This threat has been out there for the last 4 years now. Forcing restrictors on the entire field of FB cars to quote "slow them down" or improve "TBO" or pick your reason of the week isn't going to magically make the class participation spring back to life. It will have the exact opposite effect.Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
So what is your plan to recover?
This isn't some sort of "gotcha" trap, Gary. I really want to know. I want FB to succeed, but if it continues to "succeed" at the same rate next year as it did this year, it will be gone at the end of 2016.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Leave it alone. If you support restricting the cars that plan will fail.
Your doom and gloom for extinction by the end of 2016....come on Stan really. Ok so now toss all the numbers at me I know you are a numbers guy.
Come to think of it... if you love the class so much build a car, put your son in it and I'll see you at the track.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
I believe that the dramatic reduction in entries for FB is due to the huge increase in the cost to compete in the class.
We sold 9 Van Dieman conversion kits to customers who built their cars for a net cost of from $20K to &30k. This was the ready to race net cost to get on the track. Now just to get started you have to spend 3 or 4 times that. A point to note is that that $20k car has recorded the fastest top speed for an FB at RA and another one of those VD conversions won the first years Pro Championship with the Coopster behind the wheel.
What made FB so great in the beginning was simply the speed vs the cost. The real question is there any way to get back to that level of relative cost? I do not think so unless we can get the many cars out of the garages and on the track and lowering engine costs would help that a lot.
Last edited by Jnovak; 12.15.15 at 12:58 AM.
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)
As someone who's always lusted after getting in an FB, this is something I have said for quite a while...
Am I the only one who thinks it's a really, really bad and massively unsafe idea to combine a carbon tubbed, 1345lb, tank with a spindly 1000lb tube frame car? What will happen if there is a car to car collision? Not to mention the FA could intentionally pile into the FB and be just fine.
As a lustful outsider, if FB and FA were combined I would no longer be lustful.
You mean these official SCCA participation numbers?
Class 2013 2014 2015
FA 435 259 68
FB 399 292 141
You can convince yourself that if we just "leave it alone" it will recover, but my decade's experience on the CRB and FSRAC tells me a different story.
Which reminds me, you in on helping Jerry and me write up the merger proposal?
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
What? Where do you get these figures from? You can spend as little as you want or as much as you want, there's a nice Speads RM11 for sale for $26,000 right now.
There's a nice Novak Conversion done originally by Randy (forget his last name) now owned by Mike Crowe for $29,000. That car was wicked fast in Randy's hands.
Yes you can buy my car which has every bell and whistle you can stick on a car and that will set you back $60k.
Properly driven any of the sub $30k cars can be at the pointy end of the grid. Stop whining and go race.
The range is there pick your weapon.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
I can see the class surviving, just not as a Runoffs eligible class. If there are only 20 active cars in the Majors, then how will there be a large field at the Runoffs?
I do not believe the CRB wants to see ~10 car fields for class championships. Look at the fields at the last Runoffs. Pretty weak for FC, FB, FE, FM, FA. Unless of course they run FC, FB, FE, FA, FM in the same run group, some of those classes are going to be dropped. They could drop one weak formula car class and have 30+ Gen2 SRFs to fill a run group in a heartbeat.
It is about numbers. Period. Why should SM guys (for example) be subsidizing track time for classes with low turnout?
I have been reading past accounts of class histories in the '70s and 80's. There is a precedent that with low turnout the class is eliminated. We were fortunate that from 1995 to about 2010 there was stability in formula classes (which historically was not always the case.)
You bet. I'm building a 350hp FB car to make a stab at Pikes Peak in 2016. Ok if we write that into the NEW FB rules to FA. That'll make you super popular with the FA crowd.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
I guess you weren't at Daytona this year, we had 20 cars. I believe the 3rd highest participation of all the open wheel classes.
I'll bet we have the same number of cars at Mid Ohio and more at Indy.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
Yep. IIRC, 1982 was the last year of the V8-powered FA cars. Five showed up at the Runoffs, but only 3 took the checkers, so the BoD axed the small bock Chevy guys and moved the then-FB cars (1600cc 4-bangers) up to FA.
Not only that, but back then FC had (IIRC) first 1100cc Cosworth engines, then 1600cc aircooled VW Type 1 engines, then 1100cc motorcycle engines, and finally 2000cc Pinto engines. Even that last one gave way to 2000cc Zetec engines about a decade ago, though the increasingly rare Pinto is still legal.
It's the story of SCCA.
Not to worry...I'm already "super popular" with the FA crowd.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
StanYep. IIRC, 1982 was the last year of the V8-powered FA cars. Five showed up at the Runoffs, but only 3 took the checkers, so the BoD axed the small bock Chevy guys and moved the then-FB cars (1600cc 4-bangers) up to FA.
Not only that, but back then FC had (IIRC) first 1100cc Cosworth engines, then 1600cc aircooled VW Type 1 engines, then 1100cc motorcycle engines, and finally 2000cc Pinto engines. Even that last one gave way to 2000cc Zetec engines about a decade ago, though the increasingly rare Pinto is still legal.
It's the story of SCCA.
Not to worry...I'm already "super popular" with the FA crowd.
I think you are off on your years just a bit. 1977 was the last year for the FA class. The following year the 1600cc cosworth FB cars became FA, that year I raced a March 76b which the following year became FA as we know it.
I believe in 79 the water cooled super vees ran as Formula Continental.
Sorry for the thread hi-jack stepping down memory lane.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
speed vs cost
as you said Jay...SPEED VS COST IS THE MAIN DRAW OF THE CLASS.
SLOWING THE CARS DOWN WITH 37.5 RESTRICTORS ACROSS THE BOARD
WILL NOT HELP....THAT IS THE WORST THING WE COULD DO....IT REDUCES THE SPEED ATTRACTION.
NOW TO THE COST PART OF THE EQUATION: If people feel they have to switch to a kaw or bmw or whatever comes down the pike, it scares them off due to the cost....so no newcomers.....and some current owners are considering leaving the class for that reason. (add up the cost of 2 engines, dry sumps, exhaust, and the loss on the two you now have. it's 15 thou minimum.....plus a geartronics if needed.)
To fix that, you need some level of parity between the engines. P2 RESTRICTORS DO NOTHING TO ADDRESS THAT. the power difference is very nearly the same....but at a lower level.
New cars can still be had for $60 thou.....ready to race.....AND there are several competitive cars for sale at bargain prices......but they are not selling all that fast. I think it is for the above reasons.
WE NEED TO STOP THE P2 RESTRICTORS...AND WORK TOWARD A COMPROMISE WE CAN ALL LIVE WITH. Gary had suggested something that we thought might work.....but it got sidetracked.
By the way, FF, FC and FA count is down partly due to the pros series drawing them away. I think those pro races should be sanctioned as "restricted majors" to make the competitors runoffs eligible. It might save those classes at the club level.
Jerry
Jerry, you are a smart guy and you know better. A 5 hp reduction in peak HP will not slow FB down more than a few tenths of a second per lap In fact if you do the calculation of top speed for Daytona your fastest car would have slowed down a about 1.4 mph in top end.
This is based on your having 175 hp and going 165 mph (kind of an avg for the sessions) top speed. Now I do not know your exact frontal area or your exact Cd, but just using other similar open wheel cars as a starting point that will produce 165 mph with 175 hp to start and 170 hp after will reduce the top speed from 165 to 163.6 mph. So the net effect is that you are loosing about 1.4 mph for a loss of 5 hp.
Just simple physics Jerry.
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)
FB and FA already run together in just about every majors race. Plus I wouldn't worry about someone intentionally crashing into an you. Are you that paranoid? Lol
"If you're not driving on the edge you're taking up too much space.... "
Is there any competitor posting here on Apexspeed that is for restrictors? I am not sure of all the players in FB but like Reid have been watching from the sidelines considering joining from time to time but uncertainty sure puts the brakes on that thought.
As to FA numbers decline, I would lean to the Pro Series taking many of those numbers away from SCCA Club.
Steve Bamford
It seems like a healthy discussion when different factions of racers in a class are fighting with each other to determine the direction of a class. That happened almost a decade a go in FB when the group that wanted FA-like performance won out over the group that wanted FC-like performance.
It does not seem like a healthy situation when SCCA people and potential vendors are telling the racers how they are going to fix their class for them. We know how that turns out!
If the potential vendor wants to sell cars, he might want to stop predicting the class will be dead in a year.
Greg Rice, RICERACEPREP.com
F1600 Arrive-N-Drive for FRP and SCCA, FC SCCA also. Including Runoffs
2020 & 2022 F1600 Champion, 2020 SCCA FF Champion, 2021 SCCA FC Champion,
2016 F2000 Champion, Follow RiceRacePrep on Instagram.
The bottom line is that some of the competitors that run the 07/08 Suzuki, and a car builder who designed his car around the 07/08 Suzuki are pushing for restrictors on all engines EXCEPT the 07/08 Suzuki.
Ciao,
Joel
Piper DF-5 F1000
Rev Limiters
I just want to float this balloon and see where it goes.
Would there be interest by the FB community to install rev limiters on all the cars and set to some specific limit?
The drag bike guys use these on the starting line to maintain a steady run up before they launch. All the manufacturers I've been in communication with say they can be fixed internally at a pre-determined rpm.
They're not expensive, less than $250. Don't require any dyno tuning like a properly installed restrictor should be. They're compact and reliable.
The main company I've narrowed my search down to supplies the International Dwarf Cars Association with their rev limiters, everyone has to run them.
Last edited by ghickman; 12.15.15 at 1:47 PM.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
There is a big difference between sharing the track and competing against one another for position.
Let's say I am in an 016 and you are in an FB and you are leading. It's the last lap, and I want to pass. I know if we touch, I will be just fine and you will be balled up in a heap in the grass. Do you think that would not come into play? In European FF they started upping the wall thickness of the suspension to gain this exact advantage.
Like I said, just my opinion.
Rev limiter
Gary,
I would be in favor of rev limiters!
Shawn McClure
Rev Limiter
Gary,
Per post # 379... I favor a rev-limiter solution for the reasons I listed in post # 304.
Some other great ideas for the class have been mentioned in this thread, but they either don't address the ultimate goal the SCCA has in mind (I think?), or the solution requires ECU / engine development time and a testing program to get it right. Too much complexity. Too much time. Too much money. I put restrictors in this category. I don't see how we can just add them without development, testing, time money etc., and if we get it wrong we order another size restrictor and do it all over again.
A rev limiter solution should be simple and relatively low cost. If it needs tweaking we change the RPM limit; simple simple simple. Let's get this done in a manner that helps the SCCA meet their primary objective. Save the good but more complex options for next year in what has become an annual FB holiday season debate-fest. Merry F1000 to all!
Mike
Are you proposing to set all rev limiters at the same RPM? or different RPM's for different engines ? Makes a big difference !
I'm not sure Gary. This is a detail we could work out if needed. I realize the Kawasaki has a different power band than the Suzuki.
This would be in my opinion more favorable than a restrictor, particularly since there is zero dyno time with the Kawasaki using a 37.5mm venturi restrictor.
There's no development curve for a rev limiter and requires no ecu map or time back and forth to the engine builder.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
It's not all about top speed......at most tracks, we spend more time accelerating than at top speeds.
Not exactly the same.....but 5 hp was a second a lap in the FCs my son and I ran 15 years ago. Granted they only had 150 hp to start with.....and we only had one engine that far down......but it really sucked. We could get the top speed back up by trimming out the wings....but the lap times suffered. There was no compromise that would keep the car at podium level performance. My son was on the FC pole at the 2000 runoffs , so we were at the pointy end of the grid.
Perhaps if we saw the dyno data from the 37.5s we could all believe the 5 hp drop....but many do not. we could also see the reported increase in mid range that you speak of. with out that dyno data, it is hard to sell. We do know that a 42 flat plate drops 7 hp...and that is only a 2mm size reduction. we have that data. 37.5s would drop a ton more. so we need to see the data on the 37.5s to be sure fairing in the restrictor brings the power back up to that reported 5 hp drop.
I would also like to see how much this reported " mid range boost" is and at what rpm. we spend a vast majority of our time between 10500 and 12500. At Elkart above 11000. Exiting slow corners we see 9500.....rarely 9000.....so any curve that is better below 10 isn't worth loosing much above that....which they always seem to do. If the driver is seeing less than 9500 he better be in first gear....and trying for more corner speed. Not in the rain of course.....totally different.
Jerry
If Stan's participation figures are correct maybe you are solving the wrong problem. I am a Vintage Ford guy (in all senses of the word) - been racing Fords since 1967 but have followed current FB since its inception. It should be a great class but in just 2 years is becoming marginalized. Frogs note here explains some of the mess that SCCA has created - FA, FB, FC, FM, FE now F4 oh and not forgetting FF. And of course pro FC and pro FF etc. How many classes for open wheel cars can the USA support? When is the FU class coming? The reason so many "series" for Fords have started is because the SCCA screwed with the class and destroyed it and now we are wandering in the darkness trying to figure out how to resurrect it. I give SCCA the benefit of the doubt that they are all working in good faith, there are some good guys on Apexspeed, but my my, we do fall foul of the law of unintended consequences on a regular basis.
You all running FB need to re-form the ad hoc committee and that should be the body that recommends, on behalf of all the FB guys, to the SCCA. That way you have a permanent strong voice in the future and do not read of major engine rule changes 5 minutes before the next race - if you know where to look on the SCCA webite. You cannot manage it on Apexspeed - you can get views, but a small team needs to be speaking with one voice to SCCA. For every 50 posts on Apexspeed you will see 60 different views!
The concern about engine life is understandable given the early history. It may be fixed now but there is probably some remaining stigma, and clearly there are guys prepared to rev beyond safety to stay up front - see runoffs. The rev limiter sounds a great idea - does not mess with the engine, but you will need a different setting for each engine to ensure parity. I recall there were those that wanted a free for all at the beginning - this has been the cost. There are only a limited number of people that want to enter a non-pro class that requires engineering skill on par with driving skill.
Action. You need to grab this by the throat before it becomes another sidelined class - there is no need for that. There is stuff that can be done - you could approach the engine manufacturers to see if they will help with engine supply - possibly turn it into a single engine class - does it matter as long as you have enough usable power?
Now I will retire back to spectating.
BB
Unfortunately every new class that is "economical" becomes expensive over time.
Atlantics used to be able to be had for $20K and competitive ones at that.
I paid $5.5K for the super vee that finished third at the 1980 runoffs in spring of 81. Try to touch a competitive FC for that now a days.
All I am saying is that without some intervention it is inevitable that the cost of a class will escalate beyond the ability of the average racer to afford.
That said, outside intervention is needed in the case of FA and FB.
Said intervention must be done intelligently so as to not disenfranchise those in the class. Therein lies the rub. No matter what is done, some people will not be happy. But for the greater good should that risk not be taken?
I am not for restrictors! But something for stability I would like to know I can run five years with out being obsoleted. OK race is over we head to the scales and impound, SCCA can't even seem to get all the cars to impound before time is up. Oh
and you want to inspect my restrictors, alright let me get the body off and the snorkel removed then the air cleaner box now I need to remove the gantry injection so you can stick your pingpong ball on a stick down my intake runner. I really can't see this working, maybe you can seal the motor in impound and come find me later.
At Majors they never checked our restrictors in F500 wether a 2 stroke or an MC engine. At the Runoffs they did check all the restrictors in impound but not a lot more. We thought we were going to tear the motor down when they asked us for the shop manual, did not happen though.
IMO tech is getting much more difficult for the tech guys. In years past our engines have always been torn down when we won and once we were torn down after finishing 2nd.
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)
Good News
[QUOTE=Stan Clayton;493725]You mean these official SCCA participation numbers?
Class 2013 2014 2015
FA 435 259 68
FB 399 292 141
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOOD NEWS The numbers are not actually as bad as stated above from Stan.
I think that Stan was cross eyed from reading this thread.
I could not fine the data on the SCCA web site for 2013 but this what I found for 2014 and for 2015 thru Oct.
FB 2014 majors 115, non majors 177, total of 292 (same as above)
FA 2014 majors 123, non majors 136, total of 259 (same as above)
FB 2015 majors 122, non majors thru Oct 125 total of 247
FA 2015 majors 96. non majors thru Oct 72 total of 168
Numbers for FB majors (122 vs 115) are up for 2015 and the complete numbers are not in for non-majors
[QUOTE=Retired Driver;493821]Thanks for pointing this out Retired Driver....once again you have proven your awesomeness. We need you around more.
