What's next for FB?

[Daryl DeArman]

Stock – In the exact same state or location as supplied by the original
manufacturer.

So as long as it's in the exact same location it logically satisfies the OR allowance.

That's not strained or tortured, that's how the SCCA chose to define the word stock whether it applied to gear ratios or suspension pick up points on the BSpec Mazda 2. Why didn't they just say "AND" if they wanted it to meet both requirements?


The AMA says this:

Stock - Parts manufactured and delivered by the OEM, which are identical
to the parts installed on the motorcycle by the OEM before retail sale



As to the AMA's stance on ECU's, it varies a bit by class. The S.O.P. with the AMA is all the controlled bits and pieces have to be "as Homologated". Many bits are further restricted by stating the parts must be available to all participants for sale at a price below xxxx delivered within xx days of purchase from any dealership in the USoA. When a part number is superceded the AMA must know about it before it can be used.

[KVS84]

I don't know which engine builder would say the BMW is frail because that couldn't be further from the truth.

[JohnPaul]

The biggest joke about this discussion is that the scca is capable or even interested in checking any of this crap. They check measurements and restrictor sizes (only at the run offs). It's a joke, anyone can cheat and wouldn't get caught. If scca was a high school math teacher everyone would get an "A". It's almost better to keep rules as open as possible. You want to try to argue the interpretation of the word "the" to a tech guy with 30 cars behind him and he's going to tell you to go take a hike.

[ghickman]

I don't know which engine builder would say the BMW is frail because that couldn't be further from the truth.

Are you the P1 pilot that I hear has a BMW in his car?

Only runs with an aftermarket ECU though....at least for now.

[JerryH]

Jay,

Not sure about other engines....but The 07-08 Suzuki is the same for both years.......as iis the 09-14 (I think). Therefore, it would seem logical they could be used on any engine in those year brackets.

HOWEVER....."THE STOCK FACTORY ECU" WOULD SEEM TO ELEMINATE ANY YEARS THAT ARE NOT A DIRECT REPLACEMENT FOR THE ORIGINAL.

Jerry

[JerryH]

The biggest joke about this discussion is that the scca is capable or even interested in checking any of this crap. They check measurements and restrictor sizes (only at the run offs). It's a joke, anyone can cheat and wouldn't get caught. If scca was a high school math teacher everyone would get an "A". It's almost better to keep rules as open as possible. You want to try to argue the interpretation of the word "the" to a tech guy with 30 cars behind him and he's going to tell you to go take a hike.

You are right about tech JP.....and I know some will go beyond the rules.

However, I like to think most of us want to play within the rules....and we do have to police it ourselves to some extent.

People who win by cheating will never know if they are good enough to win.....and will not develope their racing skills to as fine an edge. I saw this happen to a few guys in FV and FC several years ago.

Jerry

[JerryH]

OPEN UP THE ENGINE RULES.....any engine, any modifications, any ecu, etc .....AND LIMIT THE REVS.

With a reasonable rev limit, it would not matter much what one did to the engine. Tech would be much easier. More engines could be made competitive.....so the engine supplies would expand.

Someone suggested this a long time ago. The ad hoc committee ruled it out due to concerns about being able to cheat the rev limiter.....but the one Gary talked about a few post back is a sealed unit which the manufacture assures us cannot be hacked without easy detection. It can be also be set up to shut off if tampered with. It retards timing rather than cutting it....so there is no damage to the engine.

Jerry

[Jnovak]

Jay,

Not sure about other engines....but The 07-08 Suzuki is the same for both years.......as iis the 09-14 (I think). Therefore, it would seem logical they could be used on any engine in those year brackets.

HOWEVER....."THE STOCK FACTORY ECU" WOULD SEEM TO ELEMINATE ANY YEARS THAT ARE NOT A DIRECT REPLACEMENT FOR THE ORIGINAL.

Jerry

Jerry, the post you are referring to was about factory racing ECUs

[DonArm]

I wish there was an emoticon for mental masturbation because I would be using it a lot on this thread.
Let's just race.

[glenn cooper]

Sooooooo.... You gonna be on track this year, Brah?

[bill gillespie]

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.

Hey Your Frogness,

It would have to be sealed, or you end up with mega dollar development motors like the Mazda in the Swift 016..,,

[S Lathrop]

Given the turn out of formula cars at last year's SCCA runoffs, I think this thread may be like talking about re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

FV is the only class that had a respectable turn out. All the other formula car classes combined barely surpassed FV in numbers.

Is it not possible that the rules are not all that bad as is?

Maybe SCCA formula car racing is the more important issue to worry about. Why has the growth of FB stalled out at the current levels?

I don't have clue how to fix the biggest of these problems.

[Peter Olivola]

I would venture to suggest that the way the current rules are written turns formula and sports racers into purpose built versions of production cars with the attendant lobbying for advantage. How many formula/sports racer drivers made the move after looking at production car rules and deciding it wasn't worth the aggravation?

A formula car should be a formula car, not another place for production car thinking to encourage building another type of frankencar.

[Jnovak]

I would venture to suggest that the way the current rules are written turns formula and sports racers into purpose built versions of production cars with the attendant lobbying for advantage. How many formula/sports racer drivers made the move after looking at production car rules and deciding it wasn't worth the aggravation?

A formula car should be a formula car, not another place for production car thinking to encourage building another type of frankencar.

A very interesting thought Peter. How would you suggest that this might be fixed?

Are you suggesting that the rules be very significantly tightened up?

[reidhazelton]

Maybe SCCA formula car racing is the more important issue to worry about. Why has the growth of FB stalled out at the current levels?

1. Cost.
2. Cost.
3....Cost.

In the beginning there were garage-do-it-yourselfers who showed up with 1/2 trucks and 20' trailers. The class was filled with those guys and their conversion cars. Those guys have went away because of reasons 1 through 3. The amount of people who can afford to come into the class decreases as the cost to play goes up.

In my opinion, Jay's work with the flat plate restrictors was what was needed. Lower the revs slightly, lower the stress on the engines, and keep the speeds from getting closer to FA.

[jchracer]

1. Cost.
2. Cost.
3....Cost.

In the beginning there were garage-do-it-yourselfers who showed up with 1/2 trucks and 20' trailers. The class was filled with those guys and their conversion cars. Those guys have went away because of reasons 1 through 3. The amount of people who can afford to come into the class decreases as the cost to play goes up.

In my opinion, Jay's work with the flat plate restrictors was what was needed. Lower the revs slightly, lower the stress on the engines, and keep the speeds from getting closer to FA.

Confused.....Jeremy Hill almost won the run-offs this year in a home-built conversion with Suzuki power. I don't understand why you think the costs have gone up significantly in recent years. Care to elaborate? I still think it is one of the most affordable classes for the do-it-yourselfer.

The flat plate restrictor would have increased costs in my opinion.

[reidhazelton]

To what Peter said, I think 'tightening the rules' is needed. Not necessarily more rules, but more longevity to those rules, and rules that create stability.

This forum has a wealth of knowledge from some very experienced people. I think sometimes that knowledge can lead to a situation where we forget what it takes to do this for those of us who don't have that knowledge. Let's look at this through FB engine changes. It's generally accepted by the majority, that the Kawi makes more power and provides an advantage. So, if you want to complete, you could feel that you need to convert your Suzuki. To many on this forum that have experience in doing this, that might sound like a simple thing.

But, let's remember who the majority of club racers are, or at least used to be. These are people who work on the car themselves, an hour or two at night after work and after the kiddies are in bed. The car is tucked away in the corner of the garage where you have to work around the wife's car to get to it, and move the lawn mower out in the driveway to get the bodywork off.

For a garage-racer to change engines on most cars, it takes a lot of work. You need to hire an engineer to design the engine mounts, adapters, and maybe frame modifications. Then you need to find a CNC shop to make you some one-offs. By the time you get the parts made, and the car bolted together it likely took a year, or at least the off-season and some. Given that more guys don't have time or budgets to do test days, getting the car to run and behave could take a few weekends or more.

Now, looking at all that work, and expense, I'd bet that most have seen the situation and said "I paid $20k for the car, am I going to spend $10k+ and a year to get right back to where I was in terms of competitiveness?" I'd say this is a major reason FV still has the numbers it does - a rock steady rules set.

Look at the effort, cost, and time needed to change engines for the majority of club racers, and look at the same requirements to bolt on some flat plate restrictors. I'd say any club racer can bolt them on by themselves, in an evening.

[jchracer]

To what Peter said, I think 'tightening the rules' is needed. Not necessarily more rules, but more longevity to those rules, and rules that create stability.

This forum has a wealth of knowledge from some very experienced people. I think sometimes that knowledge can lead to a situation where we forget what it takes to do this for those of us who don't have that knowledge. Let's look at this through FB engine changes. It's generally accepted by the majority, that the Kawi makes more power and provides an advantage. So, if you want to complete, you could feel that you need to convert your Suzuki. To many on this forum that have experience in doing this, that might sound like a simple thing.

But, let's remember who the majority of club racers are, or at least used to be. These are people who work on the car themselves, an hour or two at night after work and after the kiddies are in bed. The car is tucked away in the corner of the garage where you have to work around the wife's car to get to it, and move the lawn mower out in the driveway to get the bodywork off.

For a garage-racer to change engines on most cars, it takes a lot of work. You need to hire an engineer to design the engine mounts, adapters, and maybe frame modifications. Then you need to find a CNC shop to make you some one-offs. By the time you get the parts made, and the car bolted together it likely took a year, or at least the off-season and some. Given that more guys don't have time or budgets to do test days, getting the car to run and behave could take a few weekends or more.

Now, looking at all that work, and expense, I'd bet that most have seen the situation and said "I paid $20k for the car, am I going to spend $10k+ and a year to get right back to where I was in terms of competitiveness?" I'd say this is a major reason FV still has the numbers it does - a rock steady rules set.

Look at the effort, cost, and time needed to change engines for the majority of club racers, and look at the same requirements to bolt on some flat plate restrictors. I'd say any club racer can bolt them on by themselves, in an evening.

If a driver needs an excuse for poor driving, he can always blame it on being underpowered. I'll say it again, Jeremy Hill almost won the 2016 run-offs with an "old" homebuilt conversion with Suzuki power. I have the dyno sheets....top end is a little better with the Kawi but the Suzuki has a wider power band and better ratios in the box for most tracks.

If people would spend more effort improving their driving skills and setting their cars up to the strength of their chosen motor and less time thinking up excuses on why they lost to better drivers, we would have more evidence as to why you don't NEED all the best hardware to be competitive.

Yes there are some people in the class who spend a lot of money. Do you NEED to spend all that money to be competitive......I don't think so. Last time I checked, an expensive tow rig doesn't make the car faster.....

My biggest gains have been by improving my driving skills.....not by spending money on hardware.

[Jnovak]

Confused.....Jeremy Hill almost won the run-offs this year in a home-built conversion with Suzuki power. I don't understand why you think the costs have gone up significantly in recent years. Care to elaborate? I still think it is one of the most affordable classes for the do-it-yourselfer.

The flat plate restrictor would have increased costs in my opinion.

The reality Joel is that if you want to win the big one you must have a ZX10R motor. And the older conversion cars this is probably about $10K minimum to get the job done and that is assuming that you have a car.

The majority of the guys with the original Suzuki engines simply cannot afford the upgrade. This is the main reason the class has stopped growing. We would have loved to keep the car. Good luck you have a great machine and can get it done.

Btw, we have flat plate restrictors in the MC powered F500 cars and they cost $50 for a set of 4. Calvin's car has NEVER BEEN ON THE DYNO and it has never missed a beat until Mid-Ohio when the fuel pump seized and this is what stopped the motor.

We would be back in FB if except for the motor costs. To do a top dry slumped ZX10R is between $10k-$12K.

BTW the only reason we got into FA was because of Hondas help.

[jchracer]

The reality Joel is that if you want to win the big one you must have a ZX10R motor. And the older conversion cars this is probably about $10K minimum to get the job done and that is assuming that you have a car.

The majority of the guys with the original Suzuki engines simply cannot afford the upgrade. This is the main reason the class has stopped growing. We would have loved to keep the car. Good luck you have a great machine and can get it done.

Btw, we have flat plate restrictors in the MC powered F500 cars and they cost $50 for a set of 4. Calvin's car has NEVER BEEN ON THE DYNO and it has never missed a beat until Mid-Ohio when the fuel pump seized and this is what stopped the motor.

We would be back in FB if except for the motor costs. To do a top dry slumped ZX10R is between $10k-$12K.

BTW the only reason we got into FA was because of Hondas help.

The misguided perception that you need Kawi power to be competitive is what is hurting the class and you, Jay, are largely responsible for that. In addition to the Hill example, Mayer put his car on pole and set a lap record at this years run-offs with Suzuki power.

YOU DO NOT NEED A KAWI ZX-10R TO BE COMPETITIVE.

PLEASE STOP TRYING TO KILL THE CLASS JAY.

[Shane Prieto]

isn't alex myer running a Suzuki engine
he was competitive all year long

[Jnovak]

The misguided perception that you need Kawi power to be competitive is what is hurting the class and you, Jay, are largely responsible for that. In addition to the Hill example, Mayer put his car on pole and set a lap record at this years run-offs with Suzuki power.

YOU DO NOT NEED A KAWI ZX-10R TO BE COMPETITIVE.

PLEASE STOP TRYING TO KILL THE CLASS JAY.

Joel, How am I personally responsible for hurting the class?

The last 3 years the Runoffs have been won by a car powered by a ZX10R engine.

Why did you put a ZX10R in your car Joel?

The dyno data supplied to the FB ad hoc committee clearly showed that the ZX10R has significantly more peak power than the Suzuki. Is that my fault too?

[problemchild]

The biggest factor to the growth tailing off is SCCA messing with the class by proposing restrictors, then mishandling the discussion. It seems like they are ready to cause more trouble.

[Jnovak]

The biggest factor to the growth tailing off is SCCA messing with the class by proposing restrictors, then mishandling the discussion. It seems like they are ready to cause more trouble.

I know that the CRB was very surprised by the negative reaction to the proposed restrictors.
However the FB ad hoc committee was given an ASSIGNMENT To equalize the performance of the motors.

I believe that the CRB reacted properly when the reaction to the proposed restrictors was very negative.

So big picture the CRB did it the way that the competitors wanted.

Since I am no longer a member of the FB community I will no longer post on this forum.

[jchracer]

Joel, How am I personally responsible for hurting the class?

The last 3 years the Runoffs have been won by a car powered by a ZX10R engine.

Why did you put a ZX10R in your car Joel?

The dyno data supplied to the FB ad hoc committee clearly showed that the ZX10R has significantly more peak power than the Suzuki. Is that my fault too?

Continually posting that you need a ZX-10R to be competitive is hurting the class.

Yes, the Kawi has higher peak power than the Suzuki but the Suzuki has a wider power band and better gearing. Peak power is important, but it does not tell the whole story. There is not a huge real world difference between the engines at most tracks. Races are not run on the dyno.

I put a ZX-10R in my car just for the run-offs at Daytona thinking that on that particular track, it may make up for some of my lack of driving talent. I guess you are right since we all know of the great Joel Haas Run-Offs win of 2015......oh, now I remember.....it didn't allow me to win the race and a few Suzuki powered cars beat me....

YOU DO NOT NEED A KAWI ZX-10R TO BE COMPETITIVE.

PLEASE STOP TRYING TO KILL THE CLASS JAY.

[Daryl DeArman]

It all depends on how you choose to define being competitive wrt the Suzuki.

Most of us winning would like to point to the driver, most of us losing would like to point to the equipment. It's the nature of the competitive racers' ego.

[RobLav]

Of all the 10 or 15 variables that I can think of off the top of my head that effect lap times, trying to "fix" one is called system tampering and is always detrimental.

Personally, I believe the primary causes of the significant decrease are 1) cost, 2) other competition, and 3) the changing ethics and belief systems of younger generations. There's many subcategories within #3.

On edit... I used some bad terms on #3! Ethics is NOT what I mean.

[Stan Clayton]

Of all the 10 or 15 variables that I can think of off the top of my head that effect lap times, trying to "fix" one is called system tampering and is always detrimental.

Personally, I believe the primary causes of the significant decrease are 1) cost, 2) other competition, and 3) the changing ethics and belief systems of younger generations. There's many subcategories within #3.

Oh good, we've come full circle to dissing on the next generation. Only been happening since at least Aristotle and Plato.

[John LaRue]

To my knowledge there were never stated intentions to provide for a BOP as between the various engines. There was a provision set forth in the rules that permitted the CRB to require a flat plate restrictor to cap power if need be.

From my perspective (and I may be off on this) FB suffers from a lack of viable engines that lend themselves to being stripped off of a motorcycle and bolted into a car. This is likely to become more of an issue in the future as the electronics continue to evolve. If the restrictions are such that there is no perceived advantage to building a car with a "newer" engine then is there anyone who would be a trailblazer undertake such a project? I don't have an answer to that. FWIW, the CRB just approved a 25# weight addition for the "newer" engines. (See recent Fastracks TB.)

The Advisory Committees and CRB react to input from the members and as Lathrop has provided many times, each class gets the rules it deserves.

The best answer for all of this is to simply get the cars out there and go race. Enjoy it for what it is worth. As Tony Ave commented in the tent meeting at Runoffs - it used to be that if someone got beat on the track they went home and figured out how to make their car faster for the next race or season. Today they go home, read the rule book and then begin to lobby for changes to be competitive. This is not unique in the SCCA, it is everywhere. Perhaps it is just a change in the way we go racing?

Regards,

John

[RobLav]

Stan... I used some bad language! Not at all intended to be negative.

It seems the latest Tech bulletin now adds 25 lb to min weight for engines 2011 and newer.

And I completely agree with John about all the lobbying. Look how thick the rulebook has become!

[Peter Olivola]

Not necessarily. I'm suggesting the CRB needs to stop trying to treat formula cars the way they treat production cars. Formula cars have never been about BOP. Eliminate that as a part of the rules and the lobbying will also be reduced. It is the lobbying that creates problems.

A very interesting thought Peter. How would you suggest that this might be fixed?

Are you suggesting that the rules be very significantly tightened up?

[BeerBudgetRacing]

To my knowledge there were never stated intentions to provide for a BOP as between the various engines. There was a provision set forth in the rules that permitted the CRB to require a flat plate restrictor to cap power if need be.

Why wait for 'if need be'? Why not spec a restrictor and call it a day?
Then any new motor that comes along can be used. One Restrictor and one weight.

From my perspective (and I may be off on this) FB suffers from a lack of viable engines that lend themselves to being stripped off of a motorcycle and bolted into a car. This is likely to become more of an issue in the future as the electronics continue to evolve. If the restrictions are such that there is no perceived advantage to building a car with a "newer" engine then is there anyone who would be a trailblazer undertake such a project?

You'd do it if the newer motors were cheaper (to buy and run).
In all classes older motors get harder to find.

I became interested in F-car racing a few years ago. FB was at the top of the list.
The talk about cheap ebay motors was all a pointless lie - a disservice to the class.
And when someone is trying to figure out what class to run, you soon realize what a moving target FB really is.

Is seems a lot of FB'ers don't want restrictors because they want to get more out of this motor or that. Basically the belief is they can get more power from that 1000cc.
Maximizing power on any engine increases cost. Cost to develop, cost to run.

So while there are a couple dozen or so people pouring effort and money into maximizing the engines, (within the rules and their rights) the costs go up and the class definition continues to slip.

And there is the problem...

So are all the people complaining about lack of growth also the ones 'developing' the class?

Just let us know when it's done. When that happens people will get interested.

[Purple Frog]

Mid-O and Homestead are different style tracks than Road America or Road Atlanta.
The Suzuki may not run with the big dogs when the straight requires high gear for 10 or more seconds. Just saying.

Looking back. When formula car ranks were full; formula cars were built to formulas. But in almost every case back then each class had only one highly spec'ed engine. There was not an "engine of the year".

[David Locke]

Club racing is expensive, and most people want a chance to be competitive if they’re going to spend that kind of money. Hence, balance of power is inevitable in any non-spec class, including in formula and sports racing classes. Why? Because club racing depends on people participating. They don’t have to show up. If a majority of people in a non-spec class conclude they won’t be competitive and begin staying home, it’s only a matter of time until the class ceases to exist.

[Nick77]

Continually posting that you need a ZX-10R to be competitive is hurting the class.

Yes, the Kawi has higher peak power than the Suzuki but the Suzuki has a wider power band and better gearing. Peak power is important, but it does not tell the whole story. There is not a huge real world difference between the engines at most tracks. Races are not run on the dyno.

I put a ZX-10R in my car just for the run-offs at Daytona thinking that on that particular track, it may make up for some of my lack of driving talent. I guess you are right since we all know of the great Joel Haas Run-Offs win of 2015......oh, now I remember.....it didn't allow me to win the race and a few Suzuki powered cars beat me....

YOU DO NOT NEED A KAWI ZX-10R TO BE COMPETITIVE.

PLEASE STOP TRYING TO KILL THE CLASS JAY.

Sorry Joel
I believe that l have a pretty fast car (Suzuki powered) and a pretty fast driver. I do all the work on my car I know for fact that on most tracks with any kind of lengthy straight we experience a acceleration disadvantage ( just one example look at the first lap of the Runnells this year I can show you data for many more)
And Joel please believe me I am not trying to kill the class
I would be willing to restrict the revs on my Suzuki to 13k or under if the kawi guys do.
in order to create more longevity in all our motors
Nick77

[jchracer]

Sorry Joel
I believe that l have a pretty fast car (Suzuki powered) and a pretty fast driver. I do all the work on my car I know for fact that on most tracks with any kind of lengthy straight we experience a acceleration disadvantage ( just one example look at the first lap of the Runnells this year I can show you data for many more)
And Joel please believe me I am not trying to kill the class
I would be willing to restrict the revs on my Suzuki to 13k or under if the kawi guys do.
in order to create more longevity in all our motors
Nick77

I am so convinced that the engine is not the big difference that seems to be the perception that I am not apposed to a Rev limiter as long as it is a single Rev limiter applied equally to all engines. 13k seems about right to me. If it gives the perception of equality and the class becomes stronger, everyone wins.

[Daryl DeArman]

Is seems a lot of FB'ers don't want restrictors because they want to get more out of this motor or that. Basically the belief is they can get more power from that 1000cc.
Maximizing power on any engine increases cost. Cost to develop, cost to run.

Open up the engine rules and cap the HP and Torque. With a low enough HP cap, the engine can be cheaper to campaign and the same engine can be utilized for years.

NASA does a good job with the Super Miata class, the motors make more HP and are cheaper than SCCA SM.

For example if FB was run whatever engine you want to run, do whatever you want to said engine BUT cap HP at the wheels at 190 and no more than 80ft/lbs of torque at any rpm (just a 'for example').

You want to have someones' car dyno'd, no reason for any tear downs. $400 fee to the protestor if it passes, $400 and a DQ to the protested if it fails.

Flame away. I know crazy idea, can't be done feasibly....etc. But it solves a lot more issues than it creates.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Open up the engine rules and cap the HP and Torque. With a low enough HP cap, the engine can be cheaper to campaign and the same engine can be utilized for years.

Maybe I'm wrong but for a given restrictor there is a limited amount of power to be had...

Set the size, open the rules and forget testing by officials.

[Stan Clayton]

Stan... I used some bad language! Not at all intended to be negative.

Not to worry...I finished off with a winky face sticking my tongue out.

[Daryl DeArman]

Maybe I'm wrong but for a given restrictor there is a limited amount of power to be had...

Set the size, open the rules and forget testing by officials.

Not with open rules. The limit will be based on how much money/development somebody finds it is worth. 15 or 16:1 compression ratios with special cam profiles and different head porting utilized, exhaust system development as well. In the end a much more expensive effort and no additional hp.

If the goal is cheap motors and easy to enforce rules. Get rid of all the rules with regards to what you can/can't do and set a limit on engine output and electronics.