Yep. Ducati aren't expensive just because of their valve trains. Half that price above will get you a brand new duck with desmo valve train and all the accompanying quality and beauty.Originally Posted by Gary_T
The market will determine when the HP wars stop. I doubt 200HP and 13,500rpm liter bikes is where it ends. Time will tell.
I think that is something that everyone should wait and see on. It really remains to be seen how long these F4 tubs are going to last.
This is a really good point. Especially when you consider that the life of a quality tube frame chassis, while not infinite, can easily be 10-15 years. They can almost always be repaired too.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Or 23.
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and predict that tub life is a non-issue. Virtually all racing car tubs are made from aviation certified carbon prepreg. All Stohr carbon parts, for instance, are made with the very same Toray carbon prepreg Boeing uses to make more than half the structural weight of their 777 airliner with, which they certify for passenger service for 40,000 cycles, or 60,000 flight hours, or 20 years, whichever comes first. (Source) And, of course, those limits are established with 50% margins, so the actual predicted safe service life is half again as long.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
An acquaintance still has a F295 Dallara, did a couple of seasons of Brit or Euro F3, plus a few more locally before newer chassis relegated it to club level competition, still ok and that's 2 decades now.
Early days here yet for durability results...and no where near the miles of F3, with all their testing, the local F4s only niggle seems to be a not totally rigid master cylinder bulkhead.
Durability is always an unknown issue in CF racing tubs - it doesn't depend so much on the exact material used, but more on how it is used and the production methods used. The Swift 008 was a good example - the tubs were falling apart in the first race.
That said, however, the F4 tub will most likely last quite a few seasons once the bugs are worked out.
Ease of repairs are still an issue, unfortunately.
The Swift 008 tub had issues because the outer skin was initially too thin and because poor design work (inexperience with composites?) created a hinge effect under the hip bulkhead. As a result Swift were forced to take the tubs back to add several millimeters to the outer skin to shore it up. It was their and CART's slap-dash efforts to produce a "cheap" tub that caused the issues, nothing inherent to composites.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Just wondering why carbon tubs are not allowed. What competitive advantage is there? Weight? Most of the top cars are at minimum weight these days. Is it stiffness? I know of cars that are already so stiff they are undrivable (until they figure out the setup). Seriously is there an advantage? I know people are going to say it's illegal because they are trying to keep costs down but if there no competitive advantages then who cares if someone wants to spend the cash??
"If you're not driving on the edge you're taking up too much space.... "
JP, the "no tubs" rule dates to the era when FB was going to be "an FC with a motorcycle engine", hence the no tubs rule, the no carbon rule, etc. The original rules limited bodywork to 95cm wide aft of the front wheels, too, but a manufacturer who makes an FB-like car in Italy wanted to import his cars, which have very wide sidepods, so that rule was dropped.
Every rule in FB that seems a bit odd dates to those two factors.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
So am correct in saying carbon tubs have absolutely no competitive advantage?
"If you're not driving on the edge you're taking up too much space.... "
JP,
I think it would be posible to design a carbon tub that would have equivalent stiffness and be lighter than a tube frame car. That would allow extra weight to be added strategically (low at the cg) to gain a performance advantage.
Do you not feel safe in a tube frame FB? I think the safety record has been pretty good, no?
Ciao,
Joel
Piper DF-5 F1000
Not quite. As a practical matter carbon tubs tend to be designed and built by highly experienced teams of professionals, and with notable exceptions (e.g., late 80's Reynards and the Swift 008 from 1998) are much stiffer than typical tube frames for the same weight. The design teams' experience tends to extend to other areas of the cars, too; suspension, aero, power train installation, etc., so that the net effect is a car with measurable, if slight, advantages over less rigorously designed club-level cars. In recognition of that SCCA has historically imposed a 25 lbs weight penalty on carbon tubs in classes that permit them.
BTW, happy 10th birthday to FB next month.
Anyway, when the FB rules started being organized there was initially a provision for tub cars at the aforementioned 25 lb weight penalty, but that provision eventually was dropped in the face of resistance from early class advocates who wanted "an FC with a motorcycle engine".
Hope that helps.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Another issue is added cost. Once composite tubs are allowed the will become the prevalent choice and this will dramatically raise the cost to compete IMO.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Stiffness in this case is torsional rigidity. Higher is always better as it makes the car more predictable and respond to smaller setup changes.
A decent CF tub this size will be at least double the torsional rigidity of a tube frame, and with all other things being equal, it will have a massive advantage.
People care because eventually the costs will get to the point where very few people can afford these cars.
We'll build you one JP!
too lazy to look up the rules....
is carbon fiber outlawed in FB?
I can be used for crush structures but not for any panels or wings.
Noses can be c/f as long as they also serve as the crush structure, this would also apply to rear tail cones.
$$$
Last edited by billwald; 11.22.15 at 12:53 PM.
Carbon Fiber Tubs
I have had the opportunity to actually test a lot of cars from tube frames, aluminum monocoques, and carbon tube. The tests have been done with complete cars and they were loaded through the front suspension and anchored at the rear suspension.
The Swift 08 was easily twice what the best tube frame I have ever tested. That extra stiffness can be translated into superior mechanical grip. The Swift was the least of the carbon tub cars I tested.
The Zink Z12 and Zink Z14 were the same cars except that the Z11 had a steel tube frame and the Z14 was an aluminum monocoque. The difference in handling was dramatic, in favor of the Z14. The Z11 took 2 hands to drive where the Z14 could be driven with the finger tips of one hand and go faster. The Z14 was over three times as stiff in torsion as the Z11
jchracer asked if you could produce a carbon tube that had the same characteristics of a tube frame. It would be very difficult, if not nearly impossible. Steel tube frames are very much springs where as a carbon tub is very rigid and has very low elasticity characteristics. Yes you can make composite springs but that is not building a race car tub. The elasticity of steel and carbon fiber laminates is very much different. The carbon structure is basically not elastic.
The idea that carbon tubes are safer than tube frames is not necessarily true. The worst injury to a driver I was working with was in a Ralt RT 40 FA. Jeremy Grenier had an impact against a concrete wall at Daytona in a Citation 07 FF. That impact was every bit as sever as the one with the RT 40. The foot box was not compromised in the FF where as the steering rack was driven through the front bulkhead of the RT 40 and the driver has a significant limp today and that was after a year of treatments by Terry Trammel.
Bottom line, you have tube frames or carbon tube. You do not have both and expect the cars to be equal. And I think that carbon tubs may not be "appropriate technology for SCCA Club racing except in the very highest level cars.
Bottom line, leave the rules as they are. This is a great class and the rules do not need to be fiddled with. The cure may be way worse than any illness some perceive the class to have.
Thanks Steve L. I was not suggesting a rule change, as the thread has went that way. I was just curious. Thank you for sharing your experience in this thread, and others.
8th or 9th, depending on how you look at it. The BOD accepted our rules proposal (with some tweaks by the CRB) near the end of '06 and the class became official with the 2007 season. The first big race was the 2007 ARRC in November.BTW, happy 10th birthday to FB next month.
Mike Beauchamp
RF95 Prototype 2
Get your FIA rain lights here:
www.gyrodynamics.net/product/cartek-fia-rain-light/
We were there! 07 and 08 were awesome ARRC race weekends. We have been in FB since 2007 with the same car. Only thing we have done is update the body in 2013. Been fun and worth every penny. It was a great class then with many manufacturers, stock motors, same tires, mechanical shifters. It's a great class now. Times have certainly changed, but still great fun. Over 75 races in our logbooks.. Thanks Mike for helping and supporting FB. You and many others.
Last edited by billwald; 11.02.15 at 11:26 PM.
I was going by the thread started in December, 2005 by...IIRC...Bill Maisey in which he suggested a new class to replace the 1100cc motorcycle option in FC, which had been outlawed, and which IIRC he even called F-1000 in the thread. The rest is history. The BoD called me while Patti and I were driving south on Highway 1 the following September '06 to ask if I thought it should start out as a national class or have to work its way up from regional status. On the spur of the moment I suggested they make it a national class (along with several others), which they did effective January 2007.
Let's dig through the archives to see how well I recall those events...
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
2008 ARRC. Very organized, well attended, high excitement, media coverage, and close races. Manufacturers, parts suppliers, designers, all there. Met a lot of very cool people. And yep, that's Glenn Cooper there in P2. He hasn't changed much, except he's a bit quicker.
Last edited by billwald; 11.03.15 at 1:09 AM.
Hey, hey...awesome photos, Bill!!!
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
We talk about making changes each year and nothing happens. Most of these are drastic changes that cannot be reversed once implemeted (carbon fiber tubs). A Restrictor is one of the few changes that can be reversed if found not to work out correctly. These will need go-no go gauges to insure compliance. If there was one size hole for all motors then the tech tools would minimized and new motors could still be developed. There is one idea that I had that could break the stalemate but would have to be a permanent rule once implemented with no reversing. By combining the two ideas of Restrictors and open ECUs could have benefits. Those engines that need to operate with an aftermarket ECU will ALWAYS have to run a restrictor. The size of restrictor could be set but may change on a per year basis depending on the performance from the previous year and member input. Even the Suzuki could benefit from this rule. We could allow ONLY the Suzuki to be built with aftermarket parts (i.e. valves etc) as well as a aftermarket ECU. We would have to insure that anyone that invests money in this will not be disappointed. SCCA tends to protect those that spends large amounts of money in any class and this will not be any different either for those that have stock ECUs and those that don't. There have been large amounts of money in developing the wet/dry sump Suzuki and the latest generation Kawasaki. There are others that have already started to mount the BMW motor in their cars but don't have a ECU that will work. Let them run with a 36 mm restrictor and an aftermarket ECU. Then other engines running an aftermarket ECU will also run a 36mm restrictor. There is a new Suzuki motor (GSX S-1000) that is built from the 07-08 motor but does not have the horsepower to compete. Maybe with aftermarket parts, an aftermarket ECU and a 36mm restrictor these could compete along with the Kawasakis and those running a Suzuki now could convert to a newer motor. Eventually there would more new motors and less of the old motors. I would like for this class stay fresh and not be running a bunch of outdated engines as in other classes. There are a bunch of engines that could benefit from this also. With member input and like other classes, a homologation form, a new motor could be introduced. The form would have to show a dyno sheet as the motor is to be run with the current restrictor. In other classes, the GCR lists chassis and engine combinations with restrictions in a table. We should start thinking about having to make the rules for the FBs a little more complicated than having a general rule for all motors.
Formula Lites has become the official stepping stone for ex-go carters because they have Honda backing. Our cars have more in common with the Pro cars with 12,000 RPM motors and paddle shifters. There are few ex go-carters getting in our class because there is no money in it and the class is not going any where. Few young adults with a wife and kids are not going to be able to afford the $60K (or more) to buy a competive car even though there are others that are cheaper but not as competitive. When PRI magazine talks about road racing in their March issue, F1000 is never mentioned. When the magazine talks about SCCA, they only mention Spec Miata and Spec Racer Ford and Pro races are F2000, F1600 and FAtl.
Please, lets get off of the fence and agree on something to improve this class. Every one has what they want to see happen that will satisfy their own needs. Lets get something that will benefit everyone either in or wanting to be in this class.
Formula Lites are significantly more expensive, 120,000 for a turnkey car. What is the most expensive FB, look in the for sale section $70,000 maybe. That difference of $50000 will get you a pretty nice FB. FB is still the most cost effective bang for your buck class going in SCCA hands down. Which is going to keep it viable.
KISS, when we think about an engine rule use that acronym Keep It Simple Stupid.
Any engine after 2010 that has a FACTORY stated horsepower rating above 195 gets a restrictor, single inlet with the factory intake system required. Any engine below that runs without a restrictor. Allow the factory race ECU, which we have already done. This allows newer engines in the class while keeping older engines competitive.
This way you still bring in new engines and keep the old engines competitive for poor white boys like me.
If you have a newer restricted engine you will need to produce a dyno chart showing your engine is at or below 195. Where will the dyno chart come from?
Appoint 4 certified dyons, West Midwest, East, and South. Hopefully with the same make of dyno. They all use the same conversion factors when they dyno the motors, and there you go.
Ok, now everyone can shoot holes in this idea.
Last edited by DonArm; 11.20.15 at 7:21 PM.
Formula Lites are significantly more expensive, 120,000 for a turnkey car. What is the most expensive FB, look in the for sale section $70,000 maybe. That difference of $50000 will get you a pretty nice FB. FB is still the most cost effective bang for your buck class going in SCCA hands down. Which is going to keep it viable.
KISS, when we think about an engine rule use that acronym Keep It Simple Stupid.
Any engine after 2010 that has a FACTORY stated horsepower rating above 195 gets a restrictor, single inlet with the factory intake system required. Any engine below that runs without a restrictor. Allow the factory race ECU, which we have already done. This allows newer engines in the class while keeping older engines competitive.
This way you still bring in new engines and keep the old engines competitive for poor white boys like me.
If you have a newer restricted engine you will need to produce a dyno chart showing your engine is at or below 195. Where will the dyno chart come from?
Appoint 4 certified dyons, West Midwest, East, and South. Hopefully with the same make of dyno. They all use the same conversion factors when they dyno the motors, and there you go.
Ok, now everyone can shoot holes in this idea.
"poor WHITE boys", hey guys it is 2015
mind you sexist remarks about DP are ok LOL
never mind, carry on
FYI this will still not work for the BMW S1000RR and you can get a 1500 mile motor for under 3k. After market ECU is the only way to make that one work.
restrictors and aftermarket ecu
MIKE IS RIGHT....an aftermarket ecu probably is needed (I say that reluctantly) if we want to allow any engine to be easily used. We should all want that.....AND we should all want any engine to be able to run AT NO DISADVANTAGE.....including the 08 Suzuki most guys are running. That keeps guys coming to the races....and brings in new people.
The killer BMW came out in 2009....the killer kaw in 2011. No one can dispute that they are 10 to 15 hp up on the 08 susuki......so we need to restrict engines built after 2008.... one size for all made after that will make it easy. The Honda will need to remain unrestricted up thru 2015.....because it is no better than the 08 Suzuki.
FOR THOSE WHO ARGUE AGAINST RESTRICTORS:
On track data between different cars with different drivers is useless in making these kind of decisions. WE ALL KNOW MORE HOIRSEPOWER EQUALS MORE SPEED in the same car with the same driver...and no one can dispute the BMW and Kaw have 10 to 15 more hp than the 08 Suzuki (the engine most are running).
LETS MAKE DECISIONS THAT WILL KEEP THE CLASS GROWING. I can tell you for sure that the prospect of having to change engine types every few years is keeping some people from buying cars.
A lot of guys with Suzuki power stayed home or ran regionals this year...which really hurt our participation numbers. The Daytona runoffs was an exception due to the draw of running that track.
If they think their package is competitive, they will attend more races.
FB is still the best bang for the buck at this performance level......so lets try to keep it that way.
Jerry Hodges
Last edited by JerryH; 11.22.15 at 12:48 AM.
Last post is one of the more moronic series of statements I've read in a while outside of the govt defense work I do. Just be done with it and simply assign restrictors at 185 or 190 HP across the board for all engines. Then leave the ECU free. Seems to work fine in F3.
restrictors
Rob,
I agree with you on restricting all engines to about 185 horsepower.
The 08 Suzuki (on Georges dyno) shows 182-185, so it needs no restrictor......but rather than specify which years to restrict to accomplish the goal.....as I did...PERHAPS YOUR SUGGESTON WOULD BE EASIER.
The Kaw (on the same dyno) shows 197-198. The BMW is in the same range. We also know (from the committees work last year) what size restrictor is needed to bring them closer to 185...not equal but closer. That will make implementation easy.
When even newer engines become available, more dyno work will be needed unless we stay with the same restrictor for all engines after a certain year. We could use advertised hp, but it isn't representative of what we see as installed in our cars. We can put that discussion off for another time.
Looks like we agree on open ECUs. I was reluctant to do that...do to cost of some systems I have seen on Atlantic cars....but apparently we do need them to bring in other engines.
Do you have an FB these days. I know you were one of the early ones to convert a car, but I believe that one was sold. I hope you are coming back to FB. The cars and the competition are top notch....but you already know that.
Jerry
We, the FB ad hoc committee, tried our best to provide a restrictor package that would even things up and while the sizes were based on dyno data. The goal was to get the same power under the curve. This method raised a big stink because the restrictors were different sizes.
OK now P2 has very similar weights and engine sized for multiple 1000 cc engines with restrictors and their system is working very well.
I think that FB should follow the P2 solution which is very similar to what Jerry is proposing but has some advantages.
P2 engine rules (simplified)
Engines:
1000cc stock motorcycle engines
. 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.
P2 allows for any intake manifold. IMO FB should use the stock motorcycle throttle bodies only and allow the removal of the upper throttle plates as is currently done in FB
Now the big difference between the P2 and the FB restrictors is that P2 allows for the use of air horns to fair in the top and the bottom of the restrictor plate thus turning the "flat plate restrictor" into a Venturi style air horn. George Dean has done extensive dyno work with these types of restrictors and has found that the engines are much easier to tune and adjust than engines with true flat plate restrictors. The net effect is that the restrictors sizes are smaller and the engines run very nicely thurout the rev ranges.
The restrictor size (faired flat plate) 2006 and later engines are 37.5mm
2005 and earlier engines are allowed 39.5mm restrictors.
This is, for all intents and purposes, a one size restrictor fits all. Dyno data shows that the restrictor knocks a few hp off of the 2007-2008 Suzuki and somewhat more off of the later Kawasaki engines. No one has made a BMW work yet using the stock or race ECU (to my knowledge)
I now think that the one size restrictor is the right solution as the dyno data for the 08 Suzuki and the later model Kawasaki motors are very similar with the Kawasaki having a slight peak power advantage and the Suzuki having a slight torque advantage.
The restrictor sizes also effectively limits the peak rpm.
Summary after all the above.
1. Use a single size flat plate restrictor for all 2008 and later Suzuki and Kawasakie engines. Restrictors not required on 2014 or earlier Honda engines. Dyno data is required for any newer engines.
2. Allow the restrictor to be faired in with air horn shapes above and below the plate.
3. The flat plate must be within 4" of the lower throttle plate and above the throttle plate
4. Must use stock intake manifolds except that removal of the upper throttle plates and plugging any resulting holes is allowed.
5. Engines newer that 2014 must be dynoed with the recommended size and the data reported to the CRB
6. Must use the factory stock or race ecu. This effectively limits the use of the BMW engine.
Now obviously this is simply one solution and the competitors may want multiple sizes of restrictor for all engines. The downside of this is that the tick job is much more difficult and this would effectively limit the use of newer engines. Thus driving up the price of older engines and engine cores. Just some thoughts.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
I like everything except 5 & 6.
New engines should be allowed to run the common restrictor...this will keep new engines entering the mix.....a good thing in my opinion....but the common restrictor will slow the pace of advancement so that you don't have to convert to a new engine every year.
Allowing an OPTIONAL use of an open ecu I think will save money for the people who are going to run a single car multiple years as converting to a different engine will be less hassle.
Ciao,
Joel
Piper DF-5 F1000
Out of interest which motors can not be run in a car with the stock ECU?
It wouldn't be completely honest of me to say that ever-increasing power levels drove me out of F1000, but it certainly was the most distressing aspect of the class. So, it's very easy for me to believe it keeps people from joining (or staying in) the class.
Racer Russ
Palm Coast, FL
The BMW, which really should be a moot point because according to drag racers it makes a lot of horsepower but not reliable
Nick77
The Honda for one. But in general the stock ECUs will not work in a car application. Now some can be fooled into working and some can be re-flashed to work. Some engines also have racing ECUs available that will work in a car application.
But for the most part, the ECU is a problem when someone wants to run a bike engine in a car.
While potentially expensive, after market ECUs that are not engine specific are a one time expense and can be used on many different engines. Much like the shift systems we allow.
If we were to adopt the P2 restrictor rule, maybe we could have a list of approved after market ECUs. That list could be determined on price considerations.
George Dean says the Honda will run in a car with the factory race ecu.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote