FB - 2015 Runoffs

[John LaRue]

Mike if the engines are lasting two seasons then you guys don't have a problem. If someone wants to switch engines between qualifying and practice, big deal. It sounds like Wren has it right.

This is such a non-issue that it isn't worth worrying about. I can't imagine how it saves money. People swapping their engines before the race are doing it because they don't understand these engines. Swapping your Kent or Pinto is worth it, swapping your bike motor is pointless unless you have hurt it.

The CRB/FSRAC is not looking to make changes if they are not warranted and properly justified.

[Charles Livingston]

Mike if the engines are lasting two seasons then you guys don't have a problem. If someone wants to switch engines between qualifying and practice, big deal. It sounds like Wren has it right. The CRB/FSRAC is not looking to make changes if they are not warranted and properly justified.

The point some on here seem to be continually not understanding is that we are trying to avoid P1 (or at least the old DSR), where it seems that in order to be competitive you have to run the motors so high/hard/etc. that they don't last. It is presumed that the Kawasaki does not lose power above the point where the revs drastically reduce the life of the engine (13,500 or above?). The guys running motors for two years aren't revving them past 12,5 and therefore aren't getting that extra horsepower.

Also, why does the severity of the failure have anything to do with preventing special qualifying motors? If your motor is so highly tuned that it can't last a hardship lap, then detune it. I'm sure exceptions can be made for a motor that has failed for reasons other than performance gains (e.g., if the problem in P1 is just getting the motors to work, etc.)

I'm interested in hearing more input from other F1000 owner, drivers, and constructors. Thank you to those that have already chimed in.

Charles

[John LaRue]

Charles,

These are supposed to be stock engines so your comparison to DSR/P1 is off the mark in my book, but none the less I do understand your point. I was surprised to hear that engines are lasting multiple seasons.

If the engines "are" stock then the only thing left to do short of a rule change (which would not be effective until 1/17) is to install restrictors, an SIR or limit revs. IRRC the restrictors were on the slate for 2015 when there was a decided voice from the FB community objecting, thus in the 12/14 meeting the CRB declined to make any changes to the engine rules. Here we are one year later and the same issues are being raised.

John

[Wren]

Finally, about the tires - I don't want a spec tire, but two sets per weekend?! I wish... That is exactly double my budget. Yes, that's my problem, but if we want to continue to attract more drivers we should keep the cost of being competitive down. By limiting the sticker tire allocation to a single set for Qualify/Race1/Race2 you level the playing field without adding any cost - how can that not be a good thing? For the Runoffs, make it two sets, as the qualifying occurs over 4 days, but this is an easy way to eliminate from $7k - $10k from the annual racing budget while making the racing more competitive.

Like I said earlier, making people race on what they qualify on has been tried in plenty of classes. It doesn't work, it costs more money, and it hits the low budget guys the hardest. If you have a few decent sets of tires around, then you can do a weekend without buying any more tires. This rule forces you to buy tires if you don't have a set that is going to be good enough to handle all of the sessions. The smart low budget guys typically have great processes for making tires last multiple weekends and it always involves rotating through multiple sets of tires in a weekend. Qualifying and racing the same day on a set of tires is hard on the tires and doesn't allow you to let the tires sit overnight like Hoosier recommends.

All of these limiting tire rules will result in competitors choosing to run fewer laps. Running laps is the fun part of the weekend. If runoffs tires were limited, it makes spending more money on the test days essential and people will use even less track time.

The point some on here seem to be continually not understanding is that we are trying to avoid P1 (or at least the old DSR), where it seems that in order to be competitive you have to run the motors so high/hard/etc. that they don't last. It is presumed that the Kawasaki does not lose power above the point where the revs drastically reduce the life of the engine (13,500 or above?). The guys running motors for two years aren't revving them past 12,5 and therefore aren't getting that extra horsepower.

There is no comparison to P1/DSR, those guys were not on stock motors. If you want to limit the RPM's, then restrictors are the perfect solution.

People are going to run them hard, this is racing. The entire point is to run them hard.

I was surprised to hear that engines are lasting multiple seasons.

The reality for the Suzuki engine in a fast driver's car was that it would go 1500 miles and then it needed to come out. Anything past that was running a big risk of breaking the head off of a valve. If you hit the rev limiter, over heated it, or lost oil pressure then you were rolling the dice no matter what.

[jaltaman]

Sorry Wren, I didn't make myself clear, forgive me.

By the way I am one of those people who rotates through used tires on the weekend. I always run used tires for the practice day and qualifying, then I use my one set of sticker tires for the Saturday and Sunday races. Then those become the practice and qualifying tires for the next weekend, and so on.

What I was looking for was a rule to set a ceiling on the amount of sticker tires that you could run during Qualify/Race1/Race2.

So no limit on the used tires - to your point, that hurts us - but put a cap on the number of sets of sticker tires that can be used.

There, why didn't I say that before?

[ghickman]

This whole thread blew up because everyone was outraged over how many engines JRO and Roggenbuck went through. Most if not all their issues were related to forgetting to tighten an oil line, another was a loose water line clamp, get my point. These guys were really thrashing around and they made mistakes. I got all this from their engine builder not second hand.

Stressing your engine over the rev limit isn't going to buy you anything. They simply stop producing power at a certain point. Learn to driver better and spend more time on the track to accomplish your goals.

In my opinion these proposed "Cost Cutting" suggestions WILL NOT WORK. I'm still going to spend the same amount on tires, same amount on engine rebuilds, etc. Learn to manage your tires better and treat your engines right.

The After Market valves and maybe springs to go with them for at least the Suzuki is a great way to reduce cost and at the same time improve reliability. This is something I would recommend highly to the CRB.

I think we all need to step back from this and let another season go by and see where we are at.

[Zcurves]

I'm no JR or Brandon, but I may as well throw my 2 cents in as well. I run a Suzuki the whole season, which is 10-14 races, qualifying, and test days when I need/can afford them. It works better with my schedule to do a swap over the winter. If a fresh engine makes it past the first couple sessions, then it's good for the season. Knock on wood! Over revving, coolant loss, and things of that nature notwithstanding. Is it possible that I'm missing out on a couple HP by not swapping out sooner? Possibly. I've heard George say that he's had brand new Ti valves fail on the dyno and other engines running reliably with the original ones. I would be all for SS valves.

I warmed up to the idea of restrictors after to talking with a couple engine builders. I even had some made and tested on the dyno. The difference was negligible. I think it's a good idea if it will increase engine life and allow me to remain somewhat competitive with the Suzuki.

It's a PITA to swap motors in my car and I don't have the resources to do it at the track unless there was a catastrophic failure at the runoffs or SIC. I have no problem complying with that rule, but I'm not pushing for it either.

I don't buy tires every weekend. I had a couple sets of low heat cycle tires that I swapped at the runoffs, so I didn't even buy any there. Daytona just doesn't seem bad on tires anyway. I could go either way on this one as well. So in summary, none of these suggestions are going to change what I do, so I'm ok either way.

[ghickman]

Is it possible that I'm missing out on a couple HP by not swapping out sooner? Possibly. I've heard George say that he's had brand new Ti valves fail on the dyno and other engines running reliably with the original ones. I would be all for SS valves.

Tim
This is 100% correct, the Ti valves are crappy. The tops are friction welded to the stem and they can go at any time.

I don't even bother doing a leak down on the Suzuki, if you do it might scare you.

Do a cranking compression test when you first install the engine. This gives you a good baseline to go by. I do a cranking compression test after every race weekend. I don't like to see anything below 195 psi across the board. I believe the factory manual says 180 is minimum.

FYI
Careful when removing spark plugs. They can snap off real easily. If you have one that is stuck let it be. When you R&R use plenty of anti seize and use a torque wrench when tightening to the factory spec.

I like your tire management, obviously you are doing it right.

[Tyler Thielmann]

I do not like the way they did restrictors. (P2) allowing them to be profiled defeats the purpose. If we do restrictors they need to be flat plate.

If we are going to use them I cannot stress how important this is! One manufacturer, clearly marked, flat plate!

Also I am glad everyone is communicating on issues right away in the off season. Lets come to some agreeable terms to make the series better!!!

[Jnovak]

I do not like the way they did restrictors. (P2) allowing them to be profiled defeats the purpose. If we do restrictors they need to be flat plate.

If we are going to use them I cannot stress how important this is! One manufacturer, clearly marked, flat plate!

Also I am glad everyone is communicating on issues right away in the off season. Lets come to some agreeable terms to make the series better!!!

Flat plates will work and are the easiest to police. If flat plate restrictors are used they need to be on top of the throttle bodies to be properly effective for all engines.

That said, a properly sized shaped restrictor will work just as well if they are exactly the same shape and size for all engines. The difference is that they will need to be MUCH smaller in the ID. This could easily be a spec sized air horn manufactured by one supplier and all must be exactly the same.

There is one slight advantage to a properly sized air horn restrictor and that is that it will, most likely, improve torque at peak torque rpm.

[Jnovak]

I do not like the way they did restrictors. (P2) allowing them to be profiled defeats the purpose. If we do restrictors they need to be flat plate.

If we are going to use them I cannot stress how important this is! One manufacturer, clearly marked, flat plate!

Also I am glad everyone is communicating on issues right away in the off season. Lets come to some agreeable terms to make the series better!!!

The problem with the P2 restrictors is that all the original testing to determine the sizes were done with Flat Plate restrictors and then someone figured out that by using special air horns you could dramatically reduce the effect of the flat plate restrictors.

If flat plate restrictors are used they must be done without fairing them in in any way. Doing this will control the engines pretty equally but it will hurt the low end torque a lot.

[R. Pare]

Slightly off topic question concerning the T1 valve issue:

How much of the breakage problem is the design of the valves, and how much is guys not getting the lash perfect?

My understanding of these current engines is that the lash is supercritical because of how fast the valves close - if you are off spec at all, they will hammer into the seat instead of closing in smoothly.

Can anyone fill me in? Really just curiosity on my part.

[ghickman]

Slightly off topic question concerning the T1 valve issue:

How much of the breakage problem is the design of the valves, and how much is guys not getting the lash perfect?

My understanding of these current engines is that the lash is supercritical because of how fast the valves close - if you are off spec at all, they will hammer into the seat instead of closing in smoothly.

Can anyone fill me in? Really just curiosity on my part.

It's tough to tell, the postmortem is usually fairly ugly. In my opinion it is the valves that are at fault. I believe the engine builders would agree.

Most if not all of us are relying on our engine builder to set valve lash. I personally check the lash every other race weekend. I keep tabs on the condition of the engine by doing a cranking compression test, this will often times tell you there's trouble coming soon.