What's next for FB?

[ghickman]

Speak for yourself, Gary, as Stohr supports this rule change. The dozen or more people who have called me to discuss buying an FB have virtually all expressed strong reservations about engine reliability and TBO in FB under the current rules, and this change will address that issue in a positive way.

Sure, everybody wants to go faster. I understand that. But when the cost of doing so starts to eat into sales and participation it's time for some considered changes IMO. I applaud the CRB for taking the bull by the horns and making what I consider a long overdue change.

Now, raise the minimum weight and we're set.

Who agrees with Stan?

[R. Pare]

Most likely none - they did the work it took to get the cars down to minimum weight with larger drivers already, and adding ballast helter-skelter can be rather dangerous.

[JerryH]

Speak for yourself, Gary, as Stohr supports this rule change. The dozen or more people who have called me to discuss buying an FB have virtually all expressed strong reservations about engine reliability and TBO in FB under the current rules, and this change will address that issue in a positive way.

Sure, everybody wants to go faster. I understand that. But when the cost of doing so starts to eat into sales and participation it's time for some considered changes IMO. I applaud the CRB for taking the bull by the horns and making what I consider a long overdue change.

Now, raise the minimum weight and we're set.

STAN:
As JRO posted many months ago......most engine issues are self inflicted. If you keep enough water and oil in them.....and don't rev the crap out of them......they are not a problem. Now if you take a gsxr to 13500 or a kaw to 14500 frequently, it will fail. If you don't tighten a hose clamp....or an oil line.....or don't keep the oil level high enough....that is not the engines fault.
In the early days many oil systems were poorly designed....and engine blowups were common due to oil pressure dips in corners. That is no longer true. Tell the guys just that when they seem worried about it. It is the truth.

To another of your points: No one is argueing that we should go faster......just keep it where it is.

GARY:
I don't think we will be down to FC times.....but slower than P2 .....and getting closer to FC. We are about half way between FA and FC now (at most tracks)....which is where we should be.

Jerry

[Jnovak]

Mike
I'll email you a picture of what I came up with last year. I did this before there was any wording in the rule that you could do this. I figured if it didn't say I couldn't then I could.

That was one of the reasons P2 went away from the flat plate restrictors because they could be easily circumvented by properly placed air horns just like you had already planned.

[Jnovak]

STAN:
As JRO posted many months ago......most engine issues are self inflicted. If you keep enough water and oil in them.....and don't rev the crap out of them......they are not a problem. Now if you take a gsxr to 13500 or a kaw to 14500 frequently, it will fail. If you don't tighten a hose clamp....or an oil line.....or don't keep the oil level high enough....that is not the engines fault.
In the early days many oil systems were poorly designed....and engine blowups were common due to oil pressure dips in corners. That is no longer true. Tell the guys just that when they seem worried about it. It is the truth.

To another of your points: No one is argueing that we should go faster......just keep it where it is.

GARY:
I don't think we will be down to FC times.....but slower than P2 .....and getting closer to FC. We are about half way between FA and FC now (at most tracks)....which is where we should be.

Jerry

I suspect that with the right sized restrictor the cars will not be any slower.

[JerryH]

The short answer is NO.

My understanding was they wanted some restriction on the Gen4 Kawasaki. I believe this overall 37.5mm deal caught most if not all by surprise.

You are correct.

Jerry

[JerryH]

That was one of the reasons P2 went away from the flat plate restrictors because they could be easily circumvented by properly placed air horns just like you had already planned.

Not if the rules prohibited doing so.....which was part of the committees proposal last year.

Jerry

[billwald]

I think Stan's min wt comment was meant as a joke, thus the smiley face......

We will be at the January Majors either way.

Merry Christmas FB!

[Stan Clayton]

I think Stan's min wt comment was meant as a joke, thus the smiley face......

Ah geez, Bill. There you go, spoiling my fun!

[jaltaman]

Okay, so $.02 from a driver/owner, not a manufacturer.

I spent a LOT of time and money, and also time on my own body, working to get down to the minimum weight. It's not the classes fault that I am 6'2" tall - so why penalize the class? Gary and Dustin spent a lot of time engineering a car that would allow a guy who is my size to be at minimum weight in the F1000 car - it is definitely possible!

If you take the effort we produced to get to minimum weight in our class I can honestly say "shame on you".

The rules were published, we spent a lot of effort to trim the weight down to where it would be legal yet still at the minimum.

How DARE you take that from us! That was hours upon hours of work, plus the personal sacrifice by myself to get my weight down. This is as it should be, meaning that if you are willing to make sacrifices to get somewhere you should be rewarded when you actually get there!

At the end, what does this mean? Let's put restrictors in that bring parity to the engines in our class. PERIOD. I personally don't give a damn about FA - that boat has long since sailed. If I could afford to race there, I would. Having stated that, it's not my job to save that class, so with all due respect, next topic, please.

FB is a growing class that delivers the fastest speeds for the buck. It is a challenge, yes, but it also rewards proper racing discipline and every year we have learned how to go faster than the year before. We are just now starting to reach our potential at a national level, and are truly excited about coming to mid-Ohio for the runoffs next year.

It took us four years to get where we are now, to understand the chassis and how to be competitive. I welcome parity with the Kawasaki engine (for the record, we could not get past 157 mph at Daytona with a tailwind and no draft) and look forward to better minds than mine conjuring up a workable solution.

Thanks as always for your consideration.

John

[billwald]

Hehe Stan. I think some might have missed the humor in it..I thought it was funny though.

I thought they were going to outlaw assisted shifters? And add a Spec Tire. They must have lost my letter.

[Stan Clayton]

STAN:
As JRO posted many months ago......most engine issues are self inflicted. If you keep enough water and oil in them.....and don't rev the crap out of them......they are not a problem. Now if you take a gsxr to 13500 or a kaw to 14500 frequently, it will fail. If you don't tighten a hose clamp....or an oil line.....or don't keep the oil level high enough....that is not the engines fault.
In the early days many oil systems were poorly designed....and engine blowups were common due to oil pressure dips in corners. That is no longer true. Tell the guys just that when they seem worried about it. It is the truth.

To another of your points: No one is argueing that we should go faster......just keep it where it is.

And that right there is the crux of the matter...no racing car driver in the heat of battle will not use every rev available when his or her competition is breathing down their back. Case in point: JRO. If rumors are correct, he went through all of his engines during qualifying at the Runoffs and then had to build a frankenmotor to make the race. Luckily for JR that motor hung on to the checkers.

But even if the rumors are not true, your points about engine life and reliability perfectly illustrate why the class needs rev-reducing restrictors. The rules require using the stock internals, but the racing environment demands drivers twist the snot out of the engines, which reduces reliability & TBO, and significantly raises the cost of the class. It is a vicious circle that has led to dead-in-the-water car sales and declining participation.

GARY:
I don't think we will be down to FC times.....but slower than P2 .....and getting closer to FC. We are about half way between FA and FC now (at most tracks)....which is where we should be.

Jerry

I'm going to give Gary the benefit of frustration-induced hyperbole there. At Thunderhill the FB record is 1:40.5, the P2 record is 1:42.2, and the FC record is 1:45. At P2 power FB will still be 2-3 seconds clear of the FCs.

[Stan Clayton]

FB is a growing class...

Sorry John, but that's simply not true. FB grew strongly in the early years, but participation peaked in 2013 with 399 combined National & Regional entries.

In 2014 the class had 292 combined entries.

In 2015 it had 141.

How far does FB have to go down before people start admitting it has a problem?

[ghickman]

I'm going to give Gary the benefit of frustration-induced hyperbole there. At Thunderhill the FB record is 1:40.5, the P2 record is 1:42.2, and the FC record is 1:45. At P2 power FB will still be 2-3 seconds clear of the FCs.

If the restrictor stands then I guess we will find out real soon Stan, I hope you aren't eating your words.

See you at Thunderhill....I may be in a Kawi powered car and then again might be a Suzuki.

[Stan Clayton]

If the restrictor stands then I guess we will find out real soon Stan, I hope you aren't eating your words.

See you at Thunderhill....I may be in a Kawi powered car and then again might be a Suzuki.

Why would you be back with the FCs, Gary? Even with the restrictor the rules give your car superior aero, 20-30 more horsepower and almost 200 lbs less weight than FCs.

See you at Thill.

[Retired Driver]

I am not for or against the addition of the restrictor but what I think everybody is overlooking is that the CRB may have exceeded their authority by issuing this as a Technical Bulletin thus classifying this as a competition adjustment.

This rule change does not slow down the front runners or speed up the back markers it basically effects entire class the whole slows down the entire field which, in my opinion, would be a rule change requiring a different approval process.

The other point I would like to make is that per page 364 of the December GCR Proposed changes to the specified restrictor sizes must be accompanied by engine dynamom­eter data. From what I am picking up here is that there is not a complete set of data, therefore the decisions are not being made using data as required by the GCR.

Below is taken from the latest GRC.

Rule Changes—A rule change typically affects an entire class, a method of car construction, or the manner in which a competitive event is conducted. The Club Racing Board is not authorized to unilaterally implement rule changes; they can only recommend that the Board of Directors approves them. They are published in FasTrack as recommended items and 30 days should elapse to allow all affected parties to submit their comments, either directly to the National Office or to their Area director (or both).
Competition Adjustments— Unlike a rule change, competition adjustments typically affect only one make or model of car and often are a reward for overachieving. When one-make dominance occurs the Club Racing Board acts to slow down the front runners and/or speed up the back markers. This is usually accomplished through changes in weight and/or the diameter of the carburetor venturi or a restrictor in the throttle body on fuel injected models.
The Runoffs® is only one of the many criteria used to determine the need for a competition adjustment. Race results from around the country are analyzed and of course the advisory committees are a major source of input in these deliberations.
Competition adjustments are published in FasTrack Technical Bulletins and unless stated otherwise, become effective the first of the cover month.

[Stan Clayton]

I am not for or against the addition of the restrictor but what I think everybody is overlooking is that the CRB may have exceeded their authority by issuing this as a Technical Bulletin thus classifying this as a competition adjustment.

For many years now the Club (BoD) have considered changes within class spec lines and engine tables to be "by definition" competition adjustments, so no.

This rule change does not slow down the front runners or speed up the back markers it basically effects entire class the whole slows down the entire field which, in my opinion, would be a rule change requiring a different approval process.

Sure it does. Practically this entire thread has been devoted to arguing that the inlet restrictors will "slow down" the front running cars. Cars with pre-2008 engines will be sped up relative to their competitors by virtue of not having to use a restrictor, so again no.

[ghickman]

For many years now the Club (BoD) have considered changes within class spec lines and engine tables to be "by definition" competition adjustments, so no.

Sure it does. Practically this entire thread has been devoted to arguing that the inlet restrictors will "slow down" the front running cars. Cars with pre-2008 engines will be sped up relative to their competitors by virtue of not having to use a restrictor, so again no.

Once again Stan you have proven to all how little you know about this class. How many FB's are running a 2006 Suzuki engine?

[Stan Clayton]

How many FB's are running a 2006 Suzuki engine?

Who cares? The point is that John's assertion that the change won't slow some cars while speeding up others is demonstrably wrong. How many cars actually fall into one category or the other is immaterial. Moreover, the CRB is acting within its authority and mandate from the BoD.

[ghickman]

Who cares? The point is that John's assertion that the change won't slow some cars while speeding up others is demonstrably wrong. How many cars actually fall into one category or the other is immaterial. Moreover, the CRB is acting within its authority and mandate from the BoD.

Obviously you do because you brought it up.

Clearly shows your lack of knowledge of the class.

[RobLav]

Great post by Retired Driver. The FB section of this Technical Bulletin is illegal per the GCR. It definitely effects the entire class because it clearly specifies restrictor sizes for some engine / years and specifies no restrictor for others. Since ALL engines in the class are specified one way or the other, the entire class is affected. The BOD needs to pull this TB.

[ghickman]

Great post by Retired Driver. The FB section of this Technical Bulletin is illegal per the GCR. It definitely effects the entire class because it clearly specifies restrictor sizes for some engine / years and specifies no restrictor for others. Since ALL engines in the class are specified one way or the other, the entire class is affected. The BOD needs to pull this TB.

Yep, I read it exactly the same way Rob.

Who is retired driver? You are officially un-retired.

[Retired Driver]

Who cares? The point is that John's assertion that the change won't slow some cars while speeding up others is demonstrably wrong. How many cars actually fall into one category or the other is immaterial. Moreover, the CRB is acting within its authority and mandate from the BoD.

What mandate from the Bod? I have never seen anything in writting from the BoD on this subject, maybe you could tell me where to find it so I can read it.

If there is a written mandate to keep the speeds on the class down then this would be a rule change not a competition adjustment.

If it is an adjustment to make the old style engines more competive then per the GCR complete set dyno data for all engines listed would be required. I do not beleive the data been gathered but I do not know this as a fact.

[sccadsr31]

I am not for or against the addition of the restrictor but what I think everybody is overlooking is that the CRB may have exceeded their authority by issuing this as a Technical Bulletin thus classifying this as a competition adjustment.

This rule change does not slow down the front runners or speed up the back markers it basically effects entire class the whole slows down the entire field which, in my opinion, would be a rule change requiring a different approval process.

The other point I would like to make is that per page 364 of the December GCR Proposed changes to the specified restrictor sizes must be accompanied by engine dynamom*eter data. From what I am picking up here is that there is not a complete set of data, therefore the decisions are not being made using data as required by the GCR.

Below is taken from the latest GRC.

Rule Changes—A rule change typically affects an entire class, a method of car construction, or the manner in which a competitive event is conducted. The Club Racing Board is not authorized to unilaterally implement rule changes; they can only recommend that the Board of Directors approves them. They are published in FasTrack as recommended items and 30 days should elapse to allow all affected parties to submit their comments, either directly to the National Office or to their Area director (or both).
Competition Adjustments— Unlike a rule change, competition adjustments typically affect only one make or model of car and often are a reward for overachieving. When one-make dominance occurs the Club Racing Board acts to slow down the front runners and/or speed up the back markers. This is usually accomplished through changes in weight and/or the diameter of the carburetor venturi or a restrictor in the throttle body on fuel injected models.
The Runoffs® is only one of the many criteria used to determine the need for a competition adjustment. Race results from around the country are analyzed and of course the advisory committees are a major source of input in these deliberations.
Competition adjustments are published in FasTrack Technical Bulletins and unless stated otherwise, become effective the first of the cover month.

Can you provide the pages of the GCR where you found the 2 sections you have listed Rule Changes and Competition adjustments. Also I have sent you a couple of PM's.
Thanks
David Arken

[Stan Clayton]

What mandate from the Bod? I have never seen anything in writting from the BoD on this subject, maybe you could tell me where to find it so I can read it.

If there is a written mandate to keep the speeds on the class down then this would be a rule change not a competition adjustment.

If it is an adjustment to make the old style engines more competive then per the GCR complete set dyno data for all engines listed would be required. I do not beleive the data been gathered but I do not know this as a fact.

I no longer know where all that stuff is kept on SCCA's web site, but I imagine that if you call the Club office they can direct you to the source documents.

[Jnovak]

Page 355 of the November GCR.

5. Inlet Restrictors Flat plate Individual Inlet Restrictors (IIRs) (FPIR) shall be used on all engines as indicated in Formula B Restrictor Table below. The restrictors shall conform to the definition within Appendix F of the GCR. All restrictors shall be installed within 4 inches of the primary throttle shaft on the upper inlet side of the throttle body.

Restrictors have been part of the FB rules since day one.

The new 2016 announced 37.5mm FPIR with the now allowed air horn fairings essentially flow the same amount of air as the dyno tested 42mm flat plate restrictors that were supposed to be used on the Suzuki engines and the Kawasaki zx10r was to get 40mm restrictors for the 2015 season. When that was announced there was a firestorm of complaints from those member that were using Kawasaki engines or we planning on using them. In point of fact, at that time (2014-2015) there were no complaint letters written from Suzuki powered FB owners. They were apparently happy to have what they thought was an advantage.

Now that everyone has to actually start with the same restrictor size for the 2016 season, the Suzuki owners are now the ones complaining. Just an interesting observation, don't you think?

[ghickman]

Page 355 of the November GCR.

Now that everyone has to actually start with the same restrictor size for the 2016 season, the Suzuki owners are now the ones complaining. Just an interesting observation, don't you think?

This is very simple. The overwhelming majority of the FB competitors do not want to go slower.

I believe this is crystal clear. So why not go back and get this right.

[Jnovak]

This is very simple. The overwhelming majority of the FB competitors do not want to go slower.

I believe this is crystal clear. So why not go back and get this right.

I suspect that restrictors are here. What size should it be Gary so that you do not go slower?

Another thought. I know of several people who are working on tricking the BMW race ecu to work in a car. I hear that it is real close, what then?

[JerryH]

Last time around, the ad hoc committee was given a mandate to cap the speeds where they were.

When those restrictor sizes were not approved.....the crb decided to give it some time and look at the on track results.

Now they have taken a look, and apparently this is their opinion of what is needed. I DON'T AGREE........BUT:

AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THEY CAN'T DO THIS.....I THINK THEY CAN. I spent a lot of time looking at the rules since getting into the class...and as a member of the ad hoc committee....so I think I know the rules very well....and I have spent the last two days looking at this very carefully.

If it were a rule change, they could not so this......but restrictors were a part of the rules from the beginning.......just the sizes were not specified. Even if they were specified, competition adjustments can apparently be made at any time. (This also slows down the front runners....so meets that part of "competition adjustment" criteria as well).

The part of the rule that says (not the exact language) "proposed changes to restrictor sizes need to be accompanied by dyno data" was for anyone challenging the mandated restrictor sizes.....or bringing in a new engine. At least that was the intent of the wording.....put in by the ad hoc committee.

Sometimes (quite often actually) things get left out of the gcr....and errors occur in wording or grammer. The crb can correct that as well.......hopefully considering the original intent.

I have been challenging this based on dyno work originally done by the committee.....and by bringing up the fact that no kaw has been dynoed using the 37.5 restrictor.....and making it known that lots of letters were written......all asking for something totally different.

I AM NOT FOLDING ON THIS.......THERE ARE PLENTY OF REASONS NOT TO DO IT......BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THEY CAN DO It.

JERRY

[JerryH]

Page 355 of the November GCR.

5. Inlet Restrictors Flat plate Individual Inlet Restrictors (IIRs) (FPIR) shall be used on all engines as indicated in Formula B Restrictor Table below. The restrictors shall conform to the definition within Appendix F of the GCR. All restrictors shall be installed within 4 inches of the primary throttle shaft on the upper inlet side of the throttle body.

Restrictors have been part of the FB rules since day one.

The new 2016 announced 37.5mm FPIR with the now allowed air horn fairings essentially flow the same amount of air as the dyno tested 42mm flat plate restrictors that were supposed to be used on the Suzuki engines and the Kawasaki zx10r was to get 40mm restrictors for the 2015 season. When that was announced there was a firestorm of complaints from those member that were using Kawasaki engines or we planning on using them. In point of fact, at that time (2014-2015) there were no complaint letters written from Suzuki powered FB owners. They were apparently happy to have what they thought was an advantage.

Now that everyone has to actually start with the same restrictor size for the 2016 season, the Suzuki owners are now the ones complaining. Just an interesting observation, don't you
think?

Actually Jay.....Last time around the Suzuki owners were upset..... because they didn't want to go slower.....but felt at least they would closer in power to the kaw.....no Suzuki owner I know of thought he would have an advanatage.

Some have suggested a compromise......a bit larger restrictor.....on all engines (with same exceptions). I believe it would take a 2mm larger size (venturi) restrictor to keep speeds where they are.

There would still be a big power difference between the engines.....maybe 12 instead of 15. That is substantial....and needs to be addressed. All the dyno work we did confirms this. Most of the letters written this time around offered a solution to this. I've posted that suggestion in this thread more than once...so no need to do so again.

Jerry

[Charles Livingston]

Page 355 of the November GCR.

5. Inlet Restrictors Flat plate Individual Inlet Restrictors (IIRs) (FPIR) shall be used on all engines as indicated in Formula B Restrictor Table below. The restrictors shall conform to the definition within Appendix F of the GCR. All restrictors shall be installed within 4 inches of the primary throttle shaft on the upper inlet side of the throttle body.

Restrictors have been part of the FB rules since day one.

The new 2016 announced 37.5mm FPIR with the now allowed air horn fairings essentially flow the same amount of air as the dyno tested 42mm flat plate restrictors that were supposed to be used on the Suzuki engines and the Kawasaki zx10r was to get 40mm restrictors for the 2015 season. When that was announced there was a firestorm of complaints from those member that were using Kawasaki engines or we planning on using them. In point of fact, at that time (2014-2015) there were no complaint letters written from Suzuki powered FB owners. They were apparently happy to have what they thought was an advantage.

Now that everyone has to actually start with the same restrictor size for the 2016 season, the Suzuki owners are now the ones complaining. Just an interesting observation, don't you think?

Jay,

You just admitted that last years rule change was dropped because Kawasaki competitors complained (which was very much a minority of the class at the time). Now the entire class (less one person: Stan) is complaining. See a problem here?

Charles

[jchracer]

Actually Jay.....Last time around the Suzuki owners were upset..... because they didn't want to go slower.....but felt at least they would closer in power to the kaw.....no Suzuki owner I know of thought he would have an advanatage.

Some have suggested a compromise......a bit larger restrictor.....on all engines (with same exceptions). I believe it would take a 2mm larger size (venturi) restrictor to keep speeds where they are.

There would still be a big power difference between the engines.....maybe 12 instead of 15. That is substantial....and needs to be addressed. All the dyno work we did confirms this. Most of the letters written this time around offered a solution to this. I've posted that suggestion in this thread more than once...so no need to do so again.

Jerry

I would like to see where those numbers came from. My numbers with real engines (mine), built by the same professional builder, run on the same dyno, without restrictors, don't show anywhere near that kind of peak power difference between the Suzuki and the Kawi. Yes, there is a difference, but nowhere near 15 HP. The real world does not support those kinds of differences either. Perhaps people are getting all worked up over a perceived problem rather that a real one?

[ghickman]

I would like to see where those numbers came from. My numbers with real engines (mine), built by the same professional builder, run on the same dyno, without restrictors, don't show anywhere near that kind of peak power difference between the Suzuki and the Kawi. Yes, there is a difference, but nowhere near 15 HP. The real world does not support those kinds of differences either. Perhaps people are getting all worked up over a perceived problem rather that a real one?

I agree with Joel 100%.

Trust me folks, there IS NOT a 15HP difference between the 07/08 Suzuki and the Gen4 Kawasaki. My dyno readings don't come close to supporting that.

One of my customers who spent a ton of time, effort, and dollars to have me build a Kawi powered Phoenix has since switched back to the Suzuki in the same car. His lap times at Portland are identical.

[ghickman]

I suspect that restrictors are here. What size should it be Gary so that you do not go slower?

Another thought. I know of several people who are working on tricking the BMW race ecu to work in a car. I hear that it is real close, what then?

I would agree to this Jay.

No restrictor for the 07/08 Suzuki.

A 44MM Venturi type restrictor for the Gen4 Kawasaki.

The BMW would also be required to run a 44MM restrictor.


I'd also like to see the inclusion to allow aftermarket valves, springs, and retainers as long as they do not exceed the factory limits of the valve size. This would reduce engine overhaul costs as the Suzuki 07/08 age.

[Jnovak]

I would agree to this Jay.

No restrictor for the 07/08 Suzuki.

A 44MM Venturi type restrictor for the Gen4 Kawasaki.

The BMW would also be required to run a 44MM restrictor.


I'd also like to see the inclusion to allow aftermarket valves, springs, and retainers as long as they do not exceed the factory limits of the valve size. This would reduce engine overhaul costs as the Suzuki 07/08 age.

I personally have no problems with bigger restrictors that are the same size. However you are way off on the sizes Gary. I think that a common size of about 39mm or 40mm will not hurt the power on the Suzuki at all and might take 1 or 2 hp off of the Kawasaki. The BMW when it arrive will have to be dynoed first. This is just my engineering assessment and nothing more.

[J Leonard]

Ah geez, Bill. There you go, spoiling my fun!

Not a joking matter. Not so sure it's fun to make an engine run through a restrictor the manufacturer never intended. Or fun to build another air intake. Or fun to build new bodywork to fit around the intake. Or fun to go back on track to collect data to figure out what that did to the rear aero.

[JerryH]

I would like to see where those numbers came from. My numbers with real engines (mine), built by the same professional builder, run on the same dyno, without restrictors, don't show anywhere near that kind of peak power difference between the Suzuki and the Kawi. Yes, there is a difference, but nowhere near 15 HP. The real world does not support those kinds of differences either. Perhaps people are getting all worked up over a perceived problem rather that a real one?

I didn't invent this stuff.

Those numbers come from the dyno work our committee had done by George Dean for the original proposals. Unrestricted, there was a 15 hp difference. On the same size restrictor the difference was about 12. I have those dyno graphs attached to emails from George. I will see if I can figure out how to attach them to an apex post. Those test were dry sump kaw.....wet sump gsxr at much lower oil level than we have to run. When I had George run the gsxr wet sump at actual race levels it lost several more hp.

At Watkins glen this year, I ask moon where we were compared to the Kaw. He said 10 to 15 hp. That is with both engines on dry sumps.

It is true that at 9500 or 10000 the kaw is about 5 hp down.....HOWEVER...since the kaw turns a thou more rpm on top end, it will be geared lower. Assuming it is geared for the same top speed, the rpm coming out of a corner will be higher as well.....so the power is about the same coming out of a corner....and better in the top revs in every gear.

Look at this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpJJ8VVJpkM. (lap one from the rearward camera on JROs car). (note that the first v, p, and pk are lower case...all others are caps) It clearly shows JR pulling a huge lead immediately. No one is holding back here.
Even if one assumes JRO got a great run thru the infield.....and everyone else got a bad run....look at the gap get way bigger after he gets up on the oval. That is clearly a power advantage.
speed in segment 1 was abt 88mph (from Q1 when they gave us that rather than times). 88 mph = 129 ft/sec. so a 1 sec advantage thru segment one would only be a 129 foot gap.

Jerry

[Daryl DeArman]

This rule change does not slow down the front runners or speed up the back markers it basically effects entire class the whole slows down the entire field which, in my opinion, would be a rule change requiring a different approval process.

The other point I would like to make is that per page 364 of the December GCR Proposed changes to the specified restrictor sizes must be accompanied by engine dynamom*eter data

As much as I detest the politics behind restrictors and competition adjustments and therefore will never race in a class with such rules in place, I do have a couple of quick observations. All competition adjustments are rule changes, not all rule changes are competition adjustments. A competition adjustment can happen at anytime, it doesn't have to go through "the process". It's right there in simple English. It's akin to selling your soul to the racing devil.

Secondly, this isn't a "proposed change to the specified restrictor", this is a change. A "proposed" change would come from a competitor proposing that some restrictor change be made, and the decision makers want dyno data to support that proposal, not anecdotal evidence, lap times or trap speeds

[JerryH]

I personally have no problems with bigger restrictors that are the same size. However you are way off on the sizes Gary. I think that a common size of about 39mm or 40mm will not hurt the power on the Suzuki at all and might take 1 or 2 hp off of the Kawasaki. The BMW when it arrive will have to be dynoed first. This is just my engineering assessment and nothing more.

If the crb in hell bent on restricting all engines, then this would have been better. it would not piss off nearly as many people.

However, it does nothing to address the disparity between engines. Look at the video from my last post for clear evidence of that disparity.

The best in my opinion (backed up with data) is unrestricted gsxr and 41 flat plate on newer engines. That still gives the kaw a 5 hp advantage on top end. If we knew what size venture restrictor would equal the 41 flat plate, then that would work too. My best estimate would be 38 or 39.

Jerry

[Stan Clayton]

Not a joking matter. Not so sure it's fun to make an engine run through a restrictor the manufacturer never intended. Or fun to build another air intake. Or fun to build new bodywork to fit around the intake. Or fun to go back on track to collect data to figure out what that did to the rear aero.

I'm guessing you missed that the joke was in reference to adding weight to FB, not restrictors.