F-1000 Sub Committee Rules

[Jnovak]

Phil,
I don't think you'll get much agreement about slowing the formula down.
That is part of the appeal. Just saying.

I totally agree Dr Frog. Right now there is about 25% of the class under the 2:10 lap time at Road America with the fastest times by Brandon Dixon at a 2:06.1 at the 2011 Runoffs Q, which was a pretty big spread. However at the 2012 Runoffs the top guys were closer to Brandon with the first 3 guys being within .6 sec. and this is pretty decent IMO and shows that the class is closing up a bit. F1000 needs some time to mature so that the racers can learn about their cars setup, how to drive them etc. If no rules changes are made and the new engines start performing as they should and will, the fastest guys will go a LOT faster if they have one of the new engines. Personally I think that the power to weight ratio of these cars is pretty close to what it needs to be.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[crowe motorsports]

This is really good dialog and it is important for opinions and recommendations to be made on this thread. It would then benefit a committee to make informed decisions versus operating in a vacuum. Whatever is decided will be influenced by this content. However we know you cannot make everyone happy.

In my opinion.

The 07/08 Suzuki should be the standard for HP decision making. Any larger base line would disadvantage the most broadly used engine in the class.

Engine builders are also well versed in the 07/08 platform and they are rebuilding these motors with reliability.

07/08 will have less demand in the future with many DSR cars moving to Hayabusa and Turbos that must be 670 from a sleeved 750 or 1000. There are many built 07/08 motors within the DSR class that will be rebuilt versus replaced with stock motors. Parts/Machining alone for a built DSR 07/08 can run you up to $10k. So prices for stock 07/08 motors may actually decrease to 05/06 price points.

The price for a 3500ish and up mile 07/08 motor is around $2,100 to 2,500 depending on whether it has a car kit or throttle bodies. However I see real low mile motors up to $3,500 ask price. I have found more motors are coming out of dismantled bikes to service the dropped bike parts demand. These dismantlers really don't have a use for the motors. Then there are the crashed bike donor motors.

So in summary the 07/08 Suzuki is going to be around for a long time. The key is to normalize the performance of new motors to the 07/08 benchmark.

ECU's. Since many already piggy back Power Commanders or Bazzazz to play with fuel maps, I guess a open ECU is not a big deal. This would allow those wanting other motors to defeat some of the limitations imbedded in ECU's such as limp mode or other default code issues.

So if open ECU's are approved then it appears per comments herein that a SIR, or Weight to power ratio, and or Rev Limit must be decided on. So what is easier to police?

SIR-Top 3 pulled in after Q and R and pop air box off and check.
Weight to Power-Must have someone provide dyno info to determine ratio using the Suzuki benchmark.
Rev limit seems like it would be hard to police.

I don't have the expertise to determine but it seems like the SIR may be the best choice. And as Phil said, the wording will need to be carefully scripted.

[Jnovak]

Good thoughts Michael.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Purple Frog]

Crowe made good points.

It would be best if the class gets to decide the rules they live by.

Keep the conversation alive.

[DonArm]

I have spoken with people, technicians, not riders who have competed at the professional level ie MotoGP and AMA Superbike series. They all have said inlet restrictors would be a very bad idea given the way the intake systems are designed, that is, if you are looking for the best way to optimize engine performance. The systems are designed for a clean unrestricted flow into the engine.
If you do want to use inlet restrictors you better plan on using a standalone ecu to get the motor to run at close to optimal.
They all have suggested that you should keep as much of the stock system intact to get the motor to run at its optimum level.
Another observation, very one is showing dyno graphs, George’s 200 hp graphs are not at the wheel, the other graphs are at the wheel, a motorcycle wheel, which is much smaller than ours. Dyno numbers are really just that numbers, it’s only one small indicator of how a motor may perform in it’s native environment (motorcycle). In addition dyno numbers can be manipulated. I can't honestly remember if any of the FB competitors have posted dyno run's from cars on a rolling dyno.
I think it’s very good to start an in depth investigation and evaluation of the new motors now. But as other people have mentioned none of these new motors have yet proven that they are the next greatest thing to have.
I also don't think we should restrict this class to just one engine, I don't think that is what the "founding fathers" had in mind. This class seems to have been setup to allow innovation, which is why so many people are coming or looking at coming to the class and the interest that it is generating in the SCCA.
As far as restricting performance I don’t think restrictors are going to be the way to go, these are not car engines and as such should not be looked at in that way. These motors are essentially highly tuned race engines, not engines that come out of a street car like a Ford Focus or a Honda Fit and have been modified for racing.
I think using open ecu's, factory race ecu's, and or a combination of weight and rev limiters will yield the result everyone is looking to achieve. We don't have to look at just ONE option to limit performance. Rev limits are really not hard to police with any of the ecu options, open, factory race or stock and weight is most certainly not hard to police.

[HastyHorn]

While I did try to have a horse in this race it didn't end up going in that direction. However, the answer George Dean got was that the 2009 R1 could have made competitive HP with the GSXR but the (required in my estimation) installation of a dry sump system resulted in an increase of around 40 lbs. (given that the OEM stock engine was already 26 lbs. heavier) over a wet sump GSXR.

It seems to me that the "worry movement" is happening too soon. The R1 in the AMA compliant form for Superbike won last year's series (which included many BMW 1000 RR's) and several privateers (albeit with some factory support) are changing from the BMW to the R1 for this next season. Admittedly, the firing order of the R1 may be of major help for two-wheeled competition but that has yet to proven as the only critical factor.

From my perspective BMW has done a great job with their latest design and stock for stock (as tested by the magazines) it produces the most HP BUT the other manufacturer's CAN make their (nearly identical design) engines run with even modified BMW's. They always have a choice whether to run close to the limit of their design and BMW had a tough road to follow if they didn't show some superior capability. They may have even been willing to run closer to limits.

Hasty Horn

[Jnovak]

Don, you make valid points. However I have completed extensive dyno testing with MC engines and IIRs. They work very well and can use the stock ECU with modified fuel pressure or reprograming the ECU. It works well both ways. All of this dyno work was done on 600cc MC engines that are as highly tuned as the 1000cc motors are. I can share dyno data if someone is interested. However it is EXTENSIVE with over 4 days of runs on a calibrated engine dyno. Believe me I would not even consider this if I was not certain that it is a functional solution.

I am not saying that this is the only solution for creating parity in the class as I think that there are several options. For example, you could use the factory dyno results for guidelines for weights etc. This is the way it is done in numerous european classes.

These factory dyno results are always the best they can get with stock parts and are used for advertising. Magazine dyno comparisions show very similar differences between engines from a percentage perspective.

All the modern engines are very highly developed and any increases with exhaust and ECU tuning will probably produce very similar result.

obviously if you want to optimize engine power it is not the right thing to do, but you can easily reduce power without any problem.

This is also the method that is used to even up the motors for several other classes in SCCA, for example, FC, FF, S2. Tech also has extensive experience with this method.

Lots of good ideas for discussion and I suggest that we keep this dialog going.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[DonArm]

Jay,

Thanks for the info. I would like to see which engines you had the opportunity to test and how the comparisons turned out.
I'm always skeptical unless your comparing apples to apples, you can't take a 600cc ecu and place it directly on a 1000cc motor and have it work. So there may or may not be differences in the way a 1000cc motor would react to a restrictor plate, we really won't know until someone tries it. And then will all the available motors work well with it or will it possible restrict which motors we can use, which I think we're trying to avoid.
As everyone has mentioned, a lot of very good points are being brought up, we all want this to be the best class to run in so open conversation is great.

[Jnovak]

Jay,

Thanks for the info. I would like to see which engines you had the opportunity to test and how the comparisons turned out.
I'm always skeptical unless your comparing apples to apples, you can't take a 600cc ecu and place it directly on a 1000cc motor and have it work. So there may or may not be differences in the way a 1000cc motor would react to a restrictor plate, we really won't know until someone tries it. And then will all the available motors work well with it or will it possible restrict which motors we can use, which I think we're trying to avoid.
As everyone has mentioned, a lot of very good points are being brought up, we all want this to be the best class to run in so open conversation is great.

Of course we have to try anything before it is implemented. Just stateing my experience with the 600cc motors and those of the FC, FF & S2 community. I am also not convinced that this is the correct solution for F1000. Simpy one of the options to consider.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[AEA_Team_Lotus]

I want to circle back to one of the items in my initial thread: the front wing width, end plates and aero package. If we all look back to the 08 Formula 1 season all of the teams were trying to find maximum down force with minimum amounts of drag while still utilizing a front wing width that was under 150cm. The widely adopted end plate / wing design created an inwash airflow. This caused the air coming off of the front wing to become turbulent when it passed through the front suspension components. In ordered to combat this, the successful teams installed winglets to direct the air around these components. Fast forward to the 2009 rule change to 180 cm front wings, now the teams were able to create outwash airflow endplates, utilize the winglets to direct airflow up and over the front tires, and then use inboard wing structures to direct the airflow under the lifted nose design and enhance the effect of the lifted nose (and associated spliter). This allowed for better down force and less drag.

As a class I believe we are all looking for rule changes that will allow us to increase performance with out requiring expensive engine work. By allowing us to create a 2009 F1 type front wings we can increase performance with out touching the engine bay.

[Rick Ross]

As a class I believe we are all looking for rule changes that will allow us to increase performance with out requiring expensive engine work. By allowing us to create a 2009 F1 type front wings we can increase performance with out touching the engine bay.

Be careful what you wish for. If you increase performance very much you will find yourself merged with FA......guaranteed. Then you will have to deal with various types of "equalizing" devices in order to give at least the illusion of parity with the 1300 lb, carbon-tub FA cars. It is hard for me to see how that is in the best long-term interests of FB owners.

[Jnovak]

Be careful what you wish for. If you increase performance very much you will find yourself merged with FA......guaranteed. Then you will have to deal with various types of "equalizing" devices in order to give at least the illusion of parity with the 1300 lb, carbon-tub FA cars. It is hard for me to see how that is in the best long-term interests of FB owners.

I most certainly agree. I also do not want to have to replace all of the front wings on our car and do another round of aero development just so that we can go another second per lap (or whatever) and I am sure that the same holds true for all the current competitors. F1000 is NOT F1 and certainly the budgets are several orders of magnitude lower than F1.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[JerryH]

Most cars are running FC wings which are readily available. I see no reason to change the rules regarding wings, bodywork, etc. It would only increase cost. If anyone thinks they can come up with a better aero package, they can do so under the current rules package. We are all trying.......

Other than looking for a way to keep engine packages similar in output, I see no need to fool with the rest of the F1000 rules.

Jerry Hodges

I most certainly agree. I also do not want to have to replace all of the front wings on our car and do another round of aero development just so that we can go another second per lap (or whatever) and I am sure that the same holds true for all the current competitors. F1000 is NOT F1 and certainly the budgets are several orders of magnitude lower than F1.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[reidhazelton]

My 2 cents...making these cars any faster is a big mistake.

Close to FA...and ITS A FORMULA FORD CHASSIS.

[Wren]

Another observation, very one is showing dyno graphs, George’s 200 hp graphs are not at the wheel, the other graphs are at the wheel, a motorcycle wheel, which is much smaller than ours.

I know George's last dyno was a chassis dyno and I am pretty sure his newest dyno is a chassis dyno, so things are apples to apples.

Adding weight is unlikely to work since so many cars in the class are already heavy. It would be quite unfair to the peopl who built light cars.

I want to circle back to one of the items in my initial thread: the front wing width, end plates and aero package. If we all look back to the 08 Formula 1 season all of the teams were trying to find maximum down force with minimum amounts of drag while still utilizing a front wing width that was under 150cm. The widely adopted end plate / wing design created an inwash airflow. This caused the air coming off of the front wing to become turbulent when it passed through the front suspension components. In ordered to combat this, the successful teams installed winglets to direct the air around these components. Fast forward to the 2009 rule change to 180 cm front wings, now the teams were able to create outwash airflow endplates, utilize the winglets to direct airflow up and over the front tires, and then use inboard wing structures to direct the airflow under the lifted nose design and enhance the effect of the lifted nose (and associated spliter). This allowed for better down force and less drag.

As a class I believe we are all looking for rule changes that will allow us to increase performance with out requiring expensive engine work. By allowing us to create a 2009 F1 type front wings we can increase performance with out touching the engine bay.

I think that Rick and Phil have summed it up pretty well already, but I believe that this will be a complete non-starter with the SCCA.

I am not sure what a new front wing assembly costs these days, but I am sure that it is over $1k. Your plan would require everyone to go throw away thousands of dollars worth of wings (I don't think anyone has just one, we typically traveled with 3) and spend thousands more on new wings. Just the process of developing the new wings will take a lot of effort and money to not make the racing any better.

It has been one of the more common and persistent mistakes in FB to believe that the class has anything to do with F1.

I personally believe that every departure from the FC rules has been a huge mistake.

[RobLav]

Whoaaa - I completely agree with Wren!

[Wren]

My 2 cents...making these cars any faster is a big mistake.

Close to FA...and ITS A FORMULA FORD CHASSIS.

Reid,

It's worth going back through the time card data from the runoffs. Between the fastest Atlantics with the 1800cc engines and the fastest FB's there is a 3-4mph difference. Only the 1800 cars were consistently faster in a straight line(not sure what Byers had). Experience has shown that FA is making most of their lap time on FB with torque out of the corners. Don't expect mid corner speed to be very different.

[S Lathrop]

As a class I believe we are all looking for rule changes that will allow us to increase performance with out requiring expensive engine work. By allowing us to create a 2009 F1 type front wings we can increase performance with out touching the engine bay.

In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason to increase the width of the front wings.

For the Citation FB, we use smaller wings than we do for the FCs. Because of the increased speed of the FB, we actually have more down force than we do with the FC. And the cornering speeds are way higher in medium to high speed corners than a FC.

The current aero package allows down force greater than the weight of the car at the speeds we can achieve. Also we are very close to the maximum we can get from the tires we use. And I can still increase the down force further but the car will not lap a track any faster. By comparison, the FA has about double the down force of a FB.

Finally, I will make the argument that wider front wings will actually compromise safety. Very few front nose boxes can withstand the force that an impact against the front wing will impart to the mounting structure. So along with new front wings, we will need new front nose cones. If you loose the nose cone on any car, the protection afforded by a tube frame or carbon tub without the nose cone is totally inadequate.

I have not seen any evidence that current F1 aero technology has significant relevence to FB or FC. What those guys do is the result of their rules. Our rules are more closely related to F1 when they first went to flat bottom ground effects after the tunnel cars, cars of the mid 90's.

[reidhazelton]

Reid,

It's worth going back through the time card data from the runoffs. Between the fastest Atlantics with the 1800cc engines and the fastest FB's there is a 3-4mph difference. Only the 1800 cars were consistently faster in a straight line(not sure what Byers had). Experience has shown that FA is making most of their lap time on FB with torque out of the corners. Don't expect mid corner speed to be very different.

Exactly. Why do they need to be faster? Like others have said, any closer to FA and DSR/CSR scenario comes in to play.

[Wright D]

Engines, weights, wings, and cars as a whole are going to always be in a state of flux. No rule can be writen to stop change and development. What's winning today will be out of date tomorrow, and that's racing. Limit engine power, and savvy guys will devlope whole new chassises to take advantage of the rule change. Don't limit engine power, and some equally savvy guys will develop whole new chassises to take advantage. In my opinion the only thing that will hurt this class is changing the rules. F1000 is growing well and attracting lots of new drivers and manufactures. Rules stability will go 1000 times further to fostering growth and confidence in our class then a lot of debate about a yet seen engine battle. We keep hearing about an "engine of the year" but the fastest running thugs in our class have all been using the same engines for years. So, all the data to date says that we have a class that is stable with the rules exactly as they are. Don't fix what ain't broke. That's my 2 cents.

[Mike Devins]

The majority of DSR community was against any kind of limitations on engine development and HP when a really good KWS or GDRE motor was making 165 hp based on an 01/02 motor. The majority were and still are against any kind of limitations now that we are seeing in excess or 200hp for a good 07/08 motor.

As long as there is no change in direction from the club DSR will be merged into CSR and become SR1 in 2014. If the cars look the same and make the same kind of lap times there is no reason to have two different classes.

I think that if the current path of engine development continues from the OEM's and the club does not put some kind of cap on the performance of FB may be merged into FA at some time in the future.

Now that may be good or that may be bad but we need to understand it really is a possibility and make our choices keeping that in mind.

[JohnPaul]

[QUOTE=ghickman;377931]There will be at least two Z10 powered F1000 at the COTA race so we will get a chance to see how they hold up. QUOTE]


spill the beans.....who, what, where, when (already got the what, where and when)

[Revs2-12k]

Well said;

F1000 is growing well and attracting lots of new drivers and manufactures. Rules stability will go 1000 times further to fostering growth and confidence in our class then a lot of debate about a yet seen engine battle.

Well said, 30 FB Owners/Drivers are voting with their entries @ COTA, now less than 1 month away. Who would have thought FB would have the largest number of entries in any Formula class.

[crowe motorsports]

The question is: Being proactive or reactive to what we know is on the horizon. I recommend proactive. Why? Because you have competitors that will buy the latest and supposedly greatest power plant coming from OEM's and will invest (maybe a lot of $) in it to gain HP advantage over the competition. So say that happens. If we take the reactive path, competitive adjustments would be put in place by SCCA or worse SCCA will say we have a F1000 now running FA speeds and we have an argument to merge the class.

Needless to say, the guy that spent the money to gain an advantage with the latest and greatest motor may be disenfranchised with a competitive adjustment. So if there is a viable option to normalize engines, then why not? As said, we know it is on the horizon as OEM's will increase HP with their OEM motor development. I would guess all motors restricted or not will always have torque/HP differentiation throughout their rev range that would allow them to become the preferred motor.

Summary thus far:
It is clear to me based on numerous comments made by many credible sources herein that F1000 needs to be proactive versus reactive to avoid FA speeds that will only lead to a future consolidation of F1000 with FA. If consolidation happens, current F1000 cars will either be converted to FC or FF platforms or competitors will be asking for Hayabusa's to power their FA1000.

Competitors that want an open development class should consider DSR/CSR soon to be SR1. DSR has always been the class for competitors that like more open book innovation and development. But make no mistake, F1000 is a development class as it relates to chassis and aero development within the current rules. And yes, right now we do have somewhat of a spec motor class since the masses have chosen to date to use the 07/08 Suzuki. Why is it that way? Because that power plant is still readily available, has proven reliability, and it is inexpensive compared to other classes which is one key reason F1000 is very cost effective. Yes we need new motors to enter the mix and we need a cost effective way to normalize HP that can be policed easily.

So input thus far as been less clear as it relates to how we as a class proceed. Therefore, I will take snippets from comments made in this thread with some editorial observations.

Allow open ECU. Current rule allows reflash and many use Power Commanders, Bazzazz or other to piggy back fuel mapping devices. So allowing open ECU makes sense more from the ability to eliminate the factory ECU imbedded safe modes that has hampered the use of other motors.

Per comments, Inlet restrictions, weight to power ratio's and Rev limiters are potential avenues to consider. Furthermore, per comments of credible sources herein, there is a history of the SCCA using and policing the use of inlet restrictors to normalize different power plants in many SCCA classes.

Please note, the following statement may be a oversimplification because I do not know the inlet size of throttle bodies on other motors other than the Suzuki, so hopefully those that are familiar or has access to a broad range of motors can report inlet size or maybe it is reported by the manufacturer.

So with that being said, using the 07/08 Suzuki as the benchmark, what is the least evasive Inlet restriction that could be used on a Suzuki (IF ANY) compared to other throttle bodies in use by other engine manufacturers? It would be preferred to keep the 07/08 at its current HP level.

Whatever evolves, at the end of the day you have to get in the car and drive your set up and that should be the differentator versus using the big motor strategy.

[Daryl DeArman]

The question is: Being proactive or reactive to what we know is on the horizon. I recommend proactive. Why? Because you have competitors that will buy the latest and supposedly greatest power plant coming from OEM's and will invest (maybe a lot of $) in it to gain HP advantage over the competition. So say that happens. If we take the reactive path, competitive adjustments would be put in place by SCCA or worse SCCA will say we have a F1000 now running FA speeds and we have an argument to merge the class.

Needless to say, the guy that spent the money to gain an advantage with the latest and greatest motor may be disenfranchised with a competitive adjustment. So if there is a viable option to normalize engines, then why not? As said, we know it is on the horizon as OEM's will increase HP with their OEM motor development. I would guess all motors restricted or not will always have torque/HP differentiation throughout their rev range that would allow them to become the preferred motor.

Well stated. Even if the class decides Competition Adjustments is the preferred path equalizing HP/TQ curves as much as possible will still result in different results simply from the different gear ratio splits from one model/mfg to another.

Does anybody really find the Competition Adjustment atmosphere a fun one to race under?