What's next for FB?

[DonArm]

Everyone who did not write to the CRB requesting that restrictors be implemented, should write to get this stopped. And not to just the Formula committee or the CRB or the BOD but contact the .......
There appears to be someone who is pushing their own agenda to get this implemented.
Just for the record my agenda is to get my Honda powered Citation on the track this year.
I think restrictors are the wrong way to go. There is a better option. If we even need one.

Everyone that's whining about the Kawi being to fast should stop worrying about how much horsepower they have and find a driving coach and learn how to drive like JRO..... huummm

[DonArm]

FYI

" have some info that may help you. I went through all of the dyno results of the models we discussed the other night. I took an average of each model & graphed what i found. These are from a dynojet model 250i that i personally have ran & tuned hundreds of motorcycles on. I also attached the data from each run that shows the notes as well. The Honda & Kawasaki have both been derestricted. The Honda used timing retard eliminator. The Kawasaki had the stock ecu reflashed. The bike where run on a chassis dyno. I think limiting rpm would be the best way equalize the different engines."
Mark Ledesma

[Stan Clayton]

I think limiting rpm would be the best way equalize the different engines.

Eliminate the BMW and restrict the engines to 11,000 RPM and you're done.

[RussMcB]

Eliminate the BMW and restrict the engines to 11,000 RPM and you're done.

In that case, I'd take the Honda.

[JRMarchand]

If the engines are going to last longer with restrictors like in P2, then why not allow a stand alone ecu that will enable tuning the engine to work in a car much like P2.

My BMW program is coming slow & steady since 2013, so steady that i found myself in Majors spec miata this year taking podiums and top 4's, thats right spec miata is bad ass and the racing is not just "fun" but helps me forget about the other class i wish i could be part of, FB.

I have no idea who is pushing the letters to bring restrictors and not the standalone ecu to complete the order. I think that to get the package right with motorcycle engines, we'll need to take the bike ecu out of the equation. What makes P2 so special that it can run away with aftermarket ecu. I want to write a letter, but dont want to be the only one begging for the allowance so i can attend club racing. Tricking a bmw ecu is for the birds. Either way the BMW will be at MidOhio and Indy, yes it is coming.

this is just what i think.

[Jnovak]

I suspect that most of those dyno runs were made with bone stock headers and airbox where a remap of the ecu does very little. Our 2007 Suzuki engine, that won the Runoffs, had right at 175hp at the rear wheels on the same kind of a chassis dyno with the engine mounted in a bike chassis for the test through the bike rear tire to the dyno. This engine had extensive dyno work with a set of adjustable headers using many different pipe lengths and multiple types of collectors.

Just saying.

[Jnovak]

Eliminate the BMW and restrict the engines to 11,000 RPM and you're done.

That would be a reasonable solution if there was a way that tech can easily use to check every car in impound.

Now Don has suggested a tell tale that shows a red light indicating that there has been an over-rev or a series of over-revs. That's fine but what happens when every car in impound has the light showing. I know tech will then have to download the data from multiple different data systems with different software and examine every lap in the data to determine if each and every over-rev was an accident or on purpose etc. then of course there is also the problem of defining accidental or inadvertent over-revs

Now this is totally different than something like FM where each car has the same ECU with a hard RPM cut. It is still my opinion that an effective RPM limit cannot be properly policed by our SCCA tech.

other than the above problems I have no problem with a rev limit.

[JerryH]

Don has done a lot of work (or had it done) on the so called "tell tale device" that Jay spoke of. He presented the idea to the ad hoc committee way back when.

Had it been fully operational back when the ad hoc committee was hammering things out, it may have been given more consideration. Rev limiters were ruled out due to concerns about policing and possible cheating. But this might be easier to police. Engine longevity would likely be better.

12500 would be perfect for the gsxr.....little or no power loss....and good for longevity. the kaw would still be a bit better on top and a bit less mid range.....so it averages out. It would benefit the most in longevity at that rpm. the Honda with some shorter velocity stacks might come closer to the Suzuki. The bmw would still be a killer.

perhaps Don can post some info....and a status report on development.....mainly how it filters out short accidental over revs.....and how the tech guys would use it. I am sure a lot of competitors never heard of this.

Jay, the hp in the graph don posted is less than what we see with exhaust tuning, etc. but the curves seem to follow the same patterns relative to one another after they are all tuned.

So....Don, can you explain the policing end of it?

Just considering the pros and cons guys......and seeking info......not recommending anything.

Jerry

[ghickman]

There are already commercially available external rev limiters for MC engines. They're less than $200. The ones I've seen are externally adjustable.

I'm sure a manufacturer could seal them for a specific limit.

I'm still opposed to any changes to the rules. Leave the class alone. If we keep going faster let them lump us in with FA and the SCCA can go nuts trying to keep parity with the FA engines and the MC engines.

[ghickman]

I'm sure all of you know this but the factory ECU does have an adjustable rev limiter.

Of coarse it would have to be on the honor system to police it. Just saying

[Saracen]

Looks like the Tech Bulletin for restrictors has been rescinded. Now a "recommended rule change effective 3/1/16".



From post #4 on the prelim thread

How should one read this? Has the restrictor can just been kicked down the road until March?

[ghickman]

How should one read this? Has the restrictor can just been kicked down the road until March?

Yes

And now for those that care about saving the class this is your opportunity to voice your opinion to the following.

CRB
BOD
Lisa Noble President of the SCCA

You can get all of the above contact information on the SCCA website, pretty simple.

This decision was from what I have now been told based on one (1) letter to the SCCA asking for a restrictor on the Kawasaki, not the Suzuki.


15 letters sent in. 11 asking for restrictors on the Kawasaki, from what I know only 2 of those 11 wanted restrictors across the board. I was also told that these letters came in too late for the last CRB meeting.

So is it true this terrible decision was made based on one persons request?

I'd call out the folks that wanted this but I won't.

If you care about this class voice your opinion to the list above. This ruling will kill the class...done!

[ghickman]

What ticks me off about all this is the timing. They did this right around the Holidays when everyone is focusing on Christmas and end of year stuff....or like me running a business.

So they try to slip this through while nobody is really paying attention.

Really makes me and others I know distrust this process. Get with the modern age SCCA and send out emails to all registered drivers in this class when it matters. You can send out mass emails for all your marketing crap certainly you could do it in matters like this.

[DonArm]

"I know tech will then have to download the data from multiple different data systems with different software and examine every lap in the data to determine if each and every over-rev was an accident or on purpose etc. then of course there is also the problem of defining accidental or inadvertent over-revs"

Completely and totally incorrect Jay,
There will be one box that fits all engines. One software app that works for all the engines.
I am not going to go into the specifics of how it works do to people then trying to figure out how to cheat it. I will say that the gentleman who is making it has 30 plus years in racing, (IndyCar, F1, NASCAR), electronics and invented the little finger pulse oximeters that can be placed on someones finger to read blood O2 content.
The unit will be able to filter out over rev's on downshift and or upshifts, those will not cause the infraction light to come on. In addition there are mechanisms built into it (hardware and software) that will indicate if it has been tampered with before, during or after a race.
And, Jay here is the bottom line for the 50th time to you and everyone from the Ad-Hoc that wasn't listening then, the thing will NOT require any "interpretation" of data. Any monkey off the street will be able use it. This thing was made based on the time tested and sometimes not honored acronym KISS.
Again I will not go into specifics of how the device exactly works, just to say it has been test and does work.
As far as hard rev-limiting the engines, not needed if the driver knows how to control his right foot. If he can't get a coach

[Jnovak]

Yes

So is it true this terrible decision was made based on one persons request?

Frankly I am amazed that you think that members of the CRB would do anything like you have implied. Every one of those members work a ton of hours doing a very tough job so that the clubs can continue to function. I know several of them and they all spend many hundreds of hours of their time every year working for you and your club. You should give it a try.

Now to answer your question. ABSOLUTLY NOT.
I read every letter that comes into the system that is related to Formula and Sports Racer classes. There were many many letters that arrived in the system before the last CRB meeting requesting restrictors and I am certain that the CRB members read them all.

Now I have no idea what their discussions were about at the CRB level. I believe that the size was determined because the size has worked very well for the P2 class. I know many P2 racers and the 1000cc guys are good with the stock engine and the modified engine restrictor sizes.

Now I imagine that Chris Ferrel is shocked at the HP level of his STOCK P2 engine because he was used to his full race P1 engine that probably made close to 30 hp more than his stock P2 Suzuki.

As a former member of the P2 ad hoc committee I saw all of the dyno data used to make the decisions. Now if the restrictors were true flat plate restrictors WITHOUT air horns and fairings with the specified restrictor size then the uproar would be enormous because I saw that dyno data too.

[ghickman]

Jay
I have a trail of emails that indicate that what you are stating is not the case.

We will take this matter up with the BOD.

[Jnovak]

"I know tech will then have to download the data from multiple different data systems with different software and examine every lap in the data to determine if each and every over-rev was an accident or on purpose etc. then of course there is also the problem of defining accidental or inadvertent over-revs"

Completely and totally incorrect Jay,
There will be one box that fits all engines. One software app that works for all the engines.
I am not going to go into the specifics of how it works do to people then trying to figure out how to cheat it. I will say that the gentleman who is making it has 30 plus years in racing, (IndyCar, F1, NASCAR), electronics and invented the little finger pulse oximeters that can be placed on someones finger to read blood O2 content.
The unit will be able to filter out over rev's on downshift and or upshifts, those will not cause the infraction light to come on. In addition there are mechanisms built into it (hardware and software) that will indicate if it has been tampered with before, during or after a race.
And, Jay here is the bottom line for the 50th time to you and everyone from the Ad-Hoc that wasn't listening then, the thing will NOT require any "interpretation" of data. Any monkey off the street will be able use it. This thing was made based on the time tested and sometimes not honored acronym KISS.
Again I will not go into specifics of how the device exactly works, just to say it has been test and does work.
As far as hard rev-limiting the engines, not needed if the driver knows how to control his right foot. If he can't get a coach

Don, I will accept what you are saying if you could please show us some data to support your statements. Remember we used actual dyno data and calculated the torque to the rear wheel based on each engines trans ratios to determine the restrictor sizes. That was actual DATA from one guy on one dyno and the results were based on solid engineering.

Please accept that I respect what you are saying and that it may work. I am just a guy who likes data and on the committee we never saw any data from you at all. Do you expect the club to embrace this system never having seen it or data from it or tested it?

Would you have different rev limits or a common one for all engines.

[jchracer]

Looks like the Tech Bulletin for restrictors has been rescinded. Now a "recommended rule change effective 3/1/16".



From post #4 on the prelim thread

I am usually not this clueless but at the risk of sounding really stupid....once again.....where the hell do I find this "officially"?????

I don't see any changes to the tech bulletin????

[Mike Devins]

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...36&postcount=4

[jchracer]

Thanks Mike. Got it.....nothing official yet on the SCCA website.....

[Stan Clayton]

Mike is correct, Joel. Writing for the CRB, David Arken is telling us that the implementation date has been moved to March 1st. That change will appear in the "official" Tech Bulletin when it comes out on or about Dec 20th. Cheers, Stan

[Blair Robertshaw]

I now have 2 updated Stohrs, we have done an incredible amount of work on them over the last 3 years to get them to where we are today, which is ready to head south and compete.

Since I first picked up the cars, I have watched this thread with keen interest. We run GSXR's. This may be ill or uneducated but but why doesnt everyone quit dicking with this class.

GSXR's have some benefits that Kawi's & Honda's dont, Kawi's have some benefit that GSXR's and Honda dont, Honda doesnt really seem to be a strong engine for the class (at least not yet). BMW may make some in roads.

As I read the thread you guys seem to be getting in the way of your selves, please not trying to slam anyone but man this class has done well, there will always be motor of the year club just like pipe of the month, shock of the month and so on. I think a general rule of any motor goes, blue printing only for mods and then just go race.

Let the roasting begin!

[J Leonard]

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.

What is "TBO" ?

[jchracer]

What is "TBO" ?

Time Between Overhaul.

[Stan Clayton]

What is "TBO" ?

Time Between Overhaul

[Stan Clayton]

Woot...simul-post!

[J Leonard]

Thanks

[Jnovak]

Done

[Jnovak]

Done

[ghickman]

Jay
Speaking for myself I would appreciate it if you would not post these results and maybe there are others that feel the same way.

Since you appear to be able to read the email communication prior to it reaching its final destination I feel it does a disservice to the FB community for you to post the results blow by blow.

This is a kin to election day exit polling. Please be kind enough to stop this.

Now I see the posts are gone....for those of you that didn't see it draw your own conclusions.

This is getting over the top NEFARIOUS!

[Jnovak]

Jay
Speaking for myself I would appreciate it if you would not post these results and maybe there are others that feel the same way.

Since you appear to be able to read the email communication prior to it reaching its final destination I feel it does a disservice to the FB community for you to post the results blow by blow.

This is a kin to election day exit polling. Please be kind enough to stop this.

Now I see the posts are gone....for those of you that didn't see it draw your own conclusions.

This is getting over the top NEFARIOUS!

Your mind is what is NEFARIOUS Mr Hickman. As a member of the FSRAC I assumed I could post the numbers of letters. I was informed that I am not allowed to do so.

[ghickman]

Your mind is what is NEFARIOUS Mr Hickman. As a member of the FSRAC I assumed I could post the numbers of letters. I was informed that I am not allowed to do so.

Jay
I would recommend we not take this to ad hominem attacks.

I'm attempting to keep things civil.

[JerryH]

Frankly I am amazed that you think that members of the CRB would do anything like you have implied. Every one of those members work a ton of hours doing a very tough job so that the clubs can continue to function. I know several of them and they all spend many hundreds of hours of their time every year working for you and your club. You should give it a try.

Now to answer your question. ABSOLUTLY NOT.
I read every letter that comes into the system that is related to Formula and Sports Racer classes. There were many many letters that arrived in the system before the last CRB meeting requesting restrictors and I am certain that the CRB members read them all.

Now I have no idea what their discussions were about at the CRB level. I believe that the size was determined because the size has worked very well for the P2 class. I know many P2 racers and the 1000cc guys are good with the stock engine and the modified engine restrictor sizes.

Now I imagine that Chris Ferrel is shocked at the HP level of his STOCK P2 engine because he was used to his full race P1 engine that probably made close to 30 hp more than his stock P2 Suzuki.

As a former member of the P2 ad hoc committee I saw all of the dyno data used to make the decisions. Now if the restrictors were true flat plate restrictors WITHOUT air horns and fairings with the specified restrictor size then the uproar would be enormous because I saw that dyno data too.

Jay,
MY LETTER WAS THE ONLY ONE LISTED WHEN THE DECISION WAS ANNOUNCED. You told me the other letters did not arrive in time. If mine was the only letter listed in the decision, and the only one that arrived in time, doesn't it follow that it was the only one used in making the decision...or the decision was already made?

MY LETTER DID NOT SUPORT RESTRICTORS IN GENERAL....JUST FOR CERTAIN ENGINES MADE AFTER 2008.

I was in touch with all the people who wrote the next batch of letters. NONE OF THOSE LETTERS ASK FOR RESTRICTORS IN GENERAL EITHER...JUST FOR CERTAIN ENGINES MADE AFTER 2008. They were sent within a day or two after mine. They were listed some days later...and the crb answer to them referred to my letter.

TELL ME HOW ASKING FOR ONE CHANGE RESULTS IN SOMETHING TOTALL DIFFERENT BEING DONE. The request could be denied....but not used as a basis for a totally different change.

That would be like me asking for a wing size reduction, and the crb increasing the wing size....and using my request as a basis for the change.

It seems obvious that this was already decided before my letter was written.

As far as the P2 dyno data.....There was none for a kaw on 37.5....so a decision was made without any info on one of the engines......so a precedent has been set.

Jerry

[Purple Frog]

There currently is a very robust team of folks on the FSRAC. I'm guessing over 350 years of collective experience racing in formula car and sports racers within SCCA Club. These guys didn't just fall off the turnip truck. They are very actively racing in these classes and are aware of what's happening. Jay is only one of over a dozen that debate these issues every month.

As a member of the FSRAC and one of the guys that helped write the original FB rules, it has been clear from Day 1 that the CRB had the option to require restrictors as needed as a "competition adjustment" that requires no letters being submitted to enact. So, folks... it doesn't matter how many letters were on file at the time of the decision.

OBTW, I support what Clayton has said (that way I don't need to retype it.)

An attempt to put restrictors on only a select group of manufacturers would have created as much a firestorm as what was attempted. If all have 1,000 cc and all have to breathe through the same size hole, it pretty much levels the playing field.

[Jnovak]

Jay,
MY LETTER WAS THE ONLY ONE LISTED WHEN THE DECISION WAS ANNOUNCED. You told me the other letters did not arrive in time. If mine was the only letter listed in the decision, and the only one that arrived in time, doesn't it follow that it was the only one used in making the decision...or the decision was already made?

MY LETTER DID NOT SUPORT RESTRICTORS IN GENERAL....JUST FOR CERTAIN ENGINES MADE AFTER 2008.

I was in touch with all the people who wrote the next batch of letters. NONE OF THOSE LETTERS ASK FOR RESTRICTORS IN GENERAL EITHER...JUST FOR CERTAIN ENGINES MADE AFTER 2008. They were sent within a day or two after mine. They were listed some days later...and the crb answer to them referred to my letter.

TELL ME HOW ASKING FOR ONE CHANGE RESULTS IN SOMETHING TOTALL DIFFERENT BEING DONE. The request could be denied....but not used as a basis for a totally different change.

That would be like me asking for a wing size reduction, and