let the class evolve without the politics. Control costs and the HP war by having a 5-year moratorium on eligible engines that is updated every 5 years.
2013--2017 all engines must be 2013 model year or older.
2018-2022 all engines must be 2018 model year or older.
You can be competitive HP-wise for 5 years.
There will be a larger supply of available engines.
HP creep is slowed.
Nobody that has started a program for 2013 won't be allowed to proceed.
No politics.
In my opinion, it is in the long-term best interests of the FB competitors to somehow limit the performance of these cars so that they remain at least slightly slower than an FA. Restricting engine HP is obviously one way to limit the performance. If HP continues to increase, it is likely that FB lap times will eventually equal FA lap times. At that point class consolidation proposals become a very real possibily, and the BOD appears to be quite serious about reducing the number of National classes (just ask the CSR/DSR and FE/FM folks).
And if you think that FB racing is expensive now, wait until you are merged into the FA class.
I would like to add my voice to Jay Novak's observations and add my own observations.
1. Restricting horse power is most likely in the future but at the moment it only requires discussion. My fear is that restrictors will be very difficult to implement in a manner that does not result in mahem as we try to get the engines to run with restrictors. As a group we need to start doing some testing to see if it is even possible to use simple inlet restrictors. Don't leave it up to SCCA.
2. My goal is to make my cars the equal of FAs. FA is a class of vintage cars and any new additions to the supply are not likely. I think that if the FB pro series develops as it should, we will see the FBs equal the FA times. At several tracks, FBs are within 2 seconds of FA and with the development that will accompany the pro series, we will see that gap reduced or eliminated over time.
3. The real issue that all of the FB competitors should be concerned about is growing the class. We have a pro series ready to start in a matter of weeks and I am concerned that we don't have the car numbers to support the series as it should be. I have been surprised by the small number of tire kickers I have seen in the last 12 months ( almost none). My experience with young drivers in Indy Lights over 2 decades leads me to believe that FB is potentially the best training class anywhere. And its cost to performance ratio is without a doubt the very best.
4. I don't think that merging FA and FB is necessarily a bad thing. Over time FB will come to dominate because of the relative cost of development of the two classes. I don't see any new FA being built unless the powers that be allow F3 chassis with the FA engine packages. Also the most recent crop of FAs are not very good race cars, at least compared to the RT 41 in its day.
5. I would not be particularly concerned about the cost of FB escalating as long as we keep and enforce the current rules. FBs can still be built in somebody's garage for not a lot of cash outlay. The class is going to be a development class in the tradition of FF and FC. You only have to look at the FC pro race at VIR. The field was truly humiliated by a well prepared, vintage Van Diemen in the hands of a good driver. The new cars are not likely to close that gap any time soon.
Are people comfortable with tube frame cars going as fast, or faster, than Atlantics...cars that have strong safety guidelines? I'm just curious as to how everyone feels about it. I'll probably never end up in a f1000, so you could say my opinion on it isn't too relevant, but I'd like to see what other people think.
The new RFR has gone through the same crash testing that the FA cars. The results were very good. In short, the tube frame distorts more in the tests but recovers better than a carbon tub. That is only logical because steel is more elastic than carbon composites. Both structures require a good nose box to get through the tests successfully.
The issue is penetration protection. If the cockpit surround was made of a minimum of .080 Kevlar composite, the penetration would be just as good, maybe better.
The old bromide that carbon tubs equal safety is not borne out in testing or experience. I had a driver suffer severe injuries to his feet in an RT 40. It was a crash very similar to the F2000 at the Glen last fall.
I still haven't been able to get to a computer to really go through the stupid **** that Rob has posted here, but since he is so sure that he knows what happened in the meeting and who is using their influence for something then I am sure that he knows the answer to this question:
Was Brandon even on the fsrac phone call where this was discussed or did he have something come up with his family and have to miss this one and only find out about it afterwards?
Rob, maybe you would like to list all of the reasons that adding restrictors to the class would be a bad thing?
Is someone ever going to explain to me what the title of this thread means? "Back to the future of restrictors?" WTF?
The option of restrictors has always been a part of the class.
I'm not sure you know what collectivist or cartel actually means.
moral hazard? corruption? Do you have any idea who these people are and what you are saying about them?
