What's next for FB?

[Jnovak]

I like everything except 5 & 6.

New engines should be allowed to run the common restrictor...this will keep new engines entering the mix.....a good thing in my opinion....but the common restrictor will slow the pace of advancement so that you don't have to convert to a new engine every year.

Allowing an OPTIONAL use of an open ecu I think will save money for the people who are going to run a single car multiple years as converting to a different engine will be less hassle.

First, my only goal is to control the escalation of costs in FB. We would probably still be in FB but for the cost of motors.

#5 this is a problem for me. There are multiple motors available that can and will make well over 200hp with restrictors.. IMO the target performance should be the GSXR at something just below its unrestricted form. This will save the class IMO.

#6 Not a problem for me as long as #5 is in force. However, an open ecu rule will cost a ton of money and that will be spent on the BMW first, then there are other motors available that along with the BMW that can and will destroy any of the other motors currently racing in FB.

The only reason you can buy a $2500 BMW engine is because they cannot get them running in a car, once that happens a motor kit will go to a bare min of $5k. Well that's not bad at all but then add a minimum of $10k for the open ecu to make it run in the car. Now add Dyno work, dry sump, better cooling system etc and you are contemplating a $25K engine required to run at the front.

The above is the PERFECT RECIPE TO RUIN A CLASS. Sounds like a wonderful opportunity don't you think?????

[Stan Clayton]

Well said, Jay.

On the other hand the class cannot survive and thrive on the dwindling supply of 2008 Gixxers, so we MUST come up with a way forward. Steve Lathrop offers a possible scenario: specified ECU(s). Perhaps the same one used with the FC-Zetec if it's adaptable to m/c engines. Newer engines generally have been better (i.e., more powerful) than older designs, just as newer chassis have generally improved on older versions, but an appropriate inlet restrictor used as intended cannot readily exceed its inherent hp.

The bottom line for me is to not let the pursuit of perfection derail pretty darned close. Dragging our feet because reasons is a prescription for further declines in FB.

[jchracer]

First, my only goal is to control the escalation of costs in FB. We would probably still be in FB but for the cost of motors.

#5 this is a problem for me. There are multiple motors available that can and will make well over 200hp with restrictors.. IMO the target performance should be the GSXR at something just below its unrestricted form. This will save the class IMO.

#6 Not a problem for me as long as #5 is in force. However, an open ecu rule will cost a ton of money and that will be spent on the BMW first, then there are other motors available that along with the BMW that can and will destroy any of the other motors currently racing in FB.

The only reason you can buy a $2500 BMW engine is because they cannot get them running in a car, once that happens a motor kit will go to a bare min of $5k. Well that's not bad at all but then add a minimum of $10k for the open ecu to make it run in the car. Now add Dyno work, dry sump, better cooling system etc and you are contemplating a $25K engine required to run at the front.

The above is the PERFECT RECIPE TO RUIN A CLASS. Sounds like a wonderful opportunity don't you think?????

While it would be possible to spend in excess of $10K on a stand alone ECU it would not be "smart" money. I posted this a while ago (go to post #18):

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62351

Everything needed in a stand alone ECU and more for about $1000.

As for over 200HP WITH restrictors, I would like to see the data.....really hard for me to believe there can be that much HP left on the table. Not saying it's not true, just hard to believe.

[Jnovak]

While it would be possible to spend in excess of $10K on a stand alone ECU it would not be "smart" money. I posted this a while ago (go to post #18):

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62351

Everything needed in a stand alone ECU and more for about $1000.

As for over 200HP WITH restrictors, I would like to see the data.....really hard for me to believe there can be that much HP left on the table. Not saying it's not true, just hard to believe.

Check your email.

[SEComposites]

It seems to me running a stock ECU is somewhat self policing the influx of more powerful engines. Does running a stock ECU compromise engine reliability in any way? To get the most out of an open ECU would require a lot of money, from the hardware and software to dyno testing and simply having the expertise to run it properly. Not to mention the option to integrate gear shift control. FB could be on the brink of making a fatal mistake if engine cost/performance is not given some serious thought.

[jchracer]

Check your email.

Got your e-mail Jay. Thanks.

Yes, I understand that more power can be made with newer engines but given the state of the art, very little in the way of gains can be made without increasing RPM and thus flowrate. The data I am looking for is what happens to different engines with the same restrictor?

I find it hard to believe that there will be a large difference in peak output between engine A that was designed with a max RPM of 12,500 and engine B that was designed to run with a max RPM of 15,000 RPM if the correct size, common restrictor is chosen. Can anyone share that kind of data? In the absence of data, I will check with one of the CFD / Flow experts that I work with.

Remind me again why we don't just limit RPM? Compliance could be done with a microphone and some software.

[Gary Slahor]

Isn't all this talk based around a published, or dyno HP rating?

What has the on track, real world experience demonstrated ?
The fasted top speed recorded this year at Daytona was a 07/08 Suzuki ! ! (a good indication of HP -and yes aero too)
Should they be slowed down to make other engines more competitive ?

SCCA was supposed to instrument the cars to gather real word date before making any decisions. That hasn't happened yet. Until it does this is a theoretical conversation.

[Jnovak]

Got your e-mail Jay. Thanks.

Yes, I understand that more power can be made with newer engines but given the state of the art, very little in the way of gains can be made without increasing RPM and thus flowrate. The data I am looking for is what happens to different engines with the same restrictor?

I find it hard to believe that there will be a large difference in peak output between engine A that was designed with a max RPM of 12,500 and engine B that was designed to run with a max RPM of 15,000 RPM if the correct size, common restrictor is chosen. Can anyone share that kind of data? In the absence of data, I will check with one of the CFD / Flow experts that I work with.

Remind me again why we don't just limit RPM? Compliance could be done with a microphone and some software.

You are correct in stating that common restrictors or a common sized SIR will produce very similar HP on multiple engines of the same size. THIS ONLY WORKS IF THE RESTRICTORS ARE VERY restrictive. For example the SIR inlet opening for F3 2l engines is 28mm id. These engines make about 225hp to 230hp and are among the most sophisticated NA engines around that are designed SPECIFICALLY for this application. If you put a 25mm SIR on the 1000cc bike engines you would wind up with engines making somewhere around 125 hp. Obviously this will not work for FB.

Let's say that the faired in flat plate restrictors used by P2 which are 37.5mm in diameter reduce the HP on a GSXR buy about 5 hp. They would then also ruduce the HP of a ZX10R a little more than the same 10 hp leaving the ZX10R still having a small advantage.

If you look at the shapes of the power curves of these 2 very popular engines you would see that the ZX10R makes its peak power at a much higher RPM than the GSXR. This means that to take advantage of that motor you need to constantly be way up in the RPM range.

Now a rev limiter might help but if you looked at the power curves of the engines in use right now you would see that a rev limiter would ruin the ZX10R engine competitive position.

IMO the best options are:
1. Different sized restrictors. This is technically the best solution but is HATED BY EVERYONE.
2. Same size restrictor on all engines that takes 10hp off of the GSXR and a bit more off the ZX10R. This might be a viable solution but will slow the cars down. Who wants that?
3. Same sized restrictor on both engines but a restrictor size that takes 1 or 2 hp off of the GSXR and 5-6 hp off of the ZX10R. A very viable solution IMO that would probably give the ZX10R a bit of a peak power advantage which it probably needs.
4. No restrictors on the GSXR if the engine is 2008 or earlier and a modest common restrictor on ALL ENGINES that are 2009 and later. This allows the GSXR to be the standard but allows newer motors to come into the class.

The above points are made based on the examination of litterally dozens of dyno runs used for determining the size of the restrictors used in P2 and P2 is working with MANY new entrants.

IMO the best solutions for FB are either of number 3 or 4 above.
I think that the implementation of some sort of system that limits the peak power to something around the peak of the 2008 GSXR will provide the best result to ensure the future of this great class. If FB gets into a HP war then the class is dead within 5 years IMO.

The FB community needs to get onboard with some method of controlling engine power and thus the cost to race in this great class.

For EVERYONES BENEFIT, Please do not let a HP war happen.

Been thinking some more on this and I think that using the exact same size as the P2 cars on all engines is the right solution. easy for tech and very inexpensive to implement. Plus there has been a ton of work done for P2 and that class is growing like crazy.

[DonArm]

FYI this will still not work for the BMW S1000RR and you can get a 1500 mile motor for under 3k. After market ECU is the only way to make that one work.

Sorry Mike but I have to correct you. BMW has a race ecu kit available that can be used to get the BMW motor to work in the car. At least that is what I was informed of by the BMW dealer he in Indianapolis. The importer for the kit is on the east coast. I can go back through the info I acquired during the committee meetings.

[DonArm]

6. Must use the factory stock or race ecu. This effectively limits the use of the BMW engine.

Wrong ! BMW has a race ecu kit as I mentioned above. Available in this country but it must be ordered. Same as any factory race ecu.

[Jnovak]

6. Must use the factory stock or race ecu. This effectively limits the use of the BMW engine.

Wrong ! BMW has a race ecu kit as I mentioned above. Available in this country but it must be ordered. Same as any factory race ecu.

This is interesting. Has anyone actually done this?

[allof6]

This is interesting. Has anyone actually done this?

The BMW Race ECU is a pretty pricey item last I checked but this was back a few years when the race ECU was not approved in the class. There are also ways to re flash that ECU now as well.

[allof6]

It wouldn't be completely honest of me to say that ever-increasing power levels drove me out of F1000, but it certainly was the most distressing aspect of the class. So, it's very easy for me to believe it keeps people from joining (or staying in) the class.

It would be discussions like this that transpire every year at this time that is a bigger deterrent for new interest in this class.

[teddale]

Just my 2 cents, where was the highest placing none JR Kawasaki in all races this year and at the run offs. I bet Suzuki will win most races this coming year. Now JR has quit who ever buys his car I bet wont win most races. Why don't you just let it play out this year and see what happens. My money is on Alex or Jeremy winning most east coast events both Suzuki's.

[DonArm]

Here is a link to one of the companies http://alphaperformanceusa.com/
Or purchase the kit from a HP BMW dealer, BMW of Southest MI is one of them. control unit (ecu) enable code (which is the key component), data cable and software. $2767 out the door. John or Mike in the parts department.
FYI, I still firmly believe the rev llimit is the way to go. It is the simplest, safest and easiest way to go and to police.

[DonArm]

Just my 2 cents, where was the highest placing none JR Kawasaki in all races this year and at the run offs. I bet Suzuki will win most races this coming year. Now JR has quit who ever buys his car I bet wont win most races. Why don't you just let it play out this year and see what happens. My money is on Alex or Jeremy winning most east coast events both Suzuki's.

HERE HERE !!!!!!!! Agreed

[ghickman]

Just my 2 cents, where was the highest placing none JR Kawasaki in all races this year and at the run offs. I bet Suzuki will win most races this coming year. Now JR has quit who ever buys his car I bet wont win most races. Why don't you just let it play out this year and see what happens. My money is on Alex or Jeremy winning most east coast events both Suzuki's.

Been saying this for some time now, that was why I referred to it as the "JRO RULE".

Now that said I'm switching to Kawasaki power, not because I think it has a HP advantage but because I can get brand new engines for about $5300. I've got the Kawasaki GEN 4 running as a wet sump now so I don't need all the complicated dry sump associated with it and the added cost.

[Jnovak]

Here is a link to one of the companies http://alphaperformanceusa.com/
Or purchase the kit from a HP BMW dealer, BMW of Southest MI is one of them. control unit (ecu) enable code (which is the key component), data cable and software. $2767 out the door. John or Mike in the parts department.
FYI, I still firmly believe the rev llimit is the way to go. It is the simplest, safest and easiest way to go and to police.

I have talked to them. They claim to be able to make it work in a car but the customers says NO, it will not work.

I would love to know of a car that is racing somewhere on the planet with the BMW motor.

[JerryH]

Gary......comparing different drivers.... in different cars.... gives us no usable information.

It is not feasible to get the same car, same driver, and different engines..... on the same day.... in the same conditions....so the on track data will never be accurate.

More power...in the same car.....with the same driver.....equals a faster car. Otherwise why would anyone tune the engine looking for more power.

The later engines have more power....no one can dispute that. Yes, it is measured on a dyno....because that is the most accurate way of measuring it. If we compare the engines on the same dyno....with the same operator....then the results are pretty accurate. That is what the committee did.

Jerry

Isn't all this talk based around a published, or dyno HP rating?
What has the on track, real world experience demonstrated ?
The fasted top speed recorded this year at Daytona was a 07/08 Suzuki ! ! (a good indication of HP -and yes aero too)
Should they be slowed down to make other engines more competitive ?

SCCA was supposed to instrument the cars to gather real word date before making any decisions. That hasn't happened yet. Until it does this is a theoretical conversation.

[JohnPaul]

BMW won't work even with an aftermarket ECU. Ask the P1 guys that have spent stupid amounts of money. Its basically useless. As far as kawi vs Suzuki I'm sure there are two Phoenix chassis out there next year that can be fitted with the same exact aero, shifter system etc and driven by the same driver (Hickman wink wink) so we can really see the difference and if anything should be restricted (for now)

[ghickman]

Gary......comparing different drivers.... in different cars.... gives us no usable information.

It is not feasible to get the same car, same driver, and different engines..... on the same day.... in the same conditions....so the on track data will never be accurate.

More power...in the same car.....with the same driver.....equals a faster car. Otherwise why would anyone tune the engine looking for more power.

The later engines have more power....no one can dispute that. Yes, it is measured on a dyno....because that is the most accurate way of measuring it. If we compare the engines on the same dyno....with the same operator....then the results are pretty accurate. That is what the committee did.

Jerry

Actually it is, I have twin cars now.

[BURKY]

Actually it is, I have twin cars now.

[JohnPaul]

Why am I not surprised??

[JerryH]

Looking at post #88 from Jay Novak:

As jay said to get anywhere near equal power with the same size restrictor on all engines means the restrictor will be VERY SMALL.....knocking 10 hp or more off the gsxr....like in P2.

VIRTUALLY NO ONE WILL BE HAPPY WITH THAT.....no one wants to slow the cars down.....at least not that much.

Option 3 (one size that knocks about 2 off the gsxr and 5 off the kaw) will still leave the kaw with a 10 or so hp advantage.....instead of the 15 it has now....NOT REALLY WORTH DOING.

OPTION 4 SEEMS THE LOGICAL WAY TO GO (same size restrictor on engines made after 2008) The only question is what size. After looking at all the dyno results for several days, a 41mm flat plate restrictor on engines made after 2008 will limit the kaw to about 5 or 6 more up high and about 3 or 4 less down low.....close enough.....they will never be equal.
If a faired in restrictor is used (like in P2) then it will need to be a bit smaller. When faired in they make more power. 39 appears about right in that case.

A question was raised in another post: why wouldn't the same size restrictor result in the same power.

The same size restrictor will not always give the same airflow. Airbox and velocity stack design will alter it somewhat.

But even if we had the same airflow, there are several things that could result in different power output. Some of them are: Rod length to stroke ratio, piston design, pin height, ring package, cam timing, compression, ignition timing, combustion chamber shape, coatings on tops of pistons, having less oil drag because clutch is higher up (kaw and bmw), transmission gear face design and size, intake and exh port shape, size and texture.......and on and on if you really dig deep enough.

We can't legally change any of those....so we don't get equal power with the same size restrictor on all engines.

So back to Jays post. #! or #4 are really the only acceptable options.....and #1 was shot down last year.

Jerry Hodges

ps: if anyone is interested: advertised hp: 2008 gsxr is 185. 2011 zx-10r is 199. That is very close to what Georges dyno showed. Both add 5 for ram air......but at speeds we do not see.

[glenn cooper]

Actually it is, I have twin cars now.

Lemme know if you need someone to drive one of them - That will make FIVE F1000 chassis!

[JEREMY HILL]

I Like Jays option 4. 41 mm restrictors for 2009 and newer motors. Gary, I would be willing to help you do some back to back testing between your two cars.....Jeremy

[JEREMY HILL]

Hey Coop, it looks like great minds think alike (also fools seldom differ)!! Jeremy

[glenn cooper]

Well, HELL! There goes my plan, shot all to hell.
Gary, I texted you Jeremy's number.

Damn it, Damn it to hell!

^ That's a hell of a lot of hell's up there - not sure what's goin' on...

[Mike Devins]

Sorry Mike but I have to correct you. BMW has a race ecu kit available that can be used to get the BMW motor to work in the car. At least that is what I was informed of by the BMW dealer he in Indianapolis. The importer for the kit is on the east coast. I can go back through the info I acquired during the committee meetings.

I followed the path of the factory ECU for the BMW was told by a certain East Coast seller that it would work no problem. Now for the reality $10k later and still no luck - thanks VISA for getting our money back.

The reality is the BMW ECU wants to know it is in a bike. It want traction control or it will not function, it wants lean angle sensors. It still need the original key and the dash, in the end it is not as simple as the GSXR of the Kawi. On top of all that there is not manual available to the general public, not even a wiring diagram!

[ghickman]

I followed the path of the factory ECU for the BMW was told by a certain East Coast seller that it would work no problem. Now for the reality $10k later and still no luck - thanks VISA for getting our money back.

The reality is the BMW ECU wants to know it is in a bike. It want traction control or it will not function, it wants lean angle sensors. It still need the original key and the dash, in the end it is not as simple as the GSXR of the Kawi. On top of all that there is not manual available to the general public, not even a wiring diagram!

I looked into the BMW and came to the same conclusion.

I also looked into the 2015 Yamaha R1 as a possible donor engine. Yamaha will sell crate engines also. It would make an awesome car engine as It's design lends itself well for a wetsump, even more so than the 07/08 Suzuki. Problem is it uses an 8 axis gyro and there's no known work around for that and likely never will be.

[Daryl DeArman]

The reality is the BMW ECU wants to know it is in a bike. It want traction control or it will not function, it wants lean angle sensors. It still need the original key and the dash, in the end it is not as simple as the GSXR of the Kawi. On top of all that there is not manual available to the general public, not even a wiring diagram!

Perhaps some too simple-minded questions, so educate me a bit if you would.

Why not put the bikes' front and rear speed sensors on the same axle so they read the same speed and therefore don't intrude thinking you are getting wheel spin?

What happens to the perceived acceleration if you mount a multi-axis accelerometer (BMW's lean angle sensor) on a pendulum?

If that doesn't work, what about some type of filter circuit to greatly clip the amplitude of the signals the ECU sees in regards to the various acceleration?

[FrankRizzo]

For ME, the motorbike engine simpleton, I wonder what they DO with all that data. And, if someone could just make a "cheater board" that plugged into the harness and provided the data that it was expecting.

[ghickman]

Most of this talk about engine wars in my opinion won't ever happen because the factory ECU's are so tricky to find a work around that in a sense this is all self policing.

Until we allow an open ECU rule in this class you won't see many newer engines trickling in simply because the ECU won't allow it to function outside the bike.

So here we are stuck rebuilding engines that are approaching 9 years old which are intended to be "STOCK".

I haven't decided if the open ECU is a good idea or not. My guess is they could be expensive and if the SCCA feels we are going too fast now then maybe not even discuss it because with an open ECU there are a few new bike engines that might put us in FA territory very quickly.

[S Lathrop]

Instead of an open ECU rule how about a list of approved ECUs? That and a common inlet restrictor ( per P2 rules) might be the simplest and in the end the least costly way to keep the engine rules close to what they are now. And get back to the situation where new or low time engines were plentiful and reasonably priced.

Bottom line is the FB class has stagnated. New car sales are non existent and the prospect for bring a new package to market is dismal. The engine situation may be a significant reason this is the case.

I am a believer in the FB class. I think it could be the best driver training class prior to Indy Lights and Indy car. It also can be the a great class for the very talented amateur drivers who want the challenge of a very fast and demanding car to drive.

[Purple Frog]

Off the wall thought...

In the history of club racing the classes with the longest continuous runs were FF, FC, FV, etc. Non spec classes... but... they had pretty stable engine rules defining basically one engine per class.

Maybe the secret is to find one engine supplier to provide crate engines. Sort of like what Yamaha has done for years in 100cc karting, and Legends.

[Gearslingr]

Your exactly correct GPB. This is what the FB class needs.... a dedicated engine. It would eliminate so much and would lend itself to the 'car design' and driver as the significant factor of best car / driver in the class imo.

Yamaha and Honda is where we should start for suppliers indeed.

Doug

[Charles Livingston]

I'm with Jay, Jeremy, and Jerry with option #4 (no restrictor on 08 and earlier). I intend to send a letter to the CRB this week.

Charles

[S Lathrop]

Off the wall thought...

In the history of club racing the classes with the longest continuous runs were FF, FC, FV, etc. Non spec classes... but... they had pretty stable engine rules defining basically one engine per class.

Maybe the secret is to find one engine supplier to provide crate engines. Sort of like what Yamaha has done for years in 100cc karting, and Legends.

FV is the only class that has not had a significant engine change. FF has had 3 engines and FC is on their second engine and that one has a problem with supply.

What made FB work was a supply of engines, both new and low mileage salvage that were easy to get running in a car. To keep this feature true, we need engines that are current production. A single manufacturer might be a way to go forward but even then the engine would have to reflect what is on sale currently.

If you go with a single engine in the future, what do you do for guys with some other engine.

[Purple Frog]

FF... 3 engines in 45 years would seem fairly stable to me.
FC ... two engines in ~35 years. Not exactly the "engine of the month club".
I would argue a FV engine from 1970 is a world apart from one from 2015.

SCCA club has an on-going rules making dilemma; Do you change a given set of rules to try to help class growth? or, do you freeze the rules to protect those in a class that has quit growing? We see it in many classes. No easy answer.

I do know one thing. The club can not continue to afford for long to have single group Runons classes of ~12 cars.

[S Lathrop]

FF... 3 engines in 45 years would seem fairly stable to me.
FC ... two engines in ~35 years. Not exactly the "engine of the month club".
I would argue a FV engine from 1970 is a world apart from one from 2015.

SCCA club has an on-going rules making dilemma; Do you change a given set of rules to try to help class growth? or, do you freeze the rules to protect those in a class that has quit growing? We see it in many classes. No easy answer.

I do know one thing. The club can not continue to afford for long to have single group Runons classes of ~12 cars.

FF,FC and FV started with a single engine. Time forced the evolution, mostly. FB started as an open engine class. But maybe it can evolve into a preferred engine class.

I think the preferred engine has to be current, readily available and cost effective.

I think a lot of this thread is about protecting those who first got here and not about what will grow the class. But I think we can and should look to the future. I think we have an agreed upon performance standard, now how do we get new and reasonably priced engines into the class, without upsetting the balance we have.

Changing engines is not the great crises many think it is. I say that from having done the installations for 4 different engines in the Citations.