What's next for FB?

[ghickman]

The rev limiter that Gary Hickman was talking about earlier can be a soft cut..... by retarding the ignition timing..... rather than cutting spark to alternating cylinders, which is the other alternative.

Retarding timing 10 degrees or so should not hurt the engine....but the engine will stop pulling.

Jerry

Yes and this is one of the reasons I selected this method. The drag bike guys have been doing this for years on some pretty high strung engines.

[Jon Jeffords]

Yes and this is one of the reasons I selected this method. The drag bike guys have been doing this for years on some pretty high strung engines.

Note: exhaust gas temps will increase when the ignition timing is retarded. Don't sit on the rev limiter too long or you could burn a valve.

[Randy Cook]

I think you'll get passed before you burn a valve!!

Backing up a few posts now to Stan...I hope the rev limiter being discussed isn't the tattletale one of a few years ago. I don't want an errant (early) downshift to send anyone to the stewards.
This soft rev limiter has the potential to be level the field and provide engine longevity benefits to all.
With the artificial limit set several hundred to a thousand revs below the engine's safe limit I think it would be less likely to damage the engine than if the limit were set near to the engine's physical limit.

[Saracen]

I think you'll get passed before you burn a valve!!

Backing up a few posts now to Stan...I hope the rev limiter being discussed isn't the tattletale one of a few years ago. I don't want an errant (early) downshift to send anyone to the stewards.
This soft rev limiter has the potential to be level the field and provide engine longevity benefits to all.
With the artificial limit set several hundred to a thousand revs below the engine's safe limit I think it would be less likely to damage the engine than if the limit were set near to the engine's physical limit.

Can someone give us a status update as of today. I have written the letters to the CRB and the BOD. Who is now making the decisions? What is the SCCA process at this point?

[ghickman]

Can someone give us a status update as of today. I have written the letters to the CRB and the BOD. Who is now making the decisions? What is the SCCA process at this point?

I believe the BOD meets on the 11th of January. It could be the following week.

For those that haven't sent their letters in do so now please.

TO ALL:
I also sent a cover letter to Lisa Noble SCCA President asking her to read my BOD letter. She should be made aware of the possible financial impact this may have on the club. I've talked with MANY drivers that are now telling me if this goes through they will just stop going to races and sell their cars.

So let her know how you feel about this.

[ghickman]

One well known west coast driver said it best "making us run restrictors is the most de-motivating thing the SCCA could do".....in his exact words.

[Marty Nygard]

I am curious how "they will just stop going to races and sell their cars." will affect SCCA. The only place to sell their cars is to SCCA competitors who would, presumably, race them. Perhaps if they took them all to Topeka and burned them in the SCCA parking lot they would make a bigger impression.
M

[ghickman]

I am curious how "they will just stop going to races and sell their cars." will affect SCCA. The only place to sell their cars is to SCCA competitors who would, presumably, race them. Perhaps if they took them all to Topeka and burned them in the SCCA parking lot they would make a bigger impression.
M

Good point but if there's no buyers then it has the same impact. So they sit on the sidelines and the cars sit also.

The bigger picture here is how this impacts future buyers / participants.

[Daryl DeArman]

I am curious how "they will just stop going to races and sell their cars." will affect SCCA. The only place to sell their cars is to SCCA competitors who would, presumably, race them. Perhaps if they took them all to Topeka and burned them in the SCCA parking lot they would make a bigger impression.
M

It won't have much impact as there isn't enough revenue coming into the SCCA coffers from any of 20+ classes...

There are plenty of other places outside the SCCA to race.

[DonArm]

This has been taken into account with the development of the unit. Overrev's occuring during upshifts and downshifts will be filtered out.

I think you'll get passed before you burn a valve!!

Backing up a few posts now to Stan...I hope the rev limiter being discussed isn't the tattletale one of a few years ago. I don't want an errant (early) downshift to send anyone to the stewards.
This soft rev limiter has the potential to be level the field and provide engine longevity benefits to all.
With the artificial limit set several hundred to a thousand revs below the engine's safe limit I think it would be less likely to damage the engine than if the limit were set near to the engine's physical limit.

[JohnPaul]

I sent my letter ! Set the Rev limiters at 14k FTW! Nothing better than feeling that engine tighten up and smoke come rushing in from the back. I love the smell of an oil fire in the morning.....it's like victory.....one day this war is going to end....

[Retired Driver]

From the Preliminary CLUB RACING BOARD MINUTES January 5, 2016
FB
1. #18713 (Jeremy Hill) Restrictors or Rev Limiters
Thank you for your letter. The CRB is withdrawing the recommendation in letter 18344, January 2016 Fastrack Minutes.

While the FB rules have a provision for limiting horsepower through the use of a restrictor, the rules do not have a provision for, or statement of, intent to balance or create parity among the various engine platforms. At this time there is not a consensus within the class participants to limit horsepower.

The CRB thanks the following authors for their feedback: 18759 Palmer, 18732 Theilman, 18728 Cook, 18638 and 18693 Vollum, 18608 Clayton, 18620 Wald, 18619 Young, 18615 Prieto, 18700 Moore, 18698 LaBrie, 18629 Haas, 18659 Cook, 18704 Vardis, 18696 Mosteller, 18722 Mayer, 18723 Mayer, 18724 Hamilton, 18553 Livingston, 18599 Waymire, 18647 Armenoff, 18642 Prieto, 18649 Thielman, 18708 Haas, 18701 Hodges, 18605 Hickman and 18547 Mayer.

[ghickman]

From the Preliminary CLUB RACING BOARD MINUTES January 5, 2016
FB
1. #18713 (Jeremy Hill) Restrictors or Rev Limiters
Thank you for your letter. The CRB is withdrawing the recommendation in letter 18344, January 2016 Fastrack Minutes.

While the FB rules have a provision for limiting horsepower through the use of a restrictor, the rules do not have a provision for, or statement of, intent to balance or create parity among the various engine platforms. At this time there is not a consensus within the class participants to limit horsepower.

The CRB thanks the following authors for their feedback: 18759 Palmer, 18732 Theilman, 18728 Cook, 18638 and 18693 Vollum, 18608 Clayton, 18620 Wald, 18619 Young, 18615 Prieto, 18700 Moore, 18698 LaBrie, 18629 Haas, 18659 Cook, 18704 Vardis, 18696 Mosteller, 18722 Mayer, 18723 Mayer, 18724 Hamilton, 18553 Livingston, 18599 Waymire, 18647 Armenoff, 18642 Prieto, 18649 Thielman, 18708 Haas, 18701 Hodges, 18605 Hickman and 18547 Mayer.

This is good news, thanks for posting this retired driver.

[Randy Cook]

Quoting from Retired Driver's Post of Preliminary Club Racing Board Minutes:


"While the FB rules have a provision for limiting horsepower through the use of a restrictor, the rules do not have a provision for, or statement of, intent to balance or create parity among the various engine platforms. At this time there is not a consensus within the class participants to limit horsepower."

How can this statement be true?

This very same Club Racing Board in December of 2014 created and passed a table requiring different sized restrictors for various F1000 engines, a move which I see as a deliberate and definitive statement of support for creating parity among the various engine platforms!

From my letters and from reading preliminary copies of letters by others, I believe there is a consensus desire to create engine power parity and in so doing limit the growth of engine power but not limit current (baseline Suzuki) power. I'm not privy to all the letters and maybe the people I talk to are not the majority, but please let me know if the above quote strikes you as disingenuous on the parity claim and misdirected on the power limitation claim?

[Northwind]

Randy,

I think the power word in the statement is Consensus. We as participants in the class have not come to a majority on how we want to move forward regarding engine regulation. I give them credit for retracting the restrictor requirement at this time. It is up to us as class participants to figure out what we want, how to get there as a majority, and then move forward with a proposed rule change. I thank them for this opportunity. They certainly did not have to do this. It is time for us to come together as a group and figure this thing out. Now is the time to prove that we as class participants are smart enough to figure out what is best for our future.

[sccadsr31]

Each month the preliminary Technical Bulletins and preliminary minutes of the CRB meeting are posted to the SCCA wed site.
SCCA Home Page
Programs
Road Racing
Rules

This is the link http://www.scca.com/pages/cars-and-rules

Pam Richardson the CRB admin person posts a note here in APEX with the link when the prelim's are posted, she did that yesterday.

It is worth reading to see specific class changes as well as general changes. When Fastrack is posted every month it is also worth reading for the final version of the Technical Bulletins and and CRB meeting. It also has Court of Appeals rulings which are always interesting.

David

[JerryH]

Depends on what one calls a consensus. If consensus means majority, then it is possible to survey ALL the F1000 owners and drivers and find what the majority want. The current crb letter system will not do that....and in my opinion should be replaced with a survey system for all classes.

As far as the restrictor clause in the rules.....the purpose is not spelled out....but.it seems obvious that it was put there to limit the power of engines.... if it were needed sometime in the future. Isn't that what restricting newer engines is doing? Maybe some of those who got the class started can shed some light on that point.

Overall, this has been a giant waste of everyones time. Unless we do surveys of all owners and drivers, it always will be.

Lets just go racing

Jerry

[RobLav]

I was there years ago. But I've become an old curmudgeon. From my recollection, parity was never a goal. Restricting overall HP was part of the discussion, we disagreed on that, and there has never been resolution since then. Personally, I wanted (and still want) to see where this FB development thing goes. It amounts to freedom. IMHO, there are already too many overly restricted SCCA classes. Parity = the socialist's heaven. Socialization is theft. If you want parity, then race in some other class. Voting in a survey form amounts to attempted theft of the development that other people have undertaken. I faced that when I was one of the first to try the new ZX-10R. The aftermath discussions to restrict that engine drove me permanently away.

Back then, I was even for allowing composite chassis. That never reached agreement. So be it. Anyway, good luck at maintaining the class.

[Jnovak]

Depends on what one calls a consensus. If consensus means majority, then it is possible to survey ALL the F1000 owners and drivers and find what the majority want. The current crb letter system will not do that....and in my opinion should be replaced with a survey system for all classes.

As far as the restrictor clause in the rules.....the purpose is not spelled out....but.it seems obvious that it was put there to limit the power of engines.... if it were needed sometime in the future. Isn't that what restricting newer engines is doing? Maybe some of those who got the class started can shed some light on that point.

Overall, this has been a giant waste of everyones time. Unless we do surveys of all owners and drivers, it always will be.

Lets just go racing

Jerry

Jerry, Within the FSRAC there are excellent records kept of every letter on a specific subject when there are lots of letter relating to a specific subject. A spreadsheet is kept defining what the letters are about.

[ghickman]

I was there years ago. But I've become an old curmudgeon. From my recollection, parity was never a goal. Restricting overall HP was part of the discussion, we disagreed on that, and there has never been resolution since then. Personally, I wanted (and still want) to see where this FB development thing goes. It amounts to freedom. IMHO, there are already too many overly restricted SCCA classes. Parity = the socialist's heaven. Socialization is theft. If you want parity, then race in some other class. Voting in a survey form amounts to attempted theft of the development that other people have undertaken. I faced that when I was one of the first to try the new ZX-10R. The aftermath discussions to restrict that engine drove me permanently away.

Back then, I was even for allowing composite chassis. That never reached agreement. So be it. Anyway, good luck at maintaining the class.

Awesome post Rob....we need you back in FB.

New Engines:
Until we have an open ECU rule much of this talk about high HP engines is a moot issue. The newer engines simply won't run outside the bike. Cracking the ECU is challenging and toss in an 8 axis gyro talking to the ECU and well...you get my point. Pretty much self policing itself at this point.

[JerryH]

In any proposed rule change or competition adjustment, a survey of all car owners and drivers is the only way to get the majority opinion......and keeping the majority happy would seem to be better for the health of the ANY class.

Granted, some new trick I come up with may become illegal....but that is true in every form of racing. Those of us who push the envelope take that risk....because we are the minority.

With the current crb letter system, we only get 15 or so F1000 owners responding (out of 80 or more) . I don't think the opinions of guys like me and the others in that vocal minority should be used to set the rules for the majority of ANY class. Not matter how well documented and recorded the crb letters are, there is no way to know if they represent the majority opinion without taking a survey.

I hope Gary is right about the newer engines never being a problem....but I suspect some genius will get it done.....then we will be right back here again.....being reactive rather than proactive.

Personally, I can fit any engine in my cars....and most of my guys can afford to switch....so it's not a big problem for me.....but for some strange reason, I feel the pain of the less well funded guys....who make up at least half the class. That is why I opposed the geartronics when that was being decided. We were reactive in that case as well......waiting until to many had invested money in the system.

Rob....I followed the early rules discussions closely......and your build log. Surely you must know you were one of very few who wanted carbon tubs in the class. If we had gone that route there would not be as many constructors building cars....and not nearly the variety of designs......two things that make the class very interesting.

Don't let a tubular frame and all the engine discussions keep you away. F1000 is by far the most fun car to drive in SCCA....and I don't see that changing. Come on back....

Jerry

[JohnPaul]

B. Engine components (including cylinder heads and blocks) must remain stock, except as specifically permitted in these rules. No material may be removed from any engine component, except as specifically permitted in these rules. Valve jobs are permitted, but the valve seat diameter must not be changed. The competitor must present, on demand, an original factory manual for the specific engine make, model and year to allow compliance verification.

......is it me or am I reading into this too much? I don't see where the rules say you must run a stock factory engine. I see all engine components must remain stock. So if I wanted to run a stock cams from one type of engine and a stock head from another type of engine and a whatever from another you can as long as they remain stock.... seems like weird wording but I'd argue you can build some strange Frankenstein motor (I guess if it made sense) and be legal as long as all the components remained stock from the factory...

[JerryH]

B. Engine components (including cylinder heads and blocks) must remain stock, except as specifically permitted in these rules. No material may be removed from any engine component, except as specifically permitted in these rules. Valve jobs are permitted, but the valve seat diameter must not be changed. The competitor must present, on demand, an original factory manual for the specific engine make, model and year to allow compliance verification.

......is it me or am I reading into this too much? I don't see where the rules say you must run a stock factory engine. I see all engine components must remain stock. So if I wanted to run a stock cams from one type of engine and a stock head from another type of engine and a whatever from another you can as long as they remain stock.... seems like weird wording but I'd argue you can build some strange Frankenstein motor (I guess if it made sense) and be legal as long as all the components remained stock from the factory...

If one must use the factory engine manual for a specific engine for compliance verification, then it would follow that all the components in the engine must meet the specs for that engine.

Jerry

[JohnPaul]

Why cant you use a different manual for each component?

[Randy Cook]

John Paul,

The competitor must present, on demand, an original factory manual for the specific engine make, model and year...

I like your thinking but as the word Manual is not both singular and plural as Chapman applied on his fascinating dual "Chassis" Lotus, I think this interpretation won't fly.

Alternate interpretations and arguments are welcome.

[David Locke]

John Paul,

The competitor must present, on demand, an original factory manual for the specific engine make, model and year...

I like your thinking but as the word Manual is not both singular and plural as Chapman applied on his fascinating dual "Chassis" Lotus, I think this interpretation won't fly. Alternate interpretations and arguments are welcome.

1. GCR 9.1.1.G: "Formula 1000 is a restricted class. Therefore, all allowable modifications, changes, or additions are as stated herein. There are no exceptions. IF IN DOUBT, DON’T."
2. GCR 1.2.3.A: "Interpreting the GCR shall not be strained or tortured and applying the GCR shall be logical, remembering that the GCR cannot specifically cover all possible situations."
3. Given that: a) "some strange Frankenstein motor" with "a different manual for each component" is not within the purview of a restricted class ("IF IN DOUBT, DON'T") and b) interpretation of the GCR "shall not be strained or tortured," why would someone undertake such a thing in the first place when common sense suggests that it would be shot down in a heartbeat?

[Blair Robertshaw]

Apparently there are many drivers looking at getting into f1000 but are reticent to actually buy a car because of discussions like these. We bought 2 f1000's because of the fact you can futz around with the car formula, they are fast and are very affordable to race.

If this ongoing debate continues I am sure the class will lose some current guys and wont pull the guys on the side lines waiting and watching. And if there are so many GSXR's out there that guys are wanting to switch out to the Kawi, why not make it simple and split the class to GSXR powered and a class for Kawi powered? I am sure you would see GSXR's battling at the front with Kawi's and vice versa throughout the grid.

As a newbie to the class I can tell you as I sit here and read the debate it is taking its toll on outsiders looking in and considering racing an f1000.

Be done with it. This is a cool class, the cars are wicked looking, sound fantastic, go fast, handle well, are fairly inexpensive to run compared to an Atlantic or PFM but this constant bickering and back and fourth is IMO hurting the class and the growth.

Many guys are switching to Kawi or want to, that creates a market for the GSXR engines. The car counts would stay the same or grow simply less overall competitors in each engine class.But one never knows, maybe both engine classes would grow if this was in place but this whole topic is scaring some guys away from the class who are looking at it and some guys who are in the class are considering quitting because of it.

[peteytoo]

Awesome post Rob....we need you back in FB.

New Engines:
Until we have an open ECU rule much of this talk about high HP engines is a moot issue. The newer engines simply won't run outside the bike. Cracking the ECU is challenging and toss in an 8 axis gyro talking to the ECU and well...you get my point. Pretty much self policing itself at this point.

Gary:

The issue is that it is self-policing to the point that aging engines have become scarce. If I were looking at buying into the class I would be concerned that I have two options: Fight over the existing dwindling pool of engines or spend much $$$$ to get a newer engine with more horsepower to run {and then likely have it taken away when the clamor resumes}. This is exactly why a combination of both relaxing ECU rules and some kind of restriction is necessary to lure prospective participants with a larger pool of engines to go in the awesome chassis selection. Frankly, I think a manufacturer must be half-mad to get involved in this [please don't stop guys!] - it is already a zero-sum game this just makes it ludicrous.
Honestly I am much too conservative [and have insufficiently deep pockets] to do the engine development myself - but I don't want to prevent others from doing so - particularly if it results in more entries in the class. As mentioned above, I am not referring to perfect parity, just close enough.

Pete

[John LaRue]

A factory racing ECU is permitted, that solves the issue for the Honda doesn't it? Do any of the other mfg's offer a factory racing ECU?

[ghickman]

A factory racing ECU is permitted, that solves the issue for the Honda doesn't it? Do any of the other mfg's offer a factory racing ECU?

Honda= Yes
BMW= No
2015 Yamaha R1= No

I personally don't want to go down the open ECU path, those of you that have done this know it can be very expensive.

As the new bikes become more dependent on multi axis gyros the ecu hackers must work even harder for a work around. I'm in direct contact with one of the best hackers in the world and he's having trouble with them. Given enough time and money it can be done.

There is a way to get around the ecu problem but it's not legal by the way I read the rules. I'm waiting for someone to pull a Scott Tucker and try this.

[Mike Devins]

does the ECU need to be the same year as the bike?

[Jnovak]

does the ECU need to be the same year as the bike?

Just a factory supplied race ecu.

BTW BMW does have a race ecu. Just as hard to crack.

[ghickman]

does the ECU need to be the same year as the bike?

Ok Smockey go to it

[ghickman]

Just a factory supplied race ecu.

BTW BMW does have a race ecu. Just as hard to crack.

Doesn't matter at this point...it's been unsuccessfully un-cracked for years now. Several engine builders tells me it won't last a full session so probably a non issue anyhow....very frail. Would be nice to see it come to life though.

[JerryH]

does the ECU need to be the same year as the bike?

Just a factory supplied race ecu.

BTW BMW does have a race ecu. Just as hard to crack.

The rules say: "the" factory ecu .....emphasis on "the". If it said "a" factory ecu, then any year could be used....but it seems "the" means it would have to be same year....and same manufacture.

I was headed down this path too,.

Jerry

[Jnovak]

The rules say: "the" factory ecu .....emphasis on "the". If it said "a" factory ecu, then any year could be used....but it seems "the" means it would have to be same year....and same manufacture.

I was headed down this path too,.

Jerry

I do not agree that it must be the exact same year as the motor. I do agree that you must use a Suzuki race ecu on a Suzuki engine.

Jerry the rule was written at the request of the FB community so that they could get engines running, not to make it any harder. The bike racers move them around all the time with no problems as long as you can connect it up go for it.

Or ask for a clarification in a letter.

What would be the sense to the club and the racers to mean that a 2007 GSXR must use a 2007 GSXR ecu. You are Way over complicating what was intended Jerry.

The above comments are simply my personal opinion and as you know that is not worth much, so proceed with caution.

[Mike Devins]

what every you do don't ask for a clarification if you plan on trying it - the standard answer is "no". the most restrictive interpretation seems to be the answer.

The other issue with a clarification is that it is only good for the current season.

[Daryl DeArman]

The rules say: "the" factory ecu .....emphasis on "the". If it said "a" factory ecu, then any year could be used....but it seems "the" means it would have to be same year....and same manufacture.

I was headed down this path too,.

Jerry

I'm with Jerry when it comes to the implied intent. However, screw the intent, what does the rule say? If they meant something else they should have said something else.

"The factory" is often interpreted to mean "the OEM unit" not any old OEM unit made by the same "factory"

Anybody read much of an AMA rulebook? I think they've solved many problems.

[sccadsr31]

This is just advice from me not anything official from the CRB

The GCR has a Compliance Review Process 8.1.4, which is not the same thing as sending in a letter and asking for a rule clarification.
The GCR is dynamic and rules may be changed after approval by the BoD which generally only happens a couple of times a year.

For example a person might submit a letter and ask if the ecu must be the same year model as the engine. If you order an ecu for a 2008 Kawasaki ZX10R you will get one that was supplied from 2008 through 2010. OR You could also ask for a compliance hearing on the use of 2005 Suzuki 600cc ecu with your 2008 GSXR 1000.

If you have a new wiz bang idea and build something unique on your car and you want to find out if it is legal you could request a Compliance Review per section 8.1.4. Currently you need to call SCCA to get that going, soon you will be able to do that through the letter system at CRBSCCA.com.

Suggestions:
Read 8.1.4 to figure out if you can ask for clarification or need a compliance review.
Look up "Stock" in the technical glossary.
Read 1.2.3. Interpreting and Applying the GCR

Why do we have a long and complicated rule book, easy answer; We are racers we push the limits of language and interpenetration just like we do in design of race cars and driving at the limits and beyond, sometimes we exceed the grip level.
If "stock" was not defined ..........????

David

[allof6]

There are programs available for both Yamaha and BMW to flash the ecu's and yes the BMW can be made to run in the car and yes it is frail but primarily do to the transmission. There are replacement parts for that engine that fix the issue and are still with in the letter of the rules, They are very expensive though.