1. The FSRAC I would guess.
From the May Fastrack:
1. Who was involved in the discussions?
2. Where is letter #7130 and why is it not published?
3. Original intent - whose opinion of original intent?
2. Because they have never published a letter.
3. I don't know why they are talking about intent either. The option for restrictors has always been there to control engine of the year or runaway performance. It has been common knowledge that the old CRB was looking to restrict hp when it eclipsed current levels.
I keep getting pissed more pissed off the more I read this. You are accusing someone who was not even on the phone call of something that he did not do. Then you decide to roll right in to insulting him. Brandon didn't join the FSRAC to try to influence the rules in his favor. My guess, and this is only my opinion, is that he joined to un**** the terrible set of rules you guys gave him. He is the single most knowledgeable person about FB anywhere and an excellent choice for the FSRAC.Secondly, how is it that the one current FB member of the F/SRAC now wishes to use his influence on the F/SRAC to limit future HP by implementing the "intent" justification when that same member exploited the lack of written "intent" with Geartronics and the floorpan width to bodywork width rule.
I know that you have Brandon's phone number. Why would you ever choose to go this route and make up some untrue and really insulting things instead of picking up the phone and getting the real story?
He used the full width of the allowable bodywork to fair in the rear wheels. Big deal. I still do not believe that when you allowed in pneumatic shifters that you somehow meant to not allow in all of them. Were you really incapable of using google for 5 minutes to see what was out there on the market?I specifically recall our F1000 rules committee phone discussions years ago when we created the bodywork width rule to allow the Speads, and that we specifically discussed and tried to prevent the potential exploitation of a full width floor with narrow sidepods. Additionally, my understanding of our original "intent" never would have allowed a shift system like Geartronics.
It is neither moral hazard nor corrupt. It is incredibly simple to put together a coherent argument for why FB should have restrictors. Based on how you have chosen to go about arguing against them, I am going to guess that it is a lot harder to come up with a coherent argument why FB does not need restrictors.So how is it that now the F/SRAC wants to implement "intent" to protect the current state of affairs and prevent future competition? This is moral hazard and is, therefore, corrupt.
You really don't know what a cartel is.The SCCA BOD needs to disband the advisory committees, which are nothing more than unelected cartels, and create elected representatives for each National Class.
My understanding is that someone would basically have to homologate an engine into the class by bringing in a set up that is proven to make an equivalent amount of hp.
I also have some doubts about whether or not the SCCA could manage such a program.
It really isn't. The new engines on the market are going to be to the benefit of the person with the best design, engineering and fabrication resources. That is either Hickman or Brandon, take your pick. The new engines at their rated hp levels would have been an excellent opportunity for Brandon to put even more distance between himself and the field, all while spending less money than anyone else to do it. Of course, the rest of us have known all along that the plan was to not let hp get out of control and the biggest benefit of the new engines would be increased longevity because of decreased rpm's.
I still don't know exactly what to think of implementing restrictors but here are the good things I expect to come from it:
1. More separation from the Atlantics. Right now a good FB is at the pointy end of the Atlantic field. This weekend at VIR, a 3.7 mile track with a mile long straight, there were 10 Atlantics entered (one or two may have been FE's on cooper tires though). Brandon would have been the fourth fastest atlantic for qualifying for Sunday's race and the fifth fastest atlantic for Saturday's race. That is with two of the Atlantics there having the 1.8L engine. All of this while Brandon is testing new tires that he has not yet figured out. When they go to tighter tracks that are less hp dependent FB and FA only get closer. Starts are a disaster as all of the cars that actually make torque can just drive by the FB's on the start and then everyone gets to T1 at the same time.
Nothing good comes from having two formula classes that close together. Taking a little bit of hp off of the FB's now will more evenly split the difference between FA and FC and leaves some room for the further development of the cars. Adding 20hp to the FB cars will make them faster in a straight line than the 1.8L cars and make the races more of a mess than they already are.
2. Engine longevity. Restrictors will cut the revs down and cutting the revs down will make the engines last a lot longer and probably make the cars easier to drive. The quality of the racing will not suffer at all.
3. Avoid engine of the year controversy. If one of the fast guys goes and puts one of the new engines in his car and pounds everyone then the perception/reality will be that everyone will need to upgrade. That will not help grow the class and that will not improve participation numbers. It will scare people off from the class and possibly cause some people to convert their cars back to FF or FC to avoid having to go through it again when the next, new engine comes out.
here is the con that I see to the restrictor proposal, and this is a big one:
1. I am not sure that the SCCA can manage the program effectively. It is a new CRB and I have a lot more faith in them with Mirl on there but it remains to be seen how this would actually work.
This was published as a "what do you think." That is certainly more than the CRB had to do. They could have just instituted restrictors with nothing but a note in fastrack that they were now required. If everyone is against them then write the crb and be heard.
This thread needs to be nuked and started over without the personal insults.
Amen Brother
I find myself agreeing almost 100% with Wren's post above...
If you do not understand how the rules making process in the SCCA works, please pick up a phone and call someone on the FSRAC or CRB (or your area Director). It is not meant to be a secret, and there really is only a bunch of folks with the best intentions trying to make the best decisions for the long term.
I am always happy to get input, even if I don't necessarily agree.
Sean
Regardless of how much cheaper and/or better a few people could do it, they still have tons of time and effort behind their current package. It's certainly logical to wish to protect that. Even if they could do it better/cheaper than most everyone else doesn't mean they would want to do it again and again.
"Engine of the 5 year period" controversy is tons cheaper than engine of the year and a whole lot less frustrating than competition adjustments and ever changing restrictors.
Agreed and not because of those in charge, but rather the numerous uncontrolled variables.
I trust the FSRAC and I think that Brandon is the best FB competitor to represent all of us on the FSRAC.
Every single person on the FSRAC is a hard core racer and only wants the best for the members of the Formula and Sports Racer community. Of course I do not always agree with them but that is my nature.
I suggest that we discuss the issue at hand:
Will restricting the FB engines improve the class?
Thanks ... Jay Novak
No.But slowing the rate at which new engines are allowed into the class will.
It could appear to be a lot of things but that is a stretch. Period. Brandon is almost out of gsxr engines and going to the Kawasaki would be less frustrating since they are more readily available in the crate.
Wild conjecture with no proof does no one any good. See Rob's posts in this thread as an example.
Probably, but the time for that was 2010 and no one could really agree on it."Engine of the 5 year period" controversy is tons cheaper than engine of the year and a whole lot less frustrating than competition adjustments and ever changing restrictors.
Well said. I believe that if we could magically control the hp of the engines to 175hp then yes the class would be better off. It would be more attractive to new people as it would remove the largest question mark about the class (long term engine stability), increase engine life and would improve the racing for FB and FA.
Let me back up just a bit and make it clear that I don't mean that as an insult. The appearance of conflicts-of-interest are everywhere in amatuer racing. No matter how noble the intentions the appearance is there. No way around it; folks who are both knowledgeable enough and motivated enough to get involved to the extent required are most likely very involved and have a vested interest in the outcome. You want some HProd guy making FB policy? Who do you want teching these motors someone from F500?
If it's a desireable idea, 2013 isn't too late. Make it 2013 or older through the 2017 season and nobody currently in the class or building for next season gets screwed. Nobody has to start the searching for the next hot set up until 2016...
Restrictors/HP Limits
I'll put my two cents in and say I think restricting the engines is a good idea. To make this a viable class, we need some stability to keep racing fun and affordable.
I have some concerns about enforcement and inspection especially at the club races but in general I think it is a step in the right direction. Details need to be worked out but I think it makes sense.
That would be a logical assumption as to what the writers were thinking about, but unfortunately that is not how it is written.
Assuming that the same wording would be used in the final version, I wouldn't be too sure that some Steward somewhere wouldn't start asking everybody in the field for their engine papers - as written, it makes no restrictions as to whom it pertains to, nor which engines it covers.
This is not a final rules proposal. I think the FSRAC is going to have a lot of work to do to write this proposal to work. But, as long as the "what do you think" has enough information for us to understand what they mean then that is good enough for now.
Damn Wren, I was going to bitch at Brandon for not calling me yesterday but I'm scared he may tell you and I'd have to skip town, lol
This day was bound to come sooner or later. My only response is "What already?"
When it comes to HP escalation the only thing that scares me is JR in his BMW. But I gotta see that a couple times first before the powers to be clamp him down. That show would be too good to miss. Only thing that'll might come close would be watching a missile launch at Cape Canaveral.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote