What's next for FB?

[JerryH]

Honda is ready and willing to sell us crate engines......so new engines that will work in a car (with racing ecu) are available.

AND....It would be competitive using the restrictor sizes suggested by the FB committee last year. It was left unrestricted in that plan.

I also think a single engine for the class is the best way to go....and if a restrictor plan that keeps all engines competitive was implemented, the brand that was available as new crate engines would eventually become the most prevalent engine in the class.....effectively a spec engine.....similar to what the 08 Suzuki has been be several years now.

Jerry

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.

[JerryH]

Honda is really trying to make inroads into open wheel club racing......F600 pro series sponsorship.....trying to develop an FA engine package.....and now F4.

Hooking up with Honda in FB could help the class a lot. Maybe some pro series sponsorship...

Just thinking....

Jerry

[Spengo]

Honda is still producing brand new 1999 CR125 engines just for go kart racing. Not crate engines, you gotta assemble it yourself, but there's no shortage of parts even 16 years later. You can get kits directly from HPD. Definitely not a bad way to go if you want long-term support for the FB engine of choice.

[Mike B]

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.

Production cycle of car engines is measured in decades while bike engines is 2-3 years. It would be a tough sell to get any of the big 4 to continue building a given engine for much longer than that for such a microscopic market.

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.

So now you're back to changing engines every two to three years. This is more often than some of us are doing it now.

Honda is really trying to make inroads into open wheel club racing......F600 pro series sponsorship.....trying to develop an FA engine package.....and now F4.

Hooking up with Honda in FB could help the class a lot. Maybe some pro series sponsorship...

Just thinking....

I know we talked about this in Daytona and I thought about it but I just don't think F1000 is at a point that we could do something like that. It would have to be a stand-alone series like FRP but the class is populated by club racers, many of whom likely won't play along. We'd be left with two very fragmented groups of racers.

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.

For the sake of simplicity and stability, I like the idea of a single IIR, either for all engines or 2009 and newer. This would allow F1000 to continue with no rule changes (technically), despite people thinking it's an unstable class.

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.

Requoting so this doesn't get lost. I agree wholeheartedly. Simple and inexpensive, even for us low budget guys.

[Daryl DeArman]

I think it is important to differentiate between "rules stability" and "package stability".

Rules remaining constant can lead to consistently changing package, but at least it lets folks know what possibilities lie around the corner. They can weigh their decisions accordingly.

Package stability may require a consistent tweaking of the rules to ensure that the finished product is consistent. Constantly trying to reign everybody in is like herding cats and no fun, IMO for anybody involved.

Single-sized restrictor for motors X, Y and Z doesn't equalize performance of engines, it just slows them all down to a varying degree. In the beginning of this whole debate I was told as long as you limit the air flow to X, you are limiting the HP to Y. I disagreed. Compression ratios, cam profiles, port design, combustion chamber design, etc are all different. Trans ratios are also set up to work in certain rpm ranges and when a particular motor is clipped on the top end, the revs are dropping too low and effectively clipping the power at the low end as well.


A different restrictor size for each unique make/model/year engine is a cluster with a whole crap load of politics and bickering about which engine didn't get enough, which engine got too much.


Having gone through this whole exercise many years ago in another MC class with a different sanctioning body, I still believe that just capping the model year of available engines is the best available solution. 2017-2021 no engines newer than a 2016MY. No restrictors, have at it. In 2022, bump the eligible years to -2021. It allows you to plan. It allows you lots of available engines. If you invest in making an engine work you know the package is going to remain competitive for at least 5 years. It's also easier to tech motors they have seen around for years, than several new beasts every year.

It's "your" sandbox, do as you wish. At least some points you may wish to consider.

[JerryH]

Mike B.

The F600 pro series is getting some support from Honda....and they are running mostly regional weekends....so it is possible. They are not a spec engine either....other brands are running.

If we tweak the rules so the Honda is competitive (original restrictors sizes from last year).... and it remained the only crate engine available....some will go that direction. Over time we could work toward that being the only engine....if the result would be more Honda backing.

We should at least have an ongoing conversation with Honda.

Jerry

[Jnovak]

Mike B.

The F600 pro series is getting some support from Honda....and they are running mostly regional weekends....so it is possible. They are not a spec engine either....other brands are running.

If we tweak the rules so the Honda is competitive (original restrictors sizes from last year).... and it remained the only crate engine available....some will go that direction. Over time we could work toward that being the only engine....if the result would be more Honda backing.

We should at least have an ongoing conversation with Honda.

Jerry

At this time Honda is not supplying a crate motor for F600. However they are trying to determine if it is possible to do a crate motor program. Right now they have a contingency program for F600 cars using Honda power.

Thanks Honda for believing in the future of F600.

[mikeism]

In previous threads about FB rules, a few folks suggested raising the minimum car weight. That said, here's two shameless plugs, from a 6'2", 210 lb driver, for increasing minimum weight by 25 to 50 lbs:

1) Increase class participation?
Assuming that other perceived-as-unattractive aspects of FB are reduced or held constant, increasing minimum car weight would likely increase FB class participation. By how much... I don't know; however, I've had quite a few tall/heavy drivers from other classes asking me questions about my fit and weight in my car. There are various tall/heavy drivers that would jump at the chance to run in a formula class; however, fitting in a formula car and/or meeting the min weight spec is typically a fantasy for most tall/heavy drivers. In the interest of increasing class participation... is it worth it to consider increasing min weight?

2) Is the SCCA going to slow FB speeds?
If the SCCA is worried about the speed of FB cars, then adding some weight will slow the cars down a bit. Slowing down with added weight might help avoid SCCA actions that will add more compliance complexity and make FB more expensive. Approaching FA speeds is kind of exciting; however, *IF* the SCCA is going to slow the FB class down (some how, some way), then increasing minimum weight seemslike a super cheap and super simple option.

I'm probably missing something... why isn't min weight being discussed more?

Mike
2013 Philly Motorsports FB

[Gearslingr]

Mike, I'm also 6'2" and 215. I fit in my Stohr/BRD FB but barely. My car only weighs in at 810 lbs wet. At our last Majors I was 50 lbs overweight at the scales.
I could see raising the class weight to 1050.

Doug

[JerryH]

I want to do anything and everything that will increase participation In the class.

Therefore, I CAN SUPPORT ADDING 25 LBS.... in the hope it will do that.....BUT IT WILL NOT SLOW TOP SPEEDS at tracks where we are up against the aerodynamic wall. It will on straights where we are still accelerating at the end of the straight. (Fyi...I do not favor slowing the cars down. I would like to achieve some parity between engines....and cap speeds where they are now in the process.)

Added weight WILL SLOW LAP TIMES due to braking, accelerating and cornering being negatively impacted.

I CAN NOT support adding MORE than 25 lbs...... because some cars already carry ballast to reach 1000 lbs.....and would have to carry so much ballast that it becomes a safety issue. In a formula car, it is hard to mount 50 lbs or more of ballast in a way that is truly safe in a high speed crash.......and we do have small drivers that already need a bunch of ballast.

I am comfortable calling this F1000 because it is limited to 1000cc engines.....it doesn't have to weigh 1000 lbs. It was a good thought....but if it will bring out more cars, then add 25 lbs.

Yeah....I know......it's FB now.......but I still call it F1000.

Jerry Hodges

[S Lathrop]

More weight is more stress on the chassis and many of its components. I have spend as much time repairing my cars from damage that I can trace to carrying ballast as damage from accidents. And that is looking at cars that have been raced for decades.

[ghickman]

Are we now on the weight thing again. Adding weight to the cars to make others more competitive is just silly. The 1000 lb weight for this class was well thought out and trust me adding another 50 lbs isn't going to slow the fast guys down enough to somehow make the slower over weight chassis suddenly competitive again.

Last years Runoffs as I recall JRO rolled over the scales at 1030 lbs. That 30 additional didn't seem to slow him up any.

Larry Vollum driving his Stohr was nearly 80 lbs. over minimum and he won the West Coast series last year in that car.

I've known many top FF drivers that we seriously over weight and they still got the job done despite that handicap.

Like Steve says adding more weight just adds more stress to the car.

[Mike Holland]

I want to make a shoutout to Hoosier, Sunoco, Taylor, Jongbloed, G.D.R.E., Sprocket Specialist, Replay, Hypercoils and the other sponsors of the US F-1000 throughout the years. Thank you for your support of the series and hope for continued support in the future.
And thank you Mike Beauchamp for running the US F-1000.
Yes, this will always be a small club racing group unless there is a reason that others could buy cars and make money suppling them to young racers with sponsorship. For Penske, Andretti Autosport and Chip Gnassi to buy some cars would have to see some long term to their investment and that the class is not another Formula Renault, BMW or any of the classes that have come and gone. For young racers to sell sponsorship, they would have to be infront of very large crowds and maybe have TV coverage. I believe that the Hooters Cup did alot for FC in the 90s.
We should have at least one more big race in front of a very large crowd (other than the Runons) as a support race and maybe some video coverage. Lucas Oil would be a very good series sponsor at least for the west coast series. Not only for their motorcycle oil but now for their race streaming service. They are also connected to MAVTV. This class would also be a good venue for Red Bull.
I would think that the F-1000 manufactures should band together and have a F-1000 booth at PRI. This would at least get the word out about our cars. The picture of the start of the 2013 Runoffs is a great promotion tool showing four different cars wide into turn 1.
So far we haven't agreed on anything as usual. But on a positive note, we have reached motor stability. If you want a 2015 motor then you should convert to the Kawasaki. If you don't mind running a motor that will be 10 yrs old then a Suzuki is in your future. From what has been said here, none of the other newer motors will run with a stock ECU other than the Honda that doesn't have the HP. It was said that no one wants to go slower with these cars and restrictors. Should we be faced with class consolodation then I would rather get rolled into FC rather than FA.
With any of the proposals that have been presented here, I have not seen anything on the tech side of these new rules. An aluminum flat plate restrictor that is on the very edge can be found to be illegal by an overzealous tech man with a heavy hand on a set of calipers. Who is to supply the restrictors and what will be the cost? There are no tolerances given and how close are we going to measure. What is the inch measurement going to be?

[Randy Cook]

To keep the discussion up to date on rules, here's a clip from the latest GCR:

GCR Dated Nov. 2015

C. The stock or factory racing ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel and
ignition maps may be changed. Devices that modify inputs to the
ECU (e.g., Power Commander) may be used. Stand-alone aftermarket
ECUs are not permitted.

[Daryl DeArman]

To keep the discussion up to date on rules, here's a clip from the latest GCR:

GCR Dated Nov. 2015

C. The stock or factory racing ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel and
ignition maps may be changed. Devices that modify inputs to the
ECU (e.g., Power Commander) may be used. Stand-alone aftermarket
ECUs are not permitted.

Oh-boy. Wasn't anything learned from the IT ECU debacle?

Hint: When is a stand-alone aftermarket ECU no longer considered a stand-alone ECU? It's a cheaper and less complicated exercise to just permit a stand-alone aftermarket ECU...as IT eventually discovered.

[ghickman]

Oh-boy. Wasn't anything learned from the IT ECU debacle?

Hint: When is a stand-alone aftermarket ECU no longer considered a stand-alone ECU? It's a cheaper and less complicated exercise to just permit a stand-alone aftermarket ECU...as IT eventually discovered.

OK I guess I'm not the only one that sees the loop hole here.

[glenn cooper]

I have seen fairly large guys make minimum weight in FF because the min weight is high enough to allow that to happen.

[Sean Maisey]

Glen,

Are you calling me fat

[Jnovak]

seriously guys, FC cars use essentially the same chassis and weigh in at about 200 lbs more. an additional 25-50 lbs min weight will not hurt anything except performance. it will simply bring the heavier guys to a great class.

[glenn cooper]

Glen,

Are you calling me fat

No.

"Fluffy"

[Stan Clayton]

To keep the discussion up to date on rules, here's a clip from the latest GCR:

GCR Dated Nov. 2015

C. The stock or factory racing ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel and
ignition maps may be changed. Devices that modify inputs to the
ECU (e.g., Power Commander) may be used. Stand-alone aftermarket
ECUs are not permitted.

Point taken, Randy, and although it's too late to propose a change for 2016, this is the ideal time to investigate options for 2017. Our 'problem' is that we start seriously thinking of change proposals after the Runoffs each year, when it's too late for the coming year. Then we get too involved in racing to address them until it's again too late for the coming year.

Rinse and repeat.

Personally...okay, from a car sales perspective...I support 1050 lbs and P2-spec inlet restrictors. Both are easily accomplished for most driver/car combos and reduce costs, but is there any consensus for their support?

[Charles Livingston]

I dont support adding any weight. In racing shape (165lbs) I would have to carry over 100lbs of ballast if we raised the minimum to 1050. Other less (not) fat drivers such as Alex would need even more. There are cars available that can accommodate drivers over 200lbs and still be at the minimum weight.

Charles

[Stan Clayton]

I dont support adding any weight. In racing shape (165lbs) I would have to carry over 100lbs of ballast if we raised the minimum to 1050. Other less (not) fat drivers such as Alex would need even more. There are cars available that can accommodate drivers over 200lbs and still be at the minimum weight.

Charles

What marque car do you have, Charles?

Thanks, Stan

[Charles Livingston]

A JDR.

Charles

[Stan Clayton]

A JDR.

Charles

Very cool...thanks.

[ghickman]

I dont support adding any weight. In racing shape (165lbs) I would have to carry over 100lbs of ballast if we raised the minimum to 1050. Other less (not) fat drivers such as Alex would need even more. There are cars available that can accommodate drivers over 200lbs and still be at the minimum weight.

Charles

I'd need closer to 110lbs of total ballast at 1050 and I weighed 183lbs on the scale at Daytona. Do the math

I worked hard to build a chassis that meets min. with a 220lb driver, not willing to give that up.

[JerryH]

deleted

[R. Pare]

So. Which manufacturer is it that cannot seem to build a car that can meet minimum weight with a 220 lb driver?

[Gary Slahor]

From personal experience, I can tell you that the VD conversions have difficulty making weight.
Our Novak conversion was a wonderful car, but even with drastic weight reduction efforts we couldn't get below 1020 lbs w a 175# driver

[Stan Clayton]

According to our records Stohr FBs with 2nd gen bodywork rolled out the door at 800 lbs in their basic configuration and no fuel, so obviously they could not take a 220 lb driver and still come in under minimum weight.

OTOH, they can actually fit a 6'2", 220 lbs driver, which is nice.

[Gearslingr]

I purchased a 2nd Gen Stohr car and with it's Stock Stohr items (Battery, Brakes - Rotors, 8" & 10" wheels - tires, bodywork) my car weighed in at 845 lbs. with 1 gallon of fuel in the tank.
I'm 6'2" and 215 lbs w/o driving gear, and when I scaled her with me in it... well you guys can do the math.

I've always wondered where Stohr got there numbers on weight... cause I never saw a 800 lb Stohr car.

We changed over to Jesse's BRD bodywork... changed out the braking system completely(calipers/rotors/master cyls), went to a Ballistic Battery and 7 and 9" wheels and got the car down to 809 lbs.

After our first Majors race we came across the scales at 1048 lbs. even with doing all of the changes and crapload of money to reduce the weight.

Big and Tall guys do fit in the Stohr cars indeed.


Doug

[FrankRizzo]

[QUOTE=Gearslingr;492486Big and Tall guys do fit in the Stohr cars indeed.[/QUOTE]

And, woe be you if you're BOTH. :-)

[Stan Clayton]

I've always wondered where Stohr got there numbers on weight... cause I never saw a 800 lb Stohr car.

The last Stohr FB left the factory a year-plus before we bought the assets, so I don't know either. But since you appear to be the fourth owner of #006, might anything have been added to it or changed before you got it? Just curious is all, and trying to nail down real-world numbers. Other owners are also invited to let me know how much their cars actually weigh.

Big and Tall guys do fit in the Stohr cars indeed.

Yep, that was one of the main reasons Lee and Wayne didn't simply recycle the WF1 chassis. Speaking of which, though, the "house car" we're slowly building has a WF1 chassis and will be convertible...FB or P1/2, which should be fun.

[Stan Clayton]

And, woe be you if you're BOTH. :-)

Which car do you have, Frank, and how large are you (feel free to contact me directly if you prefer)? Thanks, Stan

[Gearslingr]

Stan, nothing special was added to my car, no chassis mods etc. All of the components were stock. I know that the 'Vented' rotors were 7.5 lbs each and were stock items for the fronts. Rears were solid rotors at 5 lbs. The battery was 14 lbs. as a stock item also.

We were frankly very surprised that we couldn't get to the '800 lb.' mark and kept wondering why we didn't see it. Mute point now that we've made all the necessary changes.

I also would like to hear from other Stohr FB owners to see what their Gen 2 cars weigh with all the 'Stock' items.

Doug

[Stan Clayton]

Thanks Doug. I appreciate the info. Just to be sure, your car had 2nd gen FB bodywork at that weight...and not the heavier first gen bodywork it would have come with?

[Gearslingr]

Stan, partially true... my car had the 1st gen aluminum belly pan still on it and undertray but the bodywork and wings were 2nd Gen.

[Northwind]

From personal experience, I can tell you that the VD conversions have difficulty making weight.
Our Novak conversion was a wonderful car, but even with drastic weight reduction efforts we couldn't get below 1020 lbs w a 175# driver

Gary, I have my Novak conversion down to 811 lbs with a half gallon of fuel in the tank. I think I can still find about 5 lbs more to take out of it. These conversions can get very close to minimum weight or under with a 180 lb driver.

[ghickman]

What it really takes to make an FB light is the overall packaging. Get rid of any redundant clamps, brackets, fasteners, wiring etc. Not overbuilding anywhere including body panel thickness.

There's no paint on my car. Any additional bodyworking that has to be done prior to painting adds up quick. Fiberglass panels that have been repaired multiple times can get heavy quickly.

The Phoenix chassis has almost no fasteners larger that 1/4" and jet nuts everywhere.
We weigh every single widget that goes in the car just to keep track of where I'm at.

I believe a few of the Stohrs were built pretty light. I believe the chassis JRO had which ended up in Jose Gerardo's hands then off to Australia was sub 800lbs.

[Revs2-12k]

I resemble many of these remarks!

My Gen 2 Stohr weighs 826lbs empty of fuel, and is " practically " all stock. Lowest I've come across the scales was 1053 lbs, with very few drops in the tank.

Being 6'3 and 225++ lbs is what hurts me. Need to put more limits on the Corona's and eat many, many, more salads. My 170 lb 25yr old Son will have no such problems making 1000lbs FB weight when he starts racing this year.

I don't like the idea of adding weight to FB. Gary's motivating points about eliminating parasitic weight will be a great project for the offseason!