What's next for FB?

[BeerBudgetRacing]

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.

But isn't the point of a restrictor to make it so there is no point in expensive development because you can't make any real HP gains?

Engine output is a can of worms. Who's dyno? Who's running it? What ambient air temp? What elevation? And it's so easy to kill HP for a dyno.

[problemchild]

The very last thing this class needed was for this thread to be continued

[Daryl DeArman]

The very last thing this class needed was for this thread to be continued

Fair enough. Let the class run its' course....whatever that may be. Done.

[Gary Slahor]

If this engine parity issue is important to you racers, I guess it's time to write our letters to the board again.
This time about the weight increase for 2011+ motors.
Just another thinly veiled attempt to restrict the Kawasaki.
This whole engine parity issue has been beat to death (2014/2015) and racer input has clearly shown it's not necessary or needed.
My letter has been sent.

[S Lathrop]

I think that most of the posters here will agree that FB needs some changes. But there is no consensus on what might be better than the status quo.

I have a personal bias against the idea of air restrictors because they will introduce a serious disruption into the induction system. That is the case with a flat plate type restrictor. Maybe there is a design that will work well without upsetting the function of the engine beyond reducing HP.

I would look at rev limiting the engines to 1000 or a bit more below the factory limit for that engine.

Maybe the best option would be a combination of rev limiting and some air restriction. I think one of the issues with the restrictor proposals was that it would be engine specific. As such you fall into the cesspool that Peter Olivola cautioned against.

I think that there should be an optional, after market, l ECU. This would do more to increase the supply of available engines. But the optional ECUs should be limited to one or two manufacturers.

The mechanical parts for the engine and transmission should be limited to stock parts for that make of engine and those parts should be readily available and listed. The engine should be raced as close to stock as possible.

[David Locke]

I have a personal bias against the idea of air restrictors because they will introduce a serious disruption into the induction system. That is the case with a flat plate type restrictor. Maybe there is a design that will work well without upsetting the function of the engine beyond reducing HP.

Many people who run flat plate restrictors (e.g., in P1 and P2) use velocity stacks above and below the flat plate to avoid the induction system disruption I think you're referring to. Not expressing opinions on the propriety of that practice or the need for restrictors in FB, just reporting the facts.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Non-flat plate type..... or something similar.

https://vimeo.com/170816203

The beauty of a restrictor is simplicity.
And simplicity of compliance. Device is there, check.
Everyone is working with the same limitation.
They limit RPM which in turn will increase engine life.

No more discussions on which engine you have to have if the 'weakest' of them can suck the same amount of air.
No more weight adjustments and related cries of foul when it doesn't work out.

Install the restrictor, meet the minimum weight and race. Done.

[Purple Frog]

As many know, I sat in on the original F1000 committee that submitted the rules proposal to the CRB to create the class.

As mentioned above most of the members envisioned "conversions" from existing chassis. That was the mindset. We had Jeremy Hill as our hero and prime example. In the discussions the committee voted continuously against restrictors. The thought at the time was new engines would come along, bikes would be wrecked, and engines would continue to be available. And, these members knew there would be possible advantages to new engines as they advanced.

Two things happened after that.

1. The CRB / BOD agreed to accept the class, but they added the provision for introducing restrictors if they felt it necessary. They feared the HP numbers would increase in a few years to the point that the cars would get too fast either for the chassis designs, or to conflict openly with FA. The committee basically decided to go along because they wanted the class to happen and not be delayed by further negotiations.

2. Many of us on the committee honestly did not foresee how rapidly the technology of electronics and computer hardware/software would take over so much of the engine systems. Remember, our experience was mostly watching the old DSR class of the 1995 to 2005 time frame. Up to then basically engines were engines, and computers were computers and two didn't mix much.

Now, we have evolved to a point where 'tricking' the wiring harness is more expensive than the total conversion costs in 2006.

And we have a significant group of cars based around the '08 Suzuki. Those owners are writing in a bit concerned that they don't want to spend money to convert up. Other owners are claiming the supply of '08 era motors is drying up. Others are writing that one of the early basic tenets of the class was to advance as engine advancements became available.

Also, engine builders are telling us that if restrictors come into play then the engines need to be re-tweeked on the dyno to work correctly with the restrictor.

So.... what to do?

[sccadsr31]

Several people have mentioned rev limiters; these as some of the issues to solve for a rev limiter to be successful in SCCA amateur racing.

1 - rev limiter would have to work universally across all the engine platforms and ecu's
2 - rev limiter would have to be "competitor proof"
3 - would have to be easily checked by SCCA scrutineering staff at no cost to SCCA
4 - alternately FB competitors would pay a compliance fee with each entry to cover cost, other classes have this.

Does anyone know of a device that can meet these requirements?

David

[BeerBudgetRacing]

My last comments.....

Those people with the 08 Suzuki based cars (basically the 1st gen) v whatever else is coming along are going to have the FC 'Pinto v Zetec' argument all over again.

You've got 2 groups.
Group 1 that doesn't want to continually upgrade motors.
Group 2 that is forever searching for more power and that edge.

Once Group 2's efforts show a consistent edge, Group 1 will stop showing up.

No matter what you decide, participation (and class survival) is totally dependent on the perception of equality at little cost to the 1st generation of cars.

[Jnovak]

Several people have mentioned rev limiters; these as some of the issues to solve for a rev limiter to be successful in SCCA amateur racing.

1 - rev limiter would have to work universally across all the engine platforms and ecu's
2 - rev limiter would have to be "competitor proof"
3 - would have to be easily checked by SCCA scrutineering staff at no cost to SCCA
4 - alternately FB competitors would pay a compliance fee with each entry to cover cost, other classes have this.

Does anyone know of a device that can meet these requirements?

David

David, I will look into this.

[John Mosteller]

Well group 2 has had their way for the last few years and the participation numbers for FB were 15th of all classes in 2014,19th of all classes in 2015 and 25th of all classes in 2016.

So it appears that the class is going to be relegated to a non runoff class very soon.

It is hard to believe that group 2 is willing to reduce the class to a non runoff class because they cannot give up a couple of horsepower with a restrictor plate to make things equal.

I have had several people that said they like the class but would never go there because of the open ended engine rules.

It also appears that a lot of Suzuki runners aren't participating any more.

I guess if is worth it for you guys that want a few horsepower advantage to have the class be regional only there is not much those of us that want it to be a runoffs class can do.

As long as the consensus is split SCCA is not going to do anything even though our numbers are in a rapid decline.

[Stan Clayton]

Several people have mentioned rev limiters; these as some of the issues to solve for a rev limiter to be successful in SCCA amateur racing.

1 - rev limiter would have to work universally across all the engine platforms and ecu's
2 - rev limiter would have to be "competitor proof"
3 - would have to be easily checked by SCCA scrutineering staff at no cost to SCCA
4 - alternately FB competitors would pay a compliance fee with each entry to cover cost, other classes have this.

Does anyone know of a device that can meet these requirements?

David

Flat plate restrictors?

[Purple Frog]

Flat plate restrictors?

Without wizzy incoming and outgoing "ramps".

[Stan Clayton]

Flat plate restrictors?

Without wizzy incoming and outgoing "ramps".

With or without ramps they accomplish David's stated goals.

[Jnovak]

The flat plate restrictors in F5 MC engines are just that. The are .060" thick and bolt in between the intake and the cylinder head under the throttle body. They work and lower the peak power rpm about 1000-1500 rpm. The engine will still rev to 15,000 rpm plus but it just does not pull.

Now I am not suggesting this for FB, I am just reporting how they work on the 600cc engines.

They just reduced the size by another MM to 29mm. That will hurt the power. And I hope we get back to 30mm soon.

On the car that Calvin Stewart drives with the 30mm restrictors we just adjusted the fuel pressure to get the lambda right. Never been on the dyno ever just used fuel pressure adjustments.

[Stan Clayton]

Well group 2 has had their way for the last few years and the participation numbers for FB were 15th of all classes in 2014,19th of all classes in 2015 and 25th of all classes in 2016.

So it appears that the class is going to be relegated to a non runoff class very soon.

It is hard to believe that group 2 is willing to reduce the class to a non runoff class because they cannot give up a couple of horsepower with a restrictor plate to make things equal.

I have had several people that said they like the class but would never go there because of the open ended engine rules.

It also appears that a lot of Suzuki runners aren't participating any more.

I guess if is worth it for you guys that want a few horsepower advantage to have the class be regional only there is not much those of us that want it to be a runoffs class can do.

As long as the consensus is split SCCA is not going to do anything even though our numbers are in a rapid decline.

Or maybe uncork the FB engines and do to FA and FB what they did to CSR, DSR & S2...

Rank Class SE Nor Wes Mid NE Total
1 SM 225 221 76 70 190 782
2 SRF3 177 158 105 105 157 702
3 STL 80 79 35 38 101 333
4 FV 43 75 51 33 85 287
5 SRF 73 71 37 19 83 283
6 GT2 63 59 34 28 54 238
7 FP 28 70 25 25 58 206
8 EP 35 56 29 25 53 198
9 FF 59 44 31 18 46 198
10 T4 37 53 33 29 36 188
11 HP 32 50 27 14 63 186
12 T2 25 59 28 19 42 173
13 GTL 28 37 26 23 45 159
14 STU 32 31 31 13 43 150
15 GT1 39 31 19 11 39 139
16 AS 20 37 7 14 57 135
17 F500 25 45 3 14 42 129
18 FE 25 50 9 8 33 125
19 P2 25 41 23 11 24 124
20 T1 40 10 26 19 28 123
21 FC 14 30 45 4 23 116
22 P1 31 28 18 6 19 102
23 GT3 13 29 25 7 25 99
24 FA 34 34 5 5 20 98 <--
25 FB 23 17 12 6 35 93 <--
26 FM 13 17 9 34 9 82
27 BSpc 18 14 12 11 22 77
28 T3 4 11 34 9 9 67
Total 1261 1457 815 618 1441 5592

[Purple Frog]

There you go again Stan, screwing up a long thread with a bunch of facts.

[John Mosteller]

Stan the problem with that is these engines are fragile enough and the last I talked to a DSR owner just before DSR bit the dust they said a competitive engine program was 50K per year.

I don't think very many FB owners would want to go down that road.

I would personally go for combining with FA using any engine in the P2 table if we loose Runoffs classification then regulate with weight to equalize performance with FA.

I think the group 2 guys need to do some serious soul searching to see if they are going to be happy with running regionals only with their 50K plus cars with no one to run against. I doubt very many will want to run regionals so you will probably be running alone. Or be combined with FA which I doubt very many are in favor of.

Also the minute we loose runoffs classification we will probably have trouble giving our cars away.

I personally think we need to all get on the same page so that we have a consensus. Whether it is to continue the way we are and loose runoffs classification or try something to stem the downward slide in our numbers. It may already be to late to save our runoffs spot.

[S Lathrop]

I want to thank Stan for putting the data up.

You all want to get depressed?

FF and FV combined would be the # 3 class with 1111 entries. All the other formula classes combined only represent 20% of the total SCCA entries and individually are all below T1 which is # 20 in the ranking of class participation.

If you combine FA and FB you get a top 10 class. FE and FM combined would be #7.

When compared to FA, FB is way cheaper to run at the front. And the FBs are way cheaper to build. If you measure the cost to build a FB compared to a FF, you are not a lot different and definitely less expensive that a FC to build. But compared to a FA there is no contest, the FB is a fraction of the cost of a FA. That is comparing the costs of building new cars. Engine maintenance for an FA engine is $20M plus per rebuild and that is annually, minimum. FB you can change engine makes for that kind of money. This is all to say that while FB is expensive, compared to the closest formula car in performance, FB is a bargain. Down side, to drive really fast, FB is a more demanding car to drive at the highest level.

[Stan Clayton]

There you go again Stan, screwing up a long thread with a bunch of facts.

Hey man, I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em.

Look again at that list up there.

There used to be 4 ST classes; now there are 2.
There used to be GT4 and GT5; now there is GTL.
There used to be FP, GP and HP; now there is FP and HP.
There used to be CSR, DSR and S2; now there are P1 and P2.

The CRB/BoD doesn't outlaw cars. They just merge/fold orphans into existing or new classes.

Stan the problem with that is these engines are fragile enough and the last I talked to a DSR owner just before DSR bit the dust they said a competitive engine program was 50K per year.

The engines were fragile because they were not dry sumped, which was understandable because the minimum weight was 900 lbs, way too low to achieve for wet sumped modern DSRs, much less dry sumped ones.

A dry sump pays for itself the first engine you don't blow up. But the DSR guys wouldn't use them because of the weight penalty they came with. The'd rather spend money on new engines than take a 30 lbs weight hit. Understandable, but expensive.

So what's the answer? If FA and FB were combined I'd raise the weight on the FB cars 50 lbs to make it in their interest to add a dry sump. The weight gain makes the decision easy, and you'd get another 15+ hp with better reliability. Not perfect, but improved. And the front running FBs would be as quick as the front running FAs. Win-win.

[David Locke]

The engines were fragile because they were not dry sumped, which was understandable because the minimum weight was 900 lbs, way too low to achieve for wet sumped modern DSRs, much less dry sumped ones.

A dry sump pays for itself the first engine you don't blow up. But the DSR guys wouldn't use them because of the weight penalty they came with. The'd rather spend money on new engines than take a 30 lbs weight hit. Understandable, but expensive.

The engines don't blow from oil pressure-related failures with the wet sump pan we have now. The oil pressure is fine under braking, etc. The two engines I've lost were the result of a CP wrist pin failure (2012) and a CP piston failure (2016).

[Stan Clayton]

When compared to FA, FB is way cheaper to run at the front. And the FBs are way cheaper to build. If you measure the cost to build a FB compared to a FF, you are not a lot different and definitely less expensive that a FC to build. But compared to a FA there is no contest, the FB is a fraction of the cost of a FA. That is comparing the costs of building new cars. Engine maintenance for an FA engine is $20M plus per rebuild and that is annually, minimum. FB you can change engine makes for that kind of money. This is all to say that while FB is expensive, compared to the closest formula car in performance, FB is a bargain. Down side, to drive really fast, FB is a more demanding car to drive at the highest level.

Another problem with FA is that AFAIK the newest chassis are a decade old, with no firm plans to build new ones, while the newest FB cars are being built right now in our shop...today, for delivery next month.

Steve's right about the cost of new cars, too. A brand new current-spec FB costs just a few thousand more than a brand new FF-Honda or FE, and will run circles around either. Even an FA-spec FB will be way under the price of a new FC. IIRC a new Swift 016 cost $130k for a roller back when Swift made them in 2006. Who knows how much a new one would cost now. It's almost like FB is waiting to replace FA, just as happened back in the 80's, when the 5-liter V8-powered FAs were replaced by the then-FBs (today's Formula Atlantics).

[bill gillespie]

Another problem with FA is that AFAIK the newest chassis are a decade old, with no firm plans to build new ones, while the newest FB cars are being built right now in our shop...today, for delivery next month.

Steve's right about the cost of new cars, too. A brand new current-spec FB costs just a few thousand more than a brand new FF-Honda or FE, and will run circles around either. Even an FA-spec FB will be way under the price of a new FC. IIRC a new Swift 016 cost $130k for a roller back when Swift made them in 2006. Who knows how much a new one would cost now. It's almost like FB is waiting to replace FA, just as happened back in the 80's, when the 5-liter V8-powered FAs were replaced by the then-FBs (today's Formula Atlantics).

An all-in new 016 is in the 200 k range ...

[Stan Clayton]

The engines don't blow from oil pressure-related failures with the wet sump pan we have now. The oil pressure is fine under braking, etc. The two engines I've lost were the result of a CP wrist pin failure (2012) and a CP piston failure (2016).

I'm pleased that YOURS don't David, but the history of the class tells a different story. Moreover, two of our WF1 P1 customers recently purchased dry sumps specifically to protect their gixxer engine investments. Plus, if FB were ever folded into FA those guys would be turning their engines even harder than P1 engines.

An all-in new 016 is in the 200 k range ...

I rest my case.

[David Locke]

I'm pleased that YOURS don't David, but the history of the class tells a different story.

The key word is history.

[Stan Clayton]

It's not exactly ancient history, David. One of my dry sump-buying customers called me last night on an unrelated issue, so I took the opportunity to ask about engine failures. He said he had five last year, with four of them being bearing related. To mitigate that he is taking several steps, including buying a dry sump. He also said that the dry sump manufacturer told him he sold 12 systems in December, versus his normal 2 a month. I'm speculating, but I'm thinking the buyers were waiting to see if the minimum weight would stay at 1000 lbs, and when it did it suddenly made sense to add a dry sump.

I don't know who all bought the other DS systems, and I don't know who built their engines or what wet sump pan they have been using. But I can guess with a reasonable degree of confidence that they share my opinion that a dry sump system is worth the investment.

[jchracer]

It's not exactly ancient history, David. One of my dry sump-buying customers called me last night on an unrelated issue, so I took the opportunity to ask about engine failures. He said he had five last year, with four of them being bearing related. To mitigate that he is taking several steps, including buying a dry sump. He also said that the dry sump manufacturer told him he sold 12 systems in December, versus his normal 2 a month. I'm speculating, but I'm thinking the buyers were waiting to see if the minimum weight would stay at 1000 lbs, and when it did it suddenly made sense to add a dry sump.

I don't know who all bought the other DS systems, and I don't know who built their engines or what wet sump pan they have been using. But I can guess with a reasonable degree of confidence that they share my opinion that a dry sump system is worth the investment.

I ran the piss out of my stock, wet sump Suzukis when I first got the car. I was just getting started and missed shifts and over revved them many, many times. A season on each and NO engine failures.

My experience is that with the STOCK engines, and the newer style wet sumps, most ALL the failures I have seen have been self inflicted and cannot be attributed to any engine related issue.

[David Locke]

It's not exactly ancient history, David. One of my dry sump-buying customers called me last night on an unrelated issue, so I took the opportunity to ask about engine failures. He said he had five last year, with four of them being bearing related.

Four bearing-related engine failures in one year, versus zero bearing-related engine failures in seven years? That's a fairly stark contrast. In my opinion your customer is doing something wrong. If one uses the correct wet pan, maintains the oil at the proper level, and regularly monitors the data, there will be no bearing-related engine failures.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I'm not trying to change yours.

[JerryH]

ENGINE FAILURES IN STOCK F1000 ENGINES ARE PRETTY MUCH SELF INFLICTED.

Use a properly designed oil system, keep enough oil in it, keep enough water in it, and don't overrev it and these STOCK engines last a long time. I know of at least one with 2000 miles on it that was running fine.....and a couple more that ran more than a full season. DSR is/was a totally different issue....mostly overstressed components do fail.

Properly designed wet sump pans.....filled to the right level.....will not suffer pressure dips.....or oil pressure related failures. Early ones were not very good. Good ones have been available for several years now.

Properly designed dry sump systems will also prevent oil pressure related failures.

Good dry sump systems depend on the pan, pump, and tank/plumbing. Poor tank design and plumbing is not uncommon, and have caused problems for some. Tank design is far more important than most realize....and I see many that are not well done.

IF DRIVERS....THOSE ACUTALLY IN THE CLASS.....WANT TO DISCUSS ENGINE RULES, THEY NEED TO DISCUSS IT AMOUNG THEMSELVES PRIVATELY ; ARRIVE AT A CONSENSUS, AND PERSENT IT TO THE CRB.

DISCUSSING ENGINE RESTRICTIONS ON A PUBLIC FORUM LIKE THIS....ESPECIALLY FROM PEOPLE NOT CURRENTLY RUNNING A CAR..... IS A GOOD WAY TO HURT THE CLASS. THIS THREAD NEEDS TO GO AWAY.

Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars
636-399-7060

[Nick77]

Jerry
I couldn't agree more
To many opinions from people who don't have first hand experience with a f1000

Nick 77

[Northwind]

ENGINE FAILURES IN STOCK F1000 ENGINES ARE PRETTY MUCH SELF INFLICTED.

Use a properly designed oil system, keep enough oil in it, keep enough water in it, and don't overrev it and these STOCK engines last a long time. I know of at least one with 2000 miles on it that was running fine.....and a couple more that ran more than a full season.

Properly designed wet sump pans.....filled to the right level.....will not suffer pressure dips.....or oil pressure related failures. Early ones were not very good. Good ones have been available for several years now.

Properly designed dry sump systems will also prevent oil pressure related failures.

Good dry sump systems depend on the pan, pump, and tank/plumbing. Poor tank design and plumbing is not uncommon, and have caused problems for some. Tank design is far more important than most realize....and I see many that are not well done.

IF DRIVERS....THOSE ACUTALLY IN THE CLASS.....WANT TO DISCUSS ENGINE RULES, THEY NEED TO DISCUSS IT AMOUNG THEMSELVES PRIVATELY ; ARRIVE AT A CONSENSUS, AND PERSENT IT TO THE CRB.

DISCUSSING ENGINE RESTRICTIONS ON A PUBLIC FORUM LIKE THIS....ESPECIALLY FROM PEOPLE NOT CURRENTLY RUNNING A CAR..... IS A GOOD WAY TO HURT THE CLASS. THIS THREAD NEEDS TO GO AWAY.

Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars
636-399-7060

I have Three seasons / 14 races on one engine I have. The spare has never been in the car.
The only time the spare was needed was when Nick, Alex, and Jerry, needed to borrow the throttle body for diagnostic purposes. Other than that the spare engine has been dead weight in the trailer, just the way I like it.

And yes the F1000 car owners should get together to figure out a solution on the engine issue.

[RobLav]

I'm out of FB, and SCCA for that matter, but our rules committee vision way back when was that all engines received the same restrictor, if it ever came to that.

Agree that engine failures are self inflicted. My first Yamaha R1 engine ran and ran until I f***d with the intake system and developed over pressurization and the valve cover gasket leaked oil. It spun a bearing but did not grenade. #2 R1 was also self inflicted. It grenaded due do a leak at a scavenge line connection. #3 R1 was self inflicted too, because I was in too much of a rush and neglected to really go through it before running it. It grenaded on the 1st hard lap.

[Jnovak]

Gents, referring to my previous note about rev limiters.

At this time there has been a generic rev limiter, that will work on all current MC engines, in development for a number of years and there is no projection for when it will be commercially available.

[sccadsr31]

There is currently no commercially viable rev limiter option for club racing. There is one individual working on one for FB and it has been in development for several years and there is no projection for when it will be commercially available.
Currently the best option for balancing engines within a class with multiple engine platforms is one of the current restrictor options listed in the GCR. All these GCR options have proven to be cost effective and have predictable performance.

David