FB hp

[Mike Devins]

All sorts of rumors on turbo motors again this year for DSR at the runoff - we will see. When someone makes it work it will either be a game changer or a rule changer. I am guessing a rule changer since it would obsolete pretty much every car in C and D. Imagine a 900 - 1000 lb car with 270 hp, more hp that a good FA with a 250 lb advantage.

I know that several members of the FB community have been comment in the SR forum and I think that it makes sense to get that portion of the discussion here.

We have a parallel issue for fb hp to the situation that has existed in DSR for years. DSR has not had anyone yet make full use of the turbo rule and when they do it will be decision time for either a rule change or everyone will have to upgrade or be uncompetitive and I believe that day is coming. Interesting that the rules stability will end up destabilizing the class.

When someone gets a new liter engine working with the stock ecu FB will have the same issue.

I do not have the answer but I really believe that HP stability is really important for the future of the class.

[JerryH]

Well said Mike.......the queston is how do we achieve that. There is a recent thread suggesting an rpm limit be used to keep the various engines at least closer in output. That seems a good way to deal with the problem. Jay Novak has more experience with this than most, and he seems to agree.

Jerry Hodges
JDR Motorsport.com

All sorts of rumors on turbo motors again this year for DSR at the runoff - we will see. When someone makes it work it will either be a game changer or a rule changer. I am guessing a rule changer since it would obsolete pretty much every car in C and D. Imagine a 900 - 1000 lb car with 270 hp, more hp that a good FA with a 250 lb advantage.

I know that several members of the FB community have been comment in the SR forum and I think that it makes sense to get that portion of the discussion here.

We have a parallel issue for fb hp to the situation that has existed in DSR for years. DSR has not had anyone yet make full use of the turbo rule and when they do it will be decision time for either a rule change or everyone will have to upgrade or be uncompetitive and I believe that day is coming. Interesting that the rules stability will end up destabilizing the class.

When someone gets a new liter engine working with the stock ecu FB will have the same issue.

I do not have the answer but I really believe that HP stability is really important for the future of the class.

[S Lathrop]

I will add my vote to the RPM limit rule concept. It will certainly help engine longevity.

I would suggest that the RPM limit be imposed and we reconsider the stock ECU rule. We might have more engine options if we relax the stock ECU rule.

In aviation there is a practice called STC (Supplemental Type Certificates). The idea applied here is for someone to develop a engine package for FB using any particular engine he chooses. It is his responsibility to develop the package and demonstrate that it meets the standard of say a good 07 Suzuki with the say a 12500 rev limit. That builder is given an "STC" for that package. Anyone who wants to run this type engine can buy the engine conversion package (say harness, ECU, and rev-limiter). If I, as a competitor think that a particular car is illegal I can protest, If I win the protest (the engine exceeds the performance standard) then all engines running under that certificate are illegal until the standards are proven to be complied with. This has the virtue of placing the engine builder in to position of enforcing compliance with the rules. It also will open the class to a lot more engine possibilities. Maybe a few new engines will solve the durability problems we are having. The STC would not be approved for any significant internal modifications.

[Jnovak]

I will add my vote to the RPM limit rule concept. It will certainly help engine longevity.

I would suggest that the RPM limit be imposed and we reconsider the stock ECU rule. We might have more engine options if we relax the stock ECU rule.

In aviation there is a practice called STC (Supplemental Type Certificates). The idea applied here is for someone to develop a engine package for FB using any particular engine he chooses. It is his responsibility to develop the package and demonstrate that it meets the standard of say a good 07 Suzuki with the say a 12500 rev limit. That builder is given an "STC" for that package. Anyone who wants to run this type engine can buy the engine conversion package (say harness, ECU, and rev-limiter). If I, as a competitor think that a particular car is illegal I can protest, If I win the protest (the engine exceeds the performance standard) then all engines running under that certificate are illegal until the standards are proven to be complied with. This has the virtue of placing the engine builder in to position of enforcing compliance with the rules. It also will open the class to a lot more engine possibilities. Maybe a few new engines will solve the durability problems we are having. The STC would not be approved for any significant internal modifications.

This would be enormously difficult to control. Which dyno do you use, who does the dyno wor. Who pays the bills etc. Then of course, how do you handle the costs associated with an actual protest, this could costs thousands of $$.

I think a much simpler solution is to simply control the maximum engine rpm or use an IIR as in the Zetec or the Fit engines.

This does not mean that every engine will be the equal of every other engine. Obviously there will be some variablility between engines but since all engines are extremely well developed 4 cylinder, 4 valve 1000cc engines they are going to be pretty close. We have seen 1.5% difference on 3 different 600cc MC engines on the same chassis dyno on the same day with the same IIR size. Pretty damn close IMO. While this is certainly not a big sample size I think it is still very significant.

We also noted that the maximum usefull RPM on the 600cc MC engines went down from about 15,000 rpm to about 13,500 rpm. Another good reason as this will help engine life.

I think there is plenty of opportunity to make this work without spending Megabucks.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Mike Devins]

Jay, will IIR's work on some of the new motors that do not have round ports?

[Jnovak]

Yes Mike IIRs will work with oval ports. The Suzuk 600 engine has oval ports and there are no problems. In fact it was the motor that made 1.5 hp more than the others with the 32mm restrictors on all 3 engines on the chassis dyno. The engines were 2 Suzuki GSXR600s (2007, 2009) and a Honda CBR600RR (2006).

All our initial engine dyno work was done with a 2007 Suzuki GSXR600. In that series of tests we ran without restrictors and with 6 different restrictor sizes. The current 32mm sharp edged restrictor knocks about 15hp off the Suzuki and about 1500-2000 RPM off of the top.

The only problem I see with IIRs is that I suspect that the SCCA might require that all engines would have to run them. If this is the case then current engines would loose some power with IIRs. If IIRs were only required on specific engines then it would be easy to make it work. Don't know if the SCCA would go for this.

If IIRs were the solution, I would still run a newer motor as they will be much more reliable with IIRs IMO as this would probably knock about 1000 rpm off the top of the rpm band.

Jay Novak

[DonArm]

Jay,

Did you use the stock ecu when you test the IIR's? I have found that most of the time these MC engine are very particular about air intake.

[allof6]

Trying to equalize multiple engines with such a large manufactuering span will be tuff and exspensive and as Jay said "whos going to do the work" and "whos going to pay for it".

It seems that everyone is concerned about the next gen of high hp motors. Its going to happen its progression. Forget the IIr narrow the motor eligibilty to the two dominant motors in the class, get rid of the stock ecu rule, limit rpms and allow the next progression of motors every two years always being two years behind the production market.

You guys are looking at the 07/08 GSXR motor as if its going to be the Pinto of the FB class its not going to work.

[Jnovak]

Jay,

Did you use the stock ecu when you test the IIR's? I have found that most of the time these MC engine are very particular about air intake.

Yes Don we used the stock ECU. We had a Lambda sensor in the system and adjusted fuel pressure for each dyno run with all the various restrictors. We adjusted to the correct Lambda and the dyno data showed that the Lambda was very good across the rev range.

We then tested the same engine on the chassis dyno using a Bazzaz system to fine tune the fuel map and we made 1.5 more HP with the Bazzaz than without it and the 1.5 additional HP was in the mid-range & not on top end.

However with the tunability available with remapping the ECUs I do not think that IIRs will be a significant problem as pretty much everyone is running with remapped ECUs

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Jnovak]

I am personally open to whatever will work. I do think we need to do something but I am not insisting on IIRs at all, just explaining my experience with them.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Northwind]

Has anyone found a rev limiter compatible to a variety of bike engines that will reach 12,500 RPM?

I'm wondering if there is something out there that would adapt to all the 1000cc brand bike engines that we would use.

[Christopher Crowe]

I don't know what is meant by IIRs! I'm guessing it's something to do with inlet size restriction (as in F3), but what do the letters I-I-R actually stand for? Intake Inlet Restriction... or something... maybe?

Thanks,

Chris Crowe

[starkejt]

Individual as opposed to single.

[RussMcB]

And probably more importantly, IIR's are positioned after the throttle bodies rather than before. With SIR's the TB's see very low pressure which causes havoc with ECU's. ECU's seem to cope better with IIR's than with SIR's.

_______________

Good topic, Mike D. I've always thought FB would be a more popular class if more people can be competitive at lower expense by stopping the moving goal post of engine power (which benefits people who can outspend competitors).

[Mike Devins]

Russ, I agree that the race should be mostly on the track. HP that remains stable over a long period make us work on other areas of the car to find the next second. It doesn't stop development.

[S Lathrop]

My support for the rev limiter approach was based on the thought that inlet restrictors would not work with most ECUs. Jay has done work with the 600cc motors that demonstrates that is not the case.

IIRs appear to be a much better way to go.

We still have to remap the ECU. What is the difference between using a remapped ECU and using a manufacturer's racing ECU for the same engine? In all likelyhood the hardware is the same.

[DonArm]

If you remap an ECU then it's not stock anymore. According to the rules you are supposed to use the "stock ECU". So I gather the interpetation of the rules by everyone is that stock refers to hardware only, and software or more correctly mapping changes within the ECU are legal. Correct?

[formulasuper]

Ah, the elephant is becoming visible.

[JohnPaul]

If you remap an ECU then it's not stock anymore. According to the rules you are supposed to use the "stock ECU". So I gather the interpetation of the rules by everyone, is that stock refers to hardware only, and software or more correctly mapping changes within the ECU are legal. Correct?

It's no secret that GD has been remapping ECU for FB for a while. I assume if he is doing it, it has to be legal (right?)

[Jnovak]

If you remap an ECU then it's not stock anymore. According to the rules you are supposed to use the "stock ECU". So I gather the interpetation of the rules by everyone is that stock refers to hardware only, and software or more correctly mapping changes within the ECU are legal. Correct?

Sounds good Don, how do you police it if that is the actual meaning of the rule and what actually defines a "stock" ECU? Is it the USA version that makes 15 hp less than the European ECU or is it the European ECU? I want the European ECU. or better yet simply reprogram your existing ECU.

My understanding is that the rule is there to prevent the use of $10K+ Motecs or other similar ECUs but is not intended to prevent tuning. Tuning the engine with the ECU is like changing your jets and ignition timing on old engines, nothing more.

Thanks ... Jay

[DonArm]

Jay,

My direct question is, what defines a stock ecu? The hardware/ecu unit being intact with the "stock from the factory mapping" in it. Or the hardware/ecu unit intact but the "stock from the factory mapping" being allowed to be manipulated?
I would have to argue that everyone who is running an ecu that has been flashed is not running a stock from the factory ecu if the "stock from the factory mapping" has been manipulated. Correct?
The WRX that I race has a stock from the factory ecu, but I have software for it that essentially gives me access to all of the maps within the ecu, so that it essentially functions as a standalone ecu.

Addendum:

Jay,

I read your post again. And your interpetation is, the hardware/ecu must be the stock one that comes from the factory with the bike, but anything that happens software wise is ok. Correct?
So if software is developed that can access all of the maps in a "stock from the factory" ecu and you manipulate only the maps within the ecu then that still constitutes a "stock from the factory" ecu?

[Brandon Dixon]

The current rule from the GCR:
[FONT=Univers]

[FONT=Univers]H.4.C. The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed. [/FONT][FONT=Univers]Devices that modify inputs to the ECU (e.g., Power Commander) [/FONT][FONT=Univers]may be used. Stand-alone after market ECUs are not permitted.[/FONT]

[/FONT]
My biggest problem with allowing "Factory Race" ECUs is that the wording is too vague. What exactly defines a "Factory Race" ECU? How does an SCCA tech inspector determine this? Perhaps someone should propose adding a spec line based on engine models that list the allowed ECUs including part number.

Keep in mind that the induction system is completely free in the current rules. The stock ECU rule (vs. an open ECU) makes it far more difficult and likely impossible to redesign a race only intake and FI system.

[DonArm]

H.4.C. The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed. [FONT=Univers]Devices that modify inputs to the ECU (e.g., Power Commander) [/FONT][FONT=Univers]may be used. Stand-alone after market ECUs are not permitted.[/FONT]

Given that there is no way, since the SCCA tech personal, do not have the software to check a flashed ecu, how do we know if other maps with the ecu have not been changed?
Again if the software is available to change the fuel map then you will also have access to see and manipulate the rest of the maps on the ecu. How is this policed?
As far as a "factory race ecu" is concerned, they all come with software to tune them. If you have them, you have the software. If you have the software in hand at the track then tech will have direct access to see whatever they need to to verify that ONLY the appropriate parameters have been manipulated.
As it is now no one at the track has the software to see what has been changed on the ecus that have been flashed.
It is much easier to police a factory race euc than it is to police the way things are setup now.

[Jnovak]

H.4.C. The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed. [FONT=Univers]Devices that modify inputs to the ECU (e.g., Power Commander) [/FONT][FONT=Univers]may be used. Stand-alone after market ECUs are not permitted.[/FONT]

Given that there is no way, since the SCCA tech personal, do not have the software to check a flashed ecu, how do we know if other maps with the ecu have not been changed?
Again if the software is available to change the fuel map then you will also have access to see and manipulate the rest of the maps on the ecu. How is this policed?
As far as a "factory race ecu" is concerned, they all come with software to tune them. If you have them, you have the software. If you have the software in hand at the track then tech will have direct access to see whatever they need to to verify that ONLY the appropriate parameters have been manipulated.
As it is now no one at the track has the software to see what has been changed on the ecus that have been flashed.
It is much easier to police a factory race euc than it is to police the way things are setup now.

Don, perhaps a clarification is in order. The reality is that no one currently racing in F1000 cares about reflashing the stock ECU. It is clear that reflashing is allowed as per the current rule and that any additional devices (add ons) are also legal.

This is much more complex than it needs to be and is functionally not policeable. The real issue IMO is that other stand alone ECUs cannot be used as the rule is written. However a completly new ECU could be use if it is piggy backed on to the "stock" ECU. Frankly, without allowing seperate ECUs this means that the newer engines will be very difficult to use. Most are now drive by wire, have multiple levels of traction control etc. Perhaps the club should allow one specific aftermarket ECU. This would allow relatively easy use of the newer motors.

Perhaps the simple solution is a rewrite of the current rule to allow any software changes to the stock ECU or to allow for the definition of a single aftermarket ECU from XYZ Company. Of course no traction control etc would be allowed.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Brett Lane]

[quote=Jnovak;355729]Don, perhaps a clarification is in order. The reality is that no one currently racing in F1000 cares about reflashing the stock ECU.

Correct- the pipes on my header are basically stock GSXR pipes. The fuel injection rail is stock. I let a so called "expert" screw around with the fuel mapping of an ECU and I just lost power. Keeping the ECU ""stock", at least in my situation should be the best way to go. Right?

[allof6]

delete

[RobLav]

The current rule is unenforceable. How is anyone to know if a reflash altered only the fuel map and not ignition? And the factory race ECU's I've had my hands on are the exact same "box" as the "stock" ECU, and mine is the exact same processor but different pin layout. So the rule is unenforceable.

On the other hand, some of the methods devised here in comments may be solutions looking for a problem. The problem may only potentially exist at the very pointy end of the National grid, but for the rest of us "wankers", it really does not matter.

[Daryl DeArman]

Perhaps the simple solution is a rewrite of the current rule to allow any software changes to the stock ECU or to allow for the definition of a single aftermarket ECU from XYZ Company. Of course no traction control etc would be allowed.

Those in this class who are concerned about unintended consequences may want to look at the IT class ECU rules and how they morphed over the years when companies like SpeedSource and Bimmerworld were campaigning atypical IT level efforts.

[JohnPaul]

just out of curiousity, what advantages would an aftermarket ECU have over a remapped stock ECU with a dynojet or Bazzaz fuel system etc other than being able to use an engine that is unable to function in a car with their stock ECU? (run on sentence?)

[Brett Lane]

Those in this class who are concerned about unintended consequences may want to look at the IT class ECU rules and how they morphed over the years when companies like SpeedSource and Bimmerworld were campaigning atypical IT level efforts.

I'm one of those in this class concerned about unintended cosequences. Relaxing the rules a bit for the future of new generation engines seems ok, but the question is how much? What bothers me is the discussion of the limitations of these ECU's, stock or aftermarket. Kinda reminds me of a lengthy discussion about electronic shifters, and look what happened after that.

Go ahead- fire away. Just nobody go shooting themselves in the foot.

[Cblough]

My perspective is very much outside of the one shared by National-level F1000 competitors. That said, why is this discussion even taking place? Given the prices on even brand-new 2012 engines, the non-tire operational cost of national-level F1000 is already lower than national-level FC.

Let's assume nothing's done. Owner-operators who do their own engineering are looking at a yearly cost of, what, maybe 7-10 grand to completely change out the engine package to whatever package they perceive to be the latest and greatest?

Yeah, it's spendy, but compare that to the cost of a new Honda Fit + gearbox upkeep over a year. The reality is that if someone wants to spend 50 thousand dollars a year on their car, and they are a good driver, they are probably going to win at the national level, all things being equal. That applies to /any/ class.

Cost containment is great and all, but this entire discussion is beginning to sound a LOT more expensive in time and money spent fine-tuning than simply saying 'you can use any 1000cc engine you want, so long a it's stock.'

These sorts of 'solutions' end up making F1000 look just like F1 -- the well-funded efforts have infinite amounts of money to fine-tune. $$$ still wins. The poor teams still lose (driver ability being equal.)

If limits are going to be imposed, we are all FAR better off with specific stock engines being allowed, rather than applying ECU or IIR rules (that, actual reality has shown, never work out as intended.)

[billwald]

My opinion: the best action would be NO Action. At least for a few years anyway. Run a stock anything motor.

Spend your resources on seat time, prep, and tires. The guys at the pointy end of any race grid are the ones that are properly prepared.

Drive and race your F1000 and have fun! I am.

[Mike Devins]

Let's assume nothing's done. Owner-operators who do their own engineering are looking at a yearly cost of, what, maybe 7-10 grand to completely change out the engine package to whatever package they perceive to be the latest and greatest?

engine $5000 (Ebay Prices for ZX-10R)
Modify Wiring harness $???
chassis mods $1000-$2000
header $1300 - $2000
drysump $2000-$3000
Misc plumping and integration $1000
spare engine $5000

Really more like $16000 to $18000

Hopefully you can sell your last version and get back down around $10-12K

You should not need to do this every year since the bike engines seem to increase hp every 2-3 years. The bad news is you can do all of this and find that you have package that will not live or perform in a car with the stock ECU.

[S Lathrop]

You should not need to do this every year since the bike engines seem to increase hp every 2-3 years. The bad news is you can do all of this and find that you have package that will not live or perform in a car with the stock ECU.

Now this is a problem that needs to be addressed. It may be that there is a more reliable engine but it has an ECU that will not work properly in a car.

The currently popular Suzuki engines will get harder and more expensive. We don't want to look at rebuilding these engines to new condition.

[Ivinsea]

Now this is a problem that needs to be addressed. It may be that there is a more reliable engine but it has an ECU that will not work properly in a car.

The currently popular Suzuki engines will get harder and more expensive. We don't want to look at rebuilding these engines to new condition.

Agree 100%.

I am not convinced competition adjustments are in order at this time; we can deal with it later if necessary.

I do think that the ECU rule needs to be opened up immediately to allow a supply of new engines to flow into FB.

[urbanimports02]

engine $5000 (Ebay Prices for ZX-10R)
Modify Wiring harness $???
chassis mods $1000-$2000
header $1300 - $2000
drysump $2000-$3000
Misc plumping and integration $1000
spare engine $5000

Really more like $16000 to $18000

Hopefully you can sell your last version and get back down around $10-12K

You should not need to do this every year since the bike engines seem to increase hp every 2-3 years. The bad news is you can do all of this and find that you have package that will not live or perform in a car with the stock ECU.

those prices are actually high. we used our header/exhaust system right off the gsxr engine with only a slight, very quick mod. if your current car is already dry sumped, then all you need is the dry sump kit, not the tank etc, so more like $1800. if it is not dry sumped, then you have a choice to make, wet sump can still be an option for you. we actually did a totally custom dry sump kit with direct connection to the tank behind the motor, and internal plumbing for the oil filter with the filter now mounted in place of the heat exchanger. it is very simple and tidy. plumbing is somewhere closer to $400. very few chassis mods were required. we changed some stuff on the rear chassis only because now was the time to improve upon the stohr design. we were planning those mods long before the new engine. other then that, it was simply new motor mounts. in the end, with all of the additional work we did to the car that was slated aside from the motor, the cars owner spent close to what you have above. everyone is so over the top against this new motor stuff, and it really is not that big of a deal. it is what makes this class cool imho. when we tested this motor earlier this year, most were immediately looking to rule changes....we were like, where do we get one! as soon as we get the ecu back in our possession, we are ready to test this beast.