The other day I was talking to JRO on the phone, he said he wasn't surprised by all the thrashing around over this restrictor sh^*t, we both agreed it was coming from just a few individuals pushing their agenda...whatever that might be. I'm sure JRO is glad to be out of the class...this crap just wears you down.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
RE: What's next for FB?
I hesitate to post this at all, but here are some bits from my perspective:
First a note about my perspective; I am not a run-offs competitor and race primarily locally since the travel races are just too much time away from work/family, but I still care about the class both locally and nationally and like to believe I can consider the perspectives outside of my own.
1) The “Problem” [or ‘one of’ the problems] – it is pretty ridiculous that a brand-new car comes with a 2007/2008 engine. A combination of stock ECU and stock parts for rebuilds means that the population of engines is always going down
A potential solution I believe is two-fold 1) Open ECU to widen the pool of applicable engines combined with 2) Some kind of restriction to prevent real or imagined horsepower creep.
Do I want a restrictor on my GSXR? Not really – but am I willing to accept one in order to expand the available pool of engines for the entire class? Definitely.
Do I want competitors to spend $$$ on an expensive ECU that may gain them an advantage? Not really – but I am willing to accept it to expand the available pool of engines for the entire class – maybe I will even be able to eventually upgrade myself.
Do the engines all need to be identical in output? Nope – just close enough – we are all amateurs (whether we like to believe it or not) after all.
*** A small HP loss is probably the least of my worries – the lap time advantage I could gain from improving myself and losing weight vastly outweighs any advantage I might get from a few HP.
I downloaded the same files you did. The only explanation I have is that SCCA updated them between our downloads. Good catch.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOOD NEWS The numbers are not actually as bad as stated above from Stan.
I think that Stan was cross eyed from reading this thread.
I could not fine the data on the SCCA web site for 2013 but this what I found for 2014 and for 2015 thru Oct.
FB 2014 majors 115, non majors 177, total of 292 (same as above)
FA 2014 majors 123, non majors 136, total of 259 (same as above)
FB 2015 majors 122, non majors thru Oct 125 total of 247
FA 2015 majors 96. non majors thru Oct 72 total of 168
Numbers for FB majors (122 vs 115) are up for 2015 and the complete numbers are not in for non-majors
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
A great post Pete, I totally agree that the class, to survive, needs new motors. I also think we need to cap the HP around the level of the current Suzuki motors. Now I do not know how much power a currently developed GSXR motors are making. In 2011 we did a lot of dyno work with one of the best engine builders around and the best power we saw on his chassis dyno was just north of 175hp on a top notch motorcycle chassis dyno.
IMO 175-180 hp is a great target for the class. So the question is how best to let the new motors into the class that have 190 to 200 hp at much higher RPM?
Now putting rev limiters on these motors is the easy solution in that ther is little or no work required to get it running. However, the dyno work and wars will start up immediately to find more HP at the lower end. The fact is it can and will be done by spending lots of $$ on the dyno. Longer air horns, changing the adjustments on adjustable air horns, adjusting the camshaft timing. The list goes on and on and as long as the $$$ keep flowing the cost to compete at the front will continue to rise along with the speeds.
So the above said.
1. I am all for a simple rev limiter as long as it can be properly policed. I think there are too many ways around it, but I could be wrong.
2. I do not like a rule that would allow for the use of any ecu. Any ecu will drive the cost to the sky. Perhaps a low cost spec ecu might be an answer. The real question is: is is really needed or is this rule just going to bring in the OVER 200 hp BMW or other motors.
3. Current IIR (individual inlet restrictors) of the same size for all motors will keep the power of current motors within about 7 hp. This is based on extensive dyno fata that I and others have seen. The argument about the type of restrictors is not meaningful from a technical perspective as they will produce very similar power but just at different sizes. For instance a 37.5mm Venturi style restrictor as is used in the P2 class makes about the same peak HP as a 42mm flat plate restrictor but the engine runs cleaner with a bit more torque with the Venturi restrictor. A Venturi type restrictor will flow about 25% more air than a true flat plate restrictor of the same size.
4. If true flat plate restrictor are mandated the rules would have to require NO AIR HORNS above the flat plate as ANY AIR HORN WILL DRAMATICALLY INCREASE THE FLOW OF THE TRUE FLAT PLATE RESTRICTOR. This is another good reason for mandating the P2 Venturi type of restrictor.
5. A single inlet restrictor is actually the most successful type of restrictor at limiting hp in different engines of the same displacement. This type of restrictor is used in many racing series around the world. It is easy to police as all that is needed is to check the size and the check to see if the engine stops immediately when the air inlet is blocked. This type of restrictor will be very small. For example the 2.3L Mazda/Cosworth motor used in FA makes about 305 HP with a 33mm Venturi type restrictor. These systems are expensive to build because each engine requires a totally sealed air box and extensive dyno work.
6. An SIR solution on a 1000cc bike engine would require an approximate sized SIR between 25mm and 30mm
It certainly appears that the CRB wants to implement some sort of restriction on the power level of the FB class. Short of defining a single engine to use one of the above needs to be picked.
Just to let you know, the FB ad hoc committee was given the ASSIGNMENT by the CRB to limit the power in the class. I can tell you that the FB ad hoc committee looked at EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE ABOVE SOLUTIONS LISTED ABOVE. The committee also contributed their own $$$ to fund a lot of dyno work. And George Dean also donated TONS OF HIS TIME and equipment to define appropriate restrictors.
Our results clearly defined that the power could be equalized or adjusted to just about any common level. However no one liked the concept of different sized restrictors or RESTRICTOR at all.
IMO the CRB has defined that they are limiting the speed of the class. What is next for you?
Last edited by Jnovak; 12.16.15 at 1:45 PM.
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)
If I may make a suggestion :
If you implement anything, start off with a rev limiter only. Least expensive, easiest to install, and probably the easiest to inspect. Run them for a couple years to see what actual effect it has on participation, then revisit if necessary.
I agree that is is the simple solution, but how does tech police this?
I know that Don Armany is supposed to have a functional solution but have never seen any data.
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)
A rev limiter may be all those things, but requiring one would inevitably also require extensive testing and validation (who's gonna pay for it?), and would constitute a rule change since it's not already provided for, so as a practical matter cannot be implemented before the 2017 season at the earliest, and probably much later in reality.
On the contrary the provision to require inlet restrictors has been in the FB rules (2015 GCR 9.1.1.G.5) since day one, and requires only publishing in Fastrack. Moreover, their use has already been well worked out in FB for the past two years, all the FUD on these pages to the contrary notwithstanding.
Last edited by Stan Clayton; 12.16.15 at 2:08 PM. Reason: added content
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Sounds like the simplest solution to me as well. If as much effort went into evaluating rev limiters as went into restrictors, I am sure that an inexpensive and enforceable solution could be obtained.
Sound control (which already exists at most tracks) could perform spot checks. All that is needed is a microphone and a computer with some simple software to get RPM traces from the sound of the engines. If severe penalties result from spot check violations, I am sure competitors would think twice about cheating. I can help out with this if needed.
Set the limit at 12,750 or 13,000 RPM and the the Suzuki would not be effected but all later engines would be limited.
Ciao,
Joel
Piper DF-5 F1000
I thought you guys had worked out direct from the manufacturer sources for engines?? If you picked ONE as a 'class supplier' you might be able to control the changes to a greater degree. It's the only way to avoid the monthly "best engine" issue.
CREW for Jeff 89 Reynard or Flag & Comm.
Rev Limiters
The rev limiter system that Don mentioned earlier was a simple box. It did not actually limit engine rpm. It would, however, have a light to indicate if the engine had been operated above a set limit for some specific period of time. The box had two displays, 1 for correct operation, and in indication if the engine had exceeded the rpm limit and the time limit.
Actually limiting engine RPM was up to the contestant. Tech only had to look at the lights. If the over rev indicator was on, the contestant could take it up with the SOMs and present the case that it was accidental. Otherwise the contestant was excluded from the race results.
To keep people from cheating the boxes, all the boxes would be put in a basket and each contestant would draw for the one he would use that weekend. The Indy Lights series did this with ECU on the old Buick engines.
The box does exist now.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote