The Future of FB/F1000

[ghickman]

Some people will not like this.

My take is that the restrictors rule. if it comes to pass, will be a complete bust. But by the time everyone realizes it the damage will have been done, and that damage may be irreparable. At least as far as SCCA FB is concerned.

This restrictor rule will have the effect of freezing engine development right where it is. If you have now is what you want 5, 10 years from now, then that is what you will have. In doing so it will kill off a lot of the momentum that this class currently has. Kill it dead in it's tracks.

Most young drivers don't need the SCCA anyway to pursue a professional driving career, if that is their goal. My first 20 years as a racer I didn't even have an SCCA membership card. And I raced around the world. Europe, Canada, USA.

F1000 has a lot going for it. But it isn't going to grow sustainably any bigger if all we do is poach drivers from other SCCA classes. Also any growth potential it has is going to get stymied whenever you just start throwing down edicts off the mountaintop at the competitors over issues that don't yet even exist. Solution in search of a problem. Perfect analogy.

Bottom line, F1000 needs to break the shackles that the SCCA has around it's neck. Run as a standalone. You can still run SCCA. Hopefully the rule won't be too out of whack. Just put on your restrictor and training wheels when you run SCCA events. But this class will not grow from within that (SCCA) organization. Just way too many peoples hands on the rulebook.

I couldn't agree more Thomas, thanks for finally chiming in.

[RobLav]

Me too Gary... I couldn't agree more with Thomas.

Yes Jay... I know all on one dyno. But what about all the other variables? How did you derive restrictor sizes for engines you did not test? In the ECU, what was the A/F ratio and timing advance throughout each of the runs throughout the rev range and between engines? Was each engine brand new? or rebuilt? If so, by who? What was your Measure of Performance for making conclusions and recommendations? Was it peak HP? peak torque? Or area under the curve of each? How did you average across multiple runs for each engine?

You're basically telling the people that pay for all this fun that they have to swallow your recommendations without seeing the complete results. Reminds me of Congress lately where they have to vote before being able to read the bill. Nothing ever good comes out of that. What you are doing is disrespectful to the SCCA FB membership.

Why don't you simply release the data to the customers (owners / entrants) to help them decide their pro/con letters to the CRB?

[Northwind]

I've had more than one discussion with F1000 sponsor reps about showcasing the F1000 Series at karting events. Hoping to bring in the new blood. For what they spend on a season of karting they could run F1000. But they really aren't interested. Like the cars. Yeah. Like the paddle shifters. Yeah. Like the SCCA? Noooooooooo....

Thomas just where or what organizations are capturing these ex-cart racers looking to move up in the world of racing here in the United States? And about how many kids can financially afford to take this step? Enough to support F1000 across the country?

Just put on your restrictor and training wheels when you run SCCA events.

So you are saying F1000 has nothing to offer at the current level of performance for these up and coming drivers? It seems Mr. Lathrop has a different opinion about that and I am confident he has been very active at that level of motorsports and offers a sound opinion.



Just way too many peoples hands on the rulebook.

Yes the rules should be the same if there becomes a pro series. It will benefit the class. But there is not a stand alone series at this time or your demographic model to support one. I am pretty sure that is why this thread got started was to discuss the possibilities and how we should move forward. If you have any actual numbers of drivers that are willing to jump into the class if the rules are as you think they should be please let us know on this thread. It may help us make the best decision.

[Jnovak]

My take is that the restrictors rule. if it comes to pass, will be a complete bust. But by the time everyone realizes it the damage will have been done, and that damage may be irreparable. At least as far as SCCA FB is concerned.

Nicholas Belling and I spent nearly a year developing the Suzuki 009 engine and countless thousands of bucks. We had talked about doing a development on the Kawi as well. We did it for various reasons. Some which JR mentions. But if there had been a restrictor rule in place at the time we wouldn't have spent a dime on it, or for that matter any other engine. Not one single damn penny. At least I wouldn't have.

This restrictor rule will have the effect of freezing engine development right where it is. If you have now is what you want 5, 10 years from now, then that is what you will have. In doing so it will kill off a lot of the momentum that this class currently has. Kill it dead in it's tracks.

That means you can forget about new blood coming in. For much of the appeal of this class will be gone for them. It's hard enough already to get fresh faces into this class.

Demographics? Do I really need to explain this one? Look around the paddock at any SCCA event. It's mostly made up of grizzled SCCA old guard racers flogging around dinosaur race cars. Me included. It's not really the place for this class at all. All shiny and new like. Anyway, what happens when these old guard racers finally decide to hang it up? This is probably mostly why SCCA membership is down and the paddocks are less full. The SCCA has yet to figure out how to reinvent themselves and appeal to a younger generation of drivers. Does any of that sound like a formula for growth?

Most young drivers don't need the SCCA anyway to pursue a professional driving career, if that is their goal. My first 20 years as a racer I didn't even have an SCCA membership card. And I raced around the world. Europe, Canada, USA.

F1000 has a lot going for it. But it isn't going to grow sustainably any bigger if all we do is poach drivers from other SCCA classes. Also any growth potential it has is going to get stymied whenever you just start throwing edicts down off the mountaintop at the competitors over issues that don't yet even exist. Solution in search of a problem. Perfect analogy.

I've had more than one discussion with F1000 sponsor reps about showcasing the F1000 Series at karting events. Hoping to bring in the new blood. For what they spend on a season of karting they could run F1000. But they really aren't interested. Like the cars. Yeah. Like the paddle shifters. Yeah. Like the SCCA? Noooooooooo.... Let's face it. The appeal of the runoffs and the road to the runoffs wore off years ago. Most of the younger drivers couldn't care less about running a majors race. It's only the older drivers that have been around since whenever that seem unable to wean themselves off of that that still make it (the runoffs) still viable.

Bottom line, F1000 needs to break the shackles that the SCCA has around it's neck. Run as a standalone. You can still run SCCA. Hopefully the rules won't be too out of whack. Just put on your restrictor and training wheels when you run SCCA events. But F1000 will not grow from within that (SCCA) organization. Just way too many peoples hands on the rulebook.

I understand what your are saying Tom. What sanctioning body will help make this happen?

Make sure you send your letter to the CRB. I do not remember seeing one from you.

[JerryH]

Thomas,

I can't see how having more engine choices, with near equal power can damage the class. Some of the most popular classes in scca are spec engine classes.

You are right that most aspiring pro drivers are not running scca. They are either on the so called "road to indy" or running overseas somewhere (except for nascar types of course).

But, the important point here is MOST OF THE PRO RACING LADDER SERIES HAVE SPEC ENGINES.....and it hasn't hurt their participation. The well attended classes in Rands series are all spec engine classes as well. Following your logic that would kill those series. It seems the opposite is true.

I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A STAND ALONE F1000 SERIES (and be part of a ladder to somewhere).....BUT we need to walk before we can run (we have barely passed the crawl stage at this point). When there are enough cars to support such a series, we should do it.....but to do so now will likely fail, as so many so called "pro" series have done. I have been involved in many of them since 1967.....and biting off more than we can chew can end up badly. We have been there already....and it was a severe blow to the class.

If we branch out on our own now, when we don't have enough entries, it will not attract the young guns either.....and where will that put us (?)....entry fees and cost so high that many who now run will bow out.....reducing our numbers even further.

A strong club class helps a pro series.....and a strong pro series helps the club class. To have either, you must attract new drivers....AND keep cost under control to keep them there.

It is the old song.....which comes first, the chicken or the egg. In this case I think we need to build our numbers first.....then a seperate series would be a good move. You obviously feel a pro series will grow the class faster.

Either way, restricting the engines will have no negative effect. If it would, all the spec engine "pro" series would not be so well attended.

Jerry

[Jnovak]

Gents, I totally understand your thoughts and frustrations with the process.

My questions are:
Where were you when the committee was formed?
Where were all the dissenting letters when the proposal was first put out for member comment in late spring?

The very few letters (total 3) that have come in have done so in the last month AFTER the CRB and the BOD had already made their decisions. Not a single letter for months after the first request for comments. WTF do you expect?

If you do not like the process YOU HAD BETTER PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS. You certainly seem to find plenty of time to write posts on APEX SPEED. If you guys had been involved 10 months ago?????

It is now a done deal and we will have to make do.

[Tony Moore]

Hi Jay,

What does too fast mean? Is there a lap time minimum established that we are not allowed to cross?

If you look at the 2007 AARC results, Pritchard qualified at 1:22.7. That is still a great time today.

Most of the fast Atlantic teams are running in the Pro series. I think it's more of a case that they are slowing down more than we are speeding up.

Can you specifically help us understand their concerns and how they quantified them?

Thanks for your help

JR,

You hit the nail on the head. We can't help FA drivers that are slower than the car's potential stay faster than a well driven FB. I spend a lot of time at the track timing FB and FA cars. This is a setup tool for judgement where we should be lap time wise. I am shocked how many FA cars are slower, dramatically sometimes, than a decent FB. In seven years, the average FB lap time may be approximately 2 seconds faster. That is 2% +/.2 on the average track. Horspower may have increased 10 to 15HP. With 180 baseline +/- a few and 15 max increase, we have maybe 8% more HP and a 2% decrease in lap times? Forget the restrictors! HP of the month or year isn't a factor. The biggest single factor is the human element. A great driver can make a mediocre car competitive and a novice will always make a fast car slower than it's potential.

Jay,

You and the ad hoc members, George, etc deserve thanks for your time and work. However, those of us working our _____ off designing, building, driving and otherwise doing an all out effort to grow this class aren't happy about the restrictors. As pointed out by Gary, the Kawasaki is a weight penalty. Larry Vollum, JR and many others have sunk significant $$$$ and time in the Kawasaki . This benefits everyone later. Don't choke their engines and future involvement in the class.


Parting note from me. The only forms of cheap racing I can recall were pinewood derby and figure eight 2 car HO tracks.

Tony Moore

[Jnovak]

Fact: the CRB posted the FB restrictor plan in the June 2014 Fastrac

Fact: since that posting there have been a total of 4 scca members who have posted a total of 5 letters on the restrictor subject. Yes, that is a giant total of 4 members and 5 letters

Fact: 3 letters for restrictors (1 writer wrote 2 letters)

Fact: 2 letters against restrictors. Both of these letters are dated after 11-01-14

Suggestion: send your letters for or against restrictor to the CRB. You will spend hours here on ApexSpeed but you won't spend 10 minutes writing to the CRB.

Try this: http://www.crbscca.com

[AEA_Team_Lotus]

Tom,
I agree with you 100% I am one of the young guys that break the mold of SCCA as you describe, and to your point. If the SCCA takes the FB Rules down a path that is destructive, we as a group should look to another series, NARRA for example comes to my home track Monticello Motor Club for the US Radical Cup. When you look at their weekend format, and the rules that NARRA uses for the USPC (prototypes) Class it is pretty close to what we collectively are looking for in F-1000. Well fielded, single race group, rules that allow for variety of chassis / engine combinations, safe and professionally run races, and a legitimate series championship.

I don't know anyone at NARRA or if they are interested in hosting FB.
But it might be an option...

[Jnovak]

Tom,
I agree with you 100% I am one of the young guys that break the mold of SCCA as you describe, and to your point. If the SCCA takes the FB Rules down a path that is destructive, we as a group should look to another series, NARRA for example comes to my home track Monticello Motor Club for the US Radical Cup. When you look at their weekend format, and the rules that NARRA uses for the USPC (prototypes) Class it is pretty close to what we collectively are looking for in F-1000. Well fielded, single race group, rules that allow for variety of chassis / engine combinations, safe and professionally run races, and a legitimate series championship.

I don't know anyone at NARRA or if they are interested in hosting FB.
But it might be an option...

Did you write a letter to the CRB Anthony?

[Jnovak]

JR,

You hit the nail on the head. We can't help FA drivers that are slower than the car's potential stay faster than a well driven FB. I spend a lot of time at the track timing FB and FA cars. This is a setup tool for judgement where we should be lap time wise. I am shocked how many FA cars are slower, dramatically sometimes, than a decent FB. In seven years, the average FB lap time may be approximately 2 seconds faster. That is 2% +/.2 on the average track. Horspower may have increased 10 to 15HP. With 180 baseline +/- a few and 15 max increase, we have maybe 8% more HP and a 2% decrease in lap times? Forget the restrictors! HP of the month or year isn't a factor. The biggest single factor is the human element. A great driver can make a mediocre car competitive and a novice will always make a fast car slower than it's potential.

Jay,

You and the ad hoc members, George, etc deserve thanks for your time and work. However, those of us working our _____ off designing, building, driving and otherwise doing an all out effort to grow this class aren't happy about the restrictors. As pointed out by Gary, the Kawasaki is a weight penalty. Larry Vollum, JR and many others have sunk significant $$$$ and time in the Kawasaki . This benefits everyone later. Don't choke their engines and future involvement in the class.


Parting note from me. The only forms of cheap racing I can recall were pinewood derby and figure eight 2 car HO tracks.

Tony Moore

Did you write a letter to the CRB Tony?

[Tony Moore]

Did you write a letter to the CRB Tony?

Yes, quite a while back.

Tony

[Jnovak]

Yes, quite a while back.

Tony

As a member of the FSRAC I get an email every time a new letter is posted and I read every letter immediately. I also can look at the letter system and search for letters or names. The only letter I found that you wrote is letter #5804 regarding the proposal to add weight to FB cars using paddle shifters. I find no letter wrt restrictors or any other letters from you in the system.

Please point me to the letter so that I can read it.

[Terry Hanushek]

Jay et al

Fact: the CRB posted the FB restrictor plan in the June 2014 Fastrack

Fact: since that posting there have been a total of 4 scca members who have posted a total of 5 letters on the restrictor subject. Yes, that is a giant total of 4 members and 5 letters

Fact: 3 letters for restrictors (1 writer wrote 2 letters)

Fact: 2 letters against restrictors. Both of these letters are dated after 11-01-14

Suggestion: send your letters for or against restrictor to the CRB. You will spend hours here on ApexSpeed but you won't spend 10 minutes writing to the CRB.

Try this: http://www.crbscca.com

The BoD approved the CRB recommended FB restrictor table at its 31 Oct - 1 Nov meeting, effective 1/1/15. This action is reported in the Recommended Rules Change document on the SCCA website ( http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...014%20(2)1.pdf ). This document is a bit difficult to use but the Oct-Nov changes start on page 16; the FB restrictor changes are on the next page.

HTH

Terry

[Jnovak]

Jay et al

The BoD approved the CRB recommended FB restrictor table at its 31 Oct - 1 Nov meeting, effective 1/1/15. This action is reported in the Recommended Rules Change document on the SCCA website ( http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...014%20(2)1.pdf ). This document is a bit difficult to use but the Oct-Nov changes start on page 16; the FB restrictor changes are on the next page.

HTH

Terry

I think everyone knows Terry, some are simply not happy and are hopeing it will not happen.
Of course the real question is: How many people read this stuff even though they can very easily?

[sprocketmensch]

Jay,
We all appreciate your time and energy and no one should be attacking anyone here on the forum. It is a place to discuss and perhaps disagree but not attack. That said, I for one do not keep up very closely with the SCCA rules changes on a regular basis. It takes a post here for me to be aware of anything. I am curious why, with so few drivers, the CRB didn't simply email all the FB drivers and ask for input at any time in this process. They certainly have our emails and it is a simple thing to do. Something like this would go a long way to feeling the system is more transparent. I'm sure as someone who is close to the process you feel that everyone must be aware but that is not so. Many of us enjoy racing but don't have the time or inclination to follow the myriad behind the scenes actions.
Perhaps the SCCA should "push" this info out to the members rather than have the members sort through monthly postings looking for something that might be relevant. Just a thought.

[Jnovak]

Jay,
We all appreciate your time and energy and no one should be attacking anyone here on the forum. It is a place to discuss and perhaps disagree but not attack. That said, I for one do not keep up very closely with the SCCA rules changes on a regular basis. It takes a post here for me to be aware of anything. I am curious why, with so few drivers, the CRB didn't simply email all the FB drivers and ask for input at any time in this process. They certainly have our emails and it is a simple thing to do. Something like this would go a long way to feeling the system is more transparent. I'm sure as someone who is close to the process you feel that everyone must be aware but that is not so. Many of us enjoy racing but don't have the time or inclination to follow the myriad behind the scenes actions.
Perhaps the SCCA should "push" this info out to the members rather than have the members sort through monthly postings looking for something that might be relevant. Just a thought.

This is a GREAT IDEA Doug. Please submit a letter to this effect to the CRB system. The only issue I see is that the club would have to assign someone to create a driver/class email database, not an easy task IMO.

[Thomas Copeland]

Jay, you are right. And I encourage everyone to write a letter to the BOD (even though probably too late). Something which I'm working on doing myself. Also I was unaware the rule had actually been approved. One reason why I haven't written one yet and stayed silent for so long was I wasn't really sure what level of involvement I would have in F1000 going forward. Still don't exactly. Various reasons for this. Some people know why. But last few weeks I decided I'm not walking away. But I can tell you when I run F1000 next year I won't be running with a restrictor plate.

I know there was a lot of effort and time put into this restrictor rule and I imagine with good intentions. I can appreciate that. Probably a good foundation for establishing a restrictor rule if its ever needed. But it's just too premature. There needs to be a reason for having one and I just don't see it.

Since this is the topic of this thread, I stand by that the SCCA is not the place where F1000 will grow. It just doesn't have the membership. Or the right membership. Or the right venues. It's a great place to get things started. But FB/F1000 will unlikely be anything more than it is now if all it does is run within the SCCA. Regardless of how much effort is put into it by the SCCA or USF1000 Championship. I have ideas on how to make it grow. But implementing them takes time and effort. Maybe something could happen in the next 2 years (not next year though) but like I said, if it did happen, it would take place outside the SCCA.

[Tony Moore]

As a member of the FSRAC I get an email every time a new letter is posted and I read every letter immediately. I also can look at the letter system and search for letters or names. The only letter I found that you wrote is letter #5804 regarding the proposal to add weight to FB cars using paddle shifters. I find no letter wrt restrictors or any other letters from you in the system.

Please point me to the letter so that I can read it.

Maybe it got zorched in the system. Long gone and spilled milk now. I think a lot of gripes posted so far concern the overall uncertainty for the class. The proposal has been around most of this year and it becomes an effective rule in 2 months. Should have been effective with more time for everyone to develop and test before implementation. We can and are doing it. Not everyone else has a machine shop at their beck and call. To be fair to the whole community, the rule should be effective 2016 season or at least mid 2015 so it will be tried and true propor to the next Runoffs.

BTW, a digital caliper is only as accurate as the operator. A proper measurement of a restrictor should be with a bore micrometer. A couple others have brought up points as to what tolerances are to be held. If it is a hot day and they measure a 40mm or 38mm restrictor. It will be different. Slight, as in .0002" varience from 68F to 85F. Will that be an issue? I have personally seen how "accurate" a tape measure is used at the runoffs! Temperature of fuel caused "tech" varience and a few DQs. Resubmission at ambient temp corrected at least one DQ on fuel.

Thanks for looking. Back to work now :-(

Tony

[ghickman]

Guys
It's not too late to continue sending requests to stop the restrictor ruling. Follow the link and send in your response.

http://www.crbscca.com/

To the Ad Hoc Committee:
I pointed out a glaring omission in the restrictor rules. Perhaps I'm the only one that caught it but I know Jerry Hodges is aware of it. Is this wording being corrected.

Jay you know about this?

[Jnovak]

BTW, a digital caliper is only as accurate as the operator. A proper measurement of a restrictor should be with a bore micrometer. A couple others have brought up points as to what tolerances are to be held. If it is a hot day and they measure a 40mm or 38mm restrictor. It will be different. Slight, as in .0002" varience from 68F to 85F. Will that be an issue? I have personally seen how "accurate" a tape measure is used at the runoffs! Temperature of fuel caused "tech" varience and a few DQs. Resubmission at ambient temp corrected at least one DQ on fuel.

Thanks for looking. Back to work now :-(

Tony

They also use go-no go gauges. They also had a known spec restrictor plate that they could compare ours with. They did a very good job and showed me all the measurements. They also asked me if I wanted to measure myself but since we were legal I did not see the need.

.0002" variation would not be measurable on a dyno.

[Jnovak]

Guys
It's not too late to continue sending requests to stop the restrictor ruling. Follow the link and send in your response.

http://www.crbscca.com/

To the Ad Hoc Committee:
I pointed out a glaring omission in the restrictor rules. Perhaps I'm the only one that caught it but I know Jerry Hodges is aware of it. Is this wording being corrected.

Jay you know about this?

We have sent in a revised wording. Not sure when that will be posted. I believe that the issues you pointed out were addressed.

[ghickman]

We have sent in a revised wording. Not sure when that will be posted. I believe that the issues you pointed out were addressed.

They'd better clear it up soon. January is right around the corner.

Just another reason why I feel at a minimum this ruling should be delayed for very obvious reasons.

Come on guys lets hit them with a response to stop this restrictor rule.

[AEA_Team_Lotus]

Did you write a letter to the CRB Anthony?

Jay,
To steal from Doug, we all appreciate your efforts, and that of the SCCA for making this class a reality and improving it. My comment was not made to discourage or take a jab at you, the members of the committee, or the SCCA.
My point was that most mature classes of racing have multiple series that drivers can participate in,

I guess the question is that is F-1000 ready for multiple series.

[Tony Moore]

They also use go-no go gauges. They also had a known spec restrictor plate that they could compare ours with. They did a very good job and showed me all the measurements. They also asked me if I wanted to measure myself but since we were legal I did not see the need.

.0002" variation would not be measurable on a dyno.

Jay,

My apology for not making this clear. It would not be measurable on the dyno. I certainly agree with you on that. I have no trust for the SCCA being able to measure consistantly. Ask me offline sometime about them running a tape measure or fuel analysis. Gotta love the folks for doing their work on a volunteer basis. Just a few out there aren't as skilled as they should be. Tough to be you if you are on the wrong end of their tech. There are a lot of great folks out there too. We've known several for nearly 31 years I have been involved.

JRO just posted trap speeds from the Runoffs. If I looked only at numbers, the Kawasaki is at a disavantage already.


There is another survey going which is getting considerably more responce. Now we have track experience to reflect on.

Best Regards,

Tony

Back to CAD now.

[Jasonrmbell]

Jay are the rules set on the restrictors ? Meaning they are in affect 1-2015 or 3-2015?

[Wren]

I guess the question is that is F-1000 ready for multiple series.

No. John Lewis made it work for two instances by offering big money to entice people to come, stealing everything he used, and not paying any of the expenses associated with putting on the races.

It will take a wealthy person who wants to piss away a lot of money.

[Jnovak]

Jay,
To steal from Doug, we all appreciate your efforts, and that of the SCCA for making this class a reality and improving it. My comment was not made to discourage or take a jab at you, the members of the committee, or the SCCA.
My point was that most mature classes of racing have multiple series that drivers can participate in,

I guess the question is that is F-1000 ready for multiple series.

Not a chance in my opinion. If you look at the total entries for all Runoffs eligible Formula classes FB is 6th out of 8 open wheel classes for the 2014 majors season.

Please note that all majors entries are down by a lot due to a different system (Nationals v Majors) and the number of races. I also think that the Runoffs being at Laguna cost a lot of entries due to travel costs to the west coast for the Runoffs. Just my opinion though.

2014 Majors entry totals are as follows:

FF - 221
FV - 213
FC - 141
F5 - 139
FA - 123
FB - 115
FM - 100
FE - 96

To me it is very obvious that FB does not have the total entries required to support a separate pro race season.

[Jnovak]

Jay are the rules set on the restrictors ? Meaning they are in affect 1-2015 or 3-2015?

I do not know.

[Jnovak]

Delete

[Jnovak]

Jay,

JRO just posted trap speeds from the Runoffs. If I looked only at numbers, the Kawasaki is at a disavantage already.

Best Regards,

Tony

Back to CAD now.

"If I only looked at the numbers". A good point Tony. Maybe there is more data to look at.
I suggest that you look at the SCCA data here. http://www.scca.com/events/results.cfm?eid=6670

This link shows the lap times, the splits from 3 segments of the track as well as the trap speeds at the start finish line. I suggest that you examine all 3 Q sessions and the race. There is lots to learn. Here are a couple of examples:

JROs traps speeds in the race averaged around 111 mph
Alex Mayers traps speeds in the race average around 113 mph
JROs split 3, which is the split that includes the front straight, his fastest split is 33.044 sec
Alex Mayers fastest split was a 33.549. This is just over .5 second slower than JROs split.

Ask yourself this question. How can JRO be 2 mph slower but .5 seconds faster in the same split? This is not tough it is called Downforce and with Downforce come the commensurate drag associated with the additional Df.

Also note that JRO had the fastest segment times in all 3 segments. Downforce pays dividend at this track.
Also note that JRO had a 114 mph trap speed in Q1. Does this mean that he had a lot more power in Q1 or perhaps that he had less Df?

Now the points above are not meant to say ANYTHING negative about JRO or his team. I have nothing but respect for them and what they have accomplished. WHAT I AM SAYING. Is that you simply cannot compare the engine power in such totally different cars with totally different aero, chassis setups and weights as raced.

The only way that you can compare engine power, on the track, is by using the 2 cars of the same make with the same aero and chassis set ups but with different engines. If you did this you would have a much better chance to state that engine A was better than engine B.

So how do you compare engines? On a DYNO. That is what DYNOS are for and that is what the FB ad hoc committee did.

Now I frankly do not care what the restrictor sizes are or if they are the same or different between engines. What I do care about is that we control the costs of engines for this potentially great class. Also PLEASE REMEMBER that we were given the task to keep the FB speeds under control.

If you do not like that then you should talk to the members of the BoD and the insurers of racing in the SCCA.

Now I have said plenty enough about this so I am signing off. Let's go to work and go racing.

[Jasonrmbell]

I agree too !!! lets race .... Restrictors or not ....
Jay thanks for all the info and time you have devoted to this. I can say I am ok either way. And i have a car with a GSXR and A car now with a Kawi and either way ill adapt to the rules.
When you remove a possible edge people tend to get ****ty.

[R. Pare]

so how do you compare engines? On a dyno. That is what dynos are for and that is what the fb ad hoc committee did.

Use a dyno???

Blasphemy!

[JRMarchand]

I'm one of the guys that cracked and wrote a letter, on a cold early-November morning. Jay is always saying to "write your letter guys", etc.... I figure why not, nothing to lose, could at least chime in with the CRB and let them know that the BMW motorcycle was not tested on a bike chassis dyno by FB committee, yet it was assigned a restrictor sizes smaller than the Kawasaki. I am hoping that the CRB consider my petition of having the 40mm restrictor based on fact that manufacturer's claim put the kawi ahead of the bmw in horsepower figures, I know kawi claimed 200hp but then it was 197hp, the bmw has always been 194hp.
My letter was not against restrictors, but really about fairness or the lack of in regards to the assignment of the 38mm plate on the BMW. My letter was not against restrictors, that's all I know. in the end, clearly a lot of whining, yea.

I did play around with a restrictor today, it is from SCCA ENT, a 38mm Spec Miata plate, looks hideous, painful to see these awesome engines get blocked like this, I feared the day would come. hold your breaths maybe the CRB will not take action at this point.

[RobLav]

They also didn't test the Honda but decided on a restricter size (basically none) for that too.

[Thomas Copeland]

Jay, I've already stated that the any pro series that formed would be outside of the SCCA. So those participation numbers are meaningless. F1 is running with 20 car field. We got that many just here on the West Coast. In a years time getting that kind of field together for a pro series is entirely doable.

Best intentions aside, I really think the CRB/BOD ought to really start worrying about the damage they can be doing if this rule gets enforced. I will not run with a restrictor plate. That's final.

[JerryH]

Both the ad hoc committee and the crb know adustments may be needed. This was never set in stone.......but we need good data to make informed decisions.

We will have the opportunity next year to compare the Kaw and GXSR in the SAME CHASSIS. There will be at least one Phoenix with a Kaw, and probably a JDR. Both can be at min weight with the kaw.

If we look at acceleration data from a slow roll to top speeds seen at faster race tracks...say 50 to 140 or so....in the same chassis.....with the same wing settings and near same weight......that will be useful in making an adjustment if needed.

We just can't compare data from two different chassis.....with totally different drag and weight. Also, we can't just look at top speed.....or acceleration up to something less than to speed. we have to look at acceleration over the entire speed range.

It will probably take a full season to gather enough data.....but it is imperative we do so.

Until we have that data, the restrictor sizes recommended by the ad hoc committee are a very good starting point......and are based on very good analysis of lost of dyno data, gear ratios in the different engines, rpm operating range, etc.

Jerry

[JerryH]

Thomas,

It is true that a pro series needs only 20 or so car fields to survive......but that is unlikely to happen with the number of cars out there.....unless someone comes up with a very large series sponsor to pay out large purses, and cover the added cost.

Even then the fields will be limited by the available cars with the budget and time to make the long tows (assuming it will be the nationwide series that a big sponsor will want). It is unlikely to be 20 at this point in time......and 10 or 12 will not keep a sponsor happy.

For any lower level pro series to survive and grow, there needs to be club level guys to sell the older chassis to. This allows the pro teams to acquire new equipment and creates a source of less expensive cars for the club racers, which grows the club class. A high profile pro series definately attracts more people to the club class. The two help each other.

We both want a viable, highly visible pro series. If you can come up with that big sponsor package, maybe you can make it happen sooner than I think.

IF not, we need to keep going the way we are......overlapping on majors weekends.....and keeping the club participation numbers up.

Restrictors will do that.....by keeping all engines (current and future) competitive with one another.....and in so doing insure that newer engines can be brought into the class.......without forcing anyone who has a currently competitive engine to change until he is ready to do so. Adjustments to restrictor sizes may be needed.....when on track data supports it.

If you will not run a restrictor....there is always the honda.....which could work out to be a good option.

There is a very small hp drop on the gsxr at 42 mm......(and the kaw at 40 will have a couple more on top end).......so speeds will not change much.......so why the strong oppositon?

Jerry

Jay, I've already stated that the any pro series that formed would be outside of the SCCA. So those participation numbers are meaningless. F1 is running with 20 car field. We got that many just here on the West Coast. In a years time getting that kind of field together for a pro series is entirely doable.

Best intentions aside, I really think the CRB/BOD ought to really start worrying about the damage they can be doing if this rule gets enforced. I will not run with a restrictor plate. That's final.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I've been reading and watching this thread since it started and decided to wait to chime in. So, here it is - flame suit is on....

Perspective: I'm new to formula cars. Do not own one yet. Have been studying for over a year. I have a small budget.

This discussion started as a "future" discussion and quickly went off topic to a "restrictor plate" discussion which is also repeated in the rules section. You want more drivers - certainly. So, as an un-invested outsider (and target of the group) here's my thoughts.

A year ago I was convinced that FB was it. Modern designs, cheap motors ($3k for a "fresh" motor AND gearbox) but now I'm not so sure. My thoughts on the different classes:

FV: Just not enough car (power) to move me. Competitive cars get very frequent rebuilds @ ~ $4k. Some several times a season. Running a 1200cc on the ragged edge? The promise of cheap racing no longer exists in FV. Large regional grids.

FF: Still not enough car. But the competitive people are all running the FIT and they are all driving the costs up. Decent regional grids.

FC: Enough power/speed. Lots of activity everywhere. Class is divided between Pintos and Zetecs (old and new) but a Pinto can be competitive if driven right. Decent regional grids.

FB: Enough power/speed. Lots of excitement. Class is half converted cars and half purpose built. Costs are rising not falling. Small regional grids (5-6 cars).

FE: Enough power/speed. Not much excitement. Cars are actually "perfect" in many ways (durable motor, sequential trans, modern aero). Higher buy, lower run costs. Non-existent regional grids for me - I think there are 3 cars in CalClub....

So, at this point my conclusion is a Pinto FC as the first step into open wheel. The talent varies a lot, but exists at the regional level. Motor refresh is not horrendous. I can wrench it myself at any/all levels (nothing spec/sealed). There is room to grow within the class. Maybe in the future I can convert to FB or change cars to FB or ?

This thread was about FB Future. As an outsider and potential participant, here is what I see as the problems with FB.

Cost – as I said, costs appear to be rising. Why do I say this? Well, look at the discussion on restrictors and engines - Too many engine choices. No other class has so many engine choices and people want to develop more. Why? The predominant reasoning for a different engine choice is more reliability, lower operating cost. But if you spend $10-15k developing a new engine package how many engines do you need to consume before break even? Why not spend the R&D on making the existing packages more robust? The attractive low cost engines soon become a costly problem and, as FB and other cars use these engines, the supply starts to shrink – raising prices.

Disparity – more engine packages = more disparity = a rule book jammed in your airbox! There is disparity in chassis between the converted and the spec built.
Even though cheap power was a big factor in FB, it seems cost containment is not.

JerryH’s original post has a lot going for it…. But let’s get real about a few things….. Prize money and sponsorships are not in my horizon – that’s for developing drivers who are TRANSIENTS to the class. Issues 3 & 6 are the big ones. 3 is about cost, 6 is about numbers. If you can’t contain the costs, you won’t get the numbers. Where do the numbers come from? A lot comes from budget racers. If you can’t get the budget racers to spend their dimes on FB over other classes, you are totally reliant on the “demographic” Copeland alluded to – which is the tail wagging the dog. Wealthy individuals CAN change on a whim – its their prerogative.

Help me understand my ignorance…

[JohnPaul]

I've been reading and watching this thread since it started and decided to wait to chime in. So, here it is - flame suit is on....

Perspective: I'm new to formula cars. Do not own one yet. Have been studying for over a year. I have a small budget.

This discussion started as a "future" discussion and quickly went off topic to a "restrictor plate" discussion which is also repeated in the rules section. You want more drivers - certainly. So, as an un-invested outsider (and target of the group) here's my thoughts.

A year ago I was convinced that FB was it. Modern designs, cheap motors ($3k for a "fresh" motor AND gearbox) but now I'm not so sure. My thoughts on the different classes:

FV: Just not enough car (power) to move me. Competitive cars get very frequent rebuilds @ ~ $4k. Some several times a season. Running a 1200cc on the ragged edge? The promise of cheap racing no longer exists in FV. Large regional grids.

FF: Still not enough car. But the competitive people are all running the FIT and they are all driving the costs up. Decent regional grids.

FC: Enough power/speed. Lots of activity everywhere. Class is divided between Pintos and Zetecs (old and new) but a Pinto can be competitive if driven right. Decent regional grids.

FB: Enough power/speed. Lots of excitement. Class is half converted cars and half purpose built. Costs are rising not falling. Small regional grids (5-6 cars).

FE: Enough power/speed. Not much excitement. Cars are actually "perfect" in many ways (durable motor, sequential trans, modern aero). Higher buy, lower run costs. Non-existent regional grids for me - I think there are 3 cars in CalClub....

So, at this point my conclusion is a Pinto FC as the first step into open wheel. The talent varies a lot, but exists at the regional level. Motor refresh is not horrendous. I can wrench it myself at any/all levels (nothing spec/sealed). There is room to grow within the class. Maybe in the future I can convert to FB or change cars to FB or ?

This thread was about FB Future. As an outsider and potential participant, here is what I see as the problems with FB.

Cost – as I said, costs appear to be rising. Why do I say this? Well, look at the discussion on restrictors and engines - Too many engine choices. No other class has so many engine choices and people want to develop more. Why? The predominant reasoning for a different engine choice is more reliability, lower operating cost. But if you spend $10-15k developing a new engine package how many engines do you need to consume before break even? Why not spend the R&D on making the existing packages more robust? The attractive low cost engines soon become a costly problem and, as FB and other cars use these engines, the supply starts to shrink – raising prices.

Disparity – more engine packages = more disparity = a rule book jammed in your airbox! There is disparity in chassis between the converted and the spec built.
Even though cheap power was a big factor in FB, it seems cost containment is not.

JerryH’s original post has a lot going for it…. But let’s get real about a few things….. Prize money and sponsorships are not in my horizon – that’s for developing drivers who are TRANSIENTS to the class. Issues 3 & 6 are the big ones. 3 is about cost, 6 is about numbers. If you can’t contain the costs, you won’t get the numbers. Where do the numbers come from? A lot comes from budget racers. If you can’t get the budget racers to spend their dimes on FB over other classes, you are totally reliant on the “demographic” Copeland alluded to – which is the tail wagging the dog. Wealthy individuals CAN change on a whim – its their prerogative.

Help me understand my ignorance…

1) Not understanding your comment " Too many engine choices" in FB. There was only one up until this year. Now there are 2.
2) FC is not cheap at all. It's probably as expensive or more than FB.
3) FC fields are not very big in SCCA. Here on the east coast I've seen as many or more FB's at the races I've attended. The place to race them is at the Pro Series which is really expensive to run (especially if you want to win)
4) FC doesn't come even remotely close to the performance as an FB (or fun factor). They are much slower and those H pattern tranny's suck ass.

I can also tell you all this from personal experience. I went from an FB to an FC and quickly (after one weekend) back to FB.