Preliminary Minutes Posted
http://www.scca.com/assets/June2014%...%20Minutes.pdf
see page 3
Restrictors Recommended for 2015
Preliminary Minutes Posted
http://www.scca.com/assets/June2014%...%20Minutes.pdf
see page 3
Since I am in the middle of a BMW installation in a DSR and will be dong a FB as my next project would like to know how the restrictor sizes were determined - is there dyno data for the BMW with a 38mm restrictor vs the GSXR with the 42 mm.
If any body on the CRB is reading this feel free to comment.
I will write the CRB as well.
My post #9 on this thread alludes to the process:
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63444
In looking at published HP versus restrictor sizes stated in the SCCA chart, it looks pretty arbitrary. How can you even come up with restrictor sizes without many many comparative dyno runs???
CREW for Jeff 89 Reynard or Flag & Comm.
Restrictors Recommended for 2015
Originally Posted by RobLav
No, your post makes vague, bizarre claims and insults without a shred of proof. There was nothing of value there.
How this situation plays out (protects the status quo and screws the pioneers) and what it does to this class should serve as a learning opportunity to those in other classes that don't utilize a spec engine and allow for competition adjustments.
As sexy as some of the classes and cars are, I have zero interest in becoming involved in a class that allows competition adjustments---the politics, the cost of change, the constant unhappiness just sucks too much fun out of it.
I'll be more clear. When the club members / stakeholders are provided an opportunity to finally see, three-quarters of the way through the rulemaking process, what is going on behind the scenes, then it is Unsat. Those people who are on the inside of the rulemaking process have knowledge that effects decision-making. The outsiders do not possess that same information (like which engine should I install next?). There has been no attempt at consensus building among the FB class club members until now... when it goes up to the BOD vote. Each of the previous steps (FB committee, FSRAC) should have had interim results, conclusions, and recommendations made available to the FB stakeholders even before going to the CRB. The entire process, especially this one, reeks of over-control by some who believe they know best what is good for everybody else. No thanks. The conclusions they reached do not at all fit the data, and a deeper look at rev-limiters was killed. So now the FB engine rules are heading down the same path as FA engine rules with all sorts of confusing engine restrictions and combinations when the simpler restrictor rule could have been all engines at 42mm. Pretty soon, the GCR will be as big as the Federal Code. No comment to the BOD for me though since I'm out. I wish all of you the best.
Just for your information, there were literally dozens of dyno runs completed on the same dyno with different engines and different restrictors sizes. Also, every single person on the FB ad hoc committee is directly involved with FB.
It is up to the CRB to make this information public.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Yup....things have evolved a long way since the guy from Atlanta converted a 96 VD and the idea was stock engines at reasonable costs for faster speeds than a FC.
It's a free country, so do what you will, but I think your points are wide of the mark. For instance, the "constant unhappiness" from competition adjustments is PRECISELY why E Prod, F Prod and H Prod continue to exist, and why 50's and 60's sports cars continue to have a competitive place to race in Club Racing. Without those competition adjustments over the years, we'd have nothing but Miatas. Nothing against Miatas, but if that were the only car in Prod we'd be down to one Prod class if we were lucky.
IOW, don't hate on your Club Racing neighbor. We are in this boat wrt FB because failure to act created the very "engine of the year" arms race that has destroyed so many classes over the years.
That's my opinion. That and two bucks will get you a cuppa...
How is it that we have gone from everyone knowing that FC allowed m/c engines from the class' early days through the 2005 Runoffs to whinging about revisionist history?
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Serious Question...
What engine would that be?It's a free country, so do what you will, but I think your points are wide of the mark. For instance, the "constant unhappiness" from competition adjustments is PRECISELY why E Prod, F Prod and H Prod continue to exist, and why 50's and 60's sports cars continue to have a competitive place to race in Club Racing. Without those competition adjustments over the years, we'd have nothing but Miatas. Nothing against Miatas, but if that were the only car in Prod we'd be down to one Prod class if we were lucky.
IOW, don't hate on your Club Racing neighbor. We are in this boat wrt FB because failure to act created the very "engine of the year" arms race that has destroyed so many classes over the years.
That's my opinion. That and two bucks will get you a cuppa...
How is it that we have gone from everyone knowing that FC allowed m/c engines from the class' early days through the 2005 Runoffs to whinging about revisionist history?
I thought we already had nothing but Miatas.
It's just a difference of opinion as to the best way to control the performance creep for a given class....assuming you think controlling performance creep is a good thing.
My prediction is that the restrictors will reduce HP very slightly but not enough to have a big impact on speeds. The cars are improving and so are the drivers.
The "engine of the year" thought is a bit of a fallacy in FB. Without open ecu's it will be difficult to make any of the newer higher HP bike engines car friendly. The development curve to make some of the newer engines even function in a car keeps most people from even attempting it.
By slapping restrictors on them this will only deter those that care to pioneer new engines, after all most of the search for newer engines is purely driven by the fact that lower mileage Gixxer engines are becoming more difficult to find. Faced with rebuilding a high mileage engine can be very expensive, I know this first hand.
My biggest fear is that the restrictors will take some of the sizzle away from the class and fields will begin declining. Not good for a class that is really just begining to gain some ground on car counts.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
Depends on the class. In Prod classes it was the BMC engines at one point, the Datsun A-series at another, and so on. I am no longer on the CRB, but I suspect they're going through the 'equalization formula' now to avoid a 'problem' with the BMW in the near future. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
I don't have to assume anything. That was the intent for FB from the outset. I know because I was on the CRB at the time and an active participant in the decision making....assuming you think controlling performance creep is a good thing.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Ah Chaa!
Sorry Stan, I got crossed up with the "wrt FB" thing - I thought you were making reference to something that has happened in FB already.
Not to worry. I was making an oblique reference to this line in the FB rules: The air inlet system is unrestricted at this time. However, the CRB may require the use of an inlet restrictor at any time by publishing the requirements in Fastrack, which has been in the rules from the outset.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Bringing the thread back to the engines themselves - isn't the notion of different size restrictors, for engines with the same layout and displacement a bit odd? I'm referring to the 3 different restrictor sizes for BMW, Suzuki, and Kawi engines.
Jay - when you said many dyno runs were done, are you referring to FB 1000cc engines, or the work that you guys did with the 600cc motors as part of the F600 thing? My recollection (perhaps false?) was that the same size restrictor on any of the available engines was used, not a restrictor-per-motor, is that true?
Apropos to the discussion about the aging K8 Suzukis, that was the primary factor in deciding to convert my car to Kawi power. When I realized I could buy a <500 mile Kawi for the same price as a 5000 mile Suzuki, I knew it was time to switch. I went through the same thing in DSR when the Suzuki replaced the aging Yamaha R1's.
At the moment I am against the notion of IIR's for FB, but I would be interested in seeing the data from the 1000cc dyno runs that Jay alludes to?
Cheers,
-Jake
Restrictors
In order to prepare a comment to the CRB I think the dyno test results should be made available. How else can we make an informed opinion, except with information. Without raw data any comment is just conjecture.
We need an explanation of how this recommendation was created and an opportunity to evaluate the same data used to create it.
The data I referred to in my post was all FB 1000cc engines. yes the 600cc engines worked well with a common restrictor as the engines were all very close in their stock power. However, the 1000cc engines are another mater. The Kawasaki and the BMW make about 20hp more than a Suzuki. there is simply no way to equalize HP with a one size fits all restrictor.
You are against IIRs for FB? Then why did you get into the class when the rules CLEARLY state that restrictors can be implemented at any time as an adjustment by the CRB.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
What you are saying Randy is that you simply do not trust the members of the FB Ad Hoc committee to make rational decisions based on real data. You want the data to make your own decision. You should have volunteered to be on the committee like the rest of us who spent hundreds of man hours trying to make these decisions.
Now that restrictor sizes have been defined they can be adjusted by the CRB with as little as a one month notification so if you do not like the sizes of the restrictors then conduct some dyno testing with various restrictors and supply that data to the CRB.
PS: the dyno testing was funded by members of the Ad Hoc Committee. The SCCA was not involved.
Now I will shut up.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Jay why does the 07/08 GSXR need to be restricted? Which of the competitors thought that the class was getting too fast.
I can wrap my head around the idea that the 07/08 GSXR is the baseline buy why the 2.5mm restriction on that motor?
why restrict the GSXR? why slow it down?? how much slower are we talking about?? was the issue that the class was going to fast??
After watching Coop and Mayer running tail to nose for most of a race I can tell you that there isn't any difference in in overall performance between the zx10 and gsxr. At all. They were dead nuts even. I think that the zx10 just got it's balls cut off. Not really what anyone really wants. That would still make the aging GSXR the preferred motor. Watch the video.
Now the BMW..... we still don't know about. It may or may never become an issue. Why not wait to see before dumbing down the class??
I may be wrong but I think this is going to F**k the class (I hope I'm wrong)
"If you're not driving on the edge you're taking up too much space.... "
The committee felt that it was important that all engines should be restricted to be fair to everyone in the class. The restrictor on the Suzuki takes 2 or 3 HP off the very top of the rev range.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
JP, to be fair, in order to really know you would need to have the engines in the same cars with the same wings and setup. Aero drag has to be eliminated from the equation.
I understand that I am new to the game here but I guess I don't understand how the restrictor concept helps the FB community as a whole. To get a newer and more readily available engines (lower cost) running, this just adds another layer of cost to the already difficult task of working out all the engine management issues. Also. it seams like a really cumbersome process as time goes on to try to equalize different engines. How often are these engine dyno tests going to be conducted in the future to come up with new restrictor sizes?
Rev limiters and spec aftermarket engine management seams like a better alternative that would allow newer engines and reduce overall costs.
What am I missing here?
Ciao,
Joel
Piper DF-5 F1000
I've made rants about this before but here I go again.
The restrictors have everything to do with slowing the cars down. Some feel that the speeds we are going puts us to close to FA lap times.
I didn't get into this class to go slower and I'm fairly certain that all the guys that are currently active in FB feel the same way.
This will for sure stop or slow down the developement of newer lower cost engines.
I'm hanging onto my ageing Gixxer power until all this settles out.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
Really? Wanting to see the data makes members not trust you or the Ad Hoc committee? That is like raising property taxes and not telling the homeowners why and using the same argument. Of all arguments that is the one that should not be made. That is the argument that breeds mistrust.
Perhaps if the engine builders have some competitive things they are worried about other engine builders seeing, then that is one thing. I think that was the FC issue with showing dynos, right? But if there is no competitive reason to not show the data, what could possibly be wrong with showing it? What legitimate reason is available? Seems like a fair question.
Ken
Were 2009-2011 Suzukis included in the test? I run a K9, which Suzuki claimed increased HP over the K7. They're full of $h!t. It was all marketing hype. Anyone with any experience with the K9 will tell you it is 2-3 HP less than a K7 in the real world. I see it every weekend. If the intent is to level the playing field, the K9 should have less restriction than the K7.
Without seeing what engines were tested, I won't support this. I think this will force a lot of people to stay with their K7s and continue to spend boat loads of money. This rule certainly doesn't promote class development in my opinion. I certainly won't be going through the cost and effort to convert for an unknown performance gain.
Engine Restrictors FB vs P2
Does anyone know why the FB and P2 restrictors are different? An example is the Honda in FB is unrestricted whereas in P2 it has them?
Marty
Ken, I must be getting cranky in my old age. The reality is that we asked for people to participate in the process. All of those who want to second guess the process could have volunteered to work in the process but did not. As I said it is up to the CRB to share the data if they want to.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
They are different because the performance target was/is significantly different.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
The assumption Stan is that you believe that the intent from the outset is a good thing. I don't, it reeks of non-stop politics and belly-aching.
Sounds too much like "we have to pass it before you can read it" to me. Someone wants to make a decision based on facts and data and you respond with "whaaa? You don't trust us?"
I think it's a bunch more, we appreciate all the effort you've done, but before we get behind, or against something we'd like to form our own opinion as to whether it's a good thing or not.
For me, I don't care if it makes all the choices dead nuts equal, it's the environment that the politics and belly-aching create to keep all the new and old choices dead nuts equal, the oops we went too far/oops we didn't go far enough every time a new choice is introduced. I'd rather just have a slow performance evolution, but that's just me and I'm not in the class....so carry on.
I think the point is that if engine A and B have different size restrictors in FB, why do those engines share the same restrictor in P2?
Perhaps the Honda needs all the help it can get in FB, but in P2 preparation the Honda can be a class killer unless the restrictor is utilized.
That's not happening, you can't name anyone who is on the inside of the decision making that is putting in an engine based on that knowledge. Anyone who really wanted to know something only needed to pick up the phone.
Adding paperwork and bureaucracy won't help the process.Each of the previous steps (FB committee, FSRAC) should have had interim results, conclusions, and recommendations made available to the FB stakeholders even before going to the CRB.
This is true. The Atlantic engine table was a complete disaster and it would be hard for me to believe that the SCCA is somehow now capable of properly implementing something similar.So now the FB engine rules are heading down the same path as FA engine rules with all sorts of confusing engine restrictions and combinations when the simpler restrictor rule could have been all engines at 42mm.
Maybe, but the good news is that the SCCA is unlikely to enforce it. Everyone should remember that they have the option of just not following the GCR and the SCCA has a proven track record of condoning this behavior.Pretty soon, the GCR will be as big as the Federal Code. No comment to the BOD for me though since I'm out. I wish all of you the best.
Really? I'm pretty sure that anyone working on the new engine route is primarily focused on looking for a HP gain.
If it helps keep the revs down, it helps the FB community as a whole. Whether people want to admit it or not, FB has an engine life problem and it is directly related to engine speed. If you don't think that FB has an engine life problem, how many seconds off the pace are you compared to the front runners?
Here is the concern with rev limiters. The stock rev limiters are absolutely brutal on the engines. Touching the stock rev limiter, for even an instant, is about as good for your engine as dropping a bunch of gravel down the throttle bodies. If there is a rev limiter out there that is less abusive, then that might be a solution. That's a big if.Rev limiters and spec aftermarket engine management seams like a better alternative that would allow newer engines and reduce overall costs.
If you think IIR's make engine management issues, aftermarket engine management are on another level. Properly sorting engine management issues will not be pleasant. If allowing factory race ECU's will let people run the new engines, then they are the simple, low cost solutions.
If the new engines are about saving money, this shouldn't have any effect.
Either way, everyone should remember that this isn't a done deal. Don't write the CRB, they have made their decision. Write your letters to the BOD, maybe they won't ignore your letters and **** all over you like they did with other classes.
Please Don't Shut Up"
Jay Novak wrote:
"What you are saying Randy is that you simply do not trust the members of the FB Ad Hoc committee to make rational decisions based on real data. You want the data to make your own decision. You should have volunteered to be on the committee like the rest of us who spent hundreds of man hours trying to make these decisions.
Now that restrictor sizes have been defined they can be adjusted by the CRB with as little as a one month notification so if you do not like the sizes of the restrictors then conduct some dyno testing with various restrictors and supply that data to the CRB.
PS: the dyno testing was funded by members of the Ad Hoc Committee. The SCCA was not involved.
Now I will shut up."
Jay,
For the benefit of the group I want you to talk rather than to shut up.
First to dispel any thought that I'm dilettante in the peanut gallery, you may recall I served on the committee for 3 years and am familiar with the time commitment. Thank you for your service!
When the tablets came down from the mountain there wasn't any addendum explaining them yet still there is disagreement, our Constitution requires constant examination and explanation/interpretation and is still in dispute. For the people whose lives you are affecting with this proposal, a few words from the creators explaining the goal and then the methods and decision process would give much greater confidence in the ideas presented.
Your help in understanding the whole scope of the proposal would be appreciated.
Happy Racing,
Randy
Since the inclusion of engine and restrictors into the spec table required dyno sheets and hard data from the competitors and advisory board members who submitted them, this issue could be put to bed in a very simple way: publish a representative sanitized dyno sheet for each spec line.
Cheers,
Rennie
OK, My Thoughts
Absent an explanation of the need for FB engine restrictors here's what I think with the limited information I have:
This is a solution in search of a problem.
Have there been runaway victories by cars powered by those engines proposed to be most highly restricted? Not that I know of. Have FBs powered by those same engines recorded clearly superior performance in any on-track acceleration or top speed comparison? Not that I know of. I'm reserving my right to squeal like a stuck pig when that happens but I don't see any clear evidence of a need for restrictors yet.
With my Suzuki (07/08) I've raced successfully against a Kawasaki and didn't feel I was at an acceleration disadvantage. The SCCA data box hasn't been fitted to my car yet, (sort of surprising since it's the Runoffs winner from last year). With a good set of data from these boxes some rational decision could be made. But, since that program has just begun and has faltered many times with boxes going missing, I'd say that establishing a table of restrictors for engine types is premature and ill advised at this time.
I would hope that those that have a stake in this issue write the CRB and the BOD with your concerns. It will not get solved here, please write in favor or in opposition.
write your letters.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
For all on the committee
Reread my previous post and just wanted to add that I really appreciate the committee's time, effort, resources, and dedication to this class. True gentlemen racers will find a way to be competitive within the rules, whatever they may be.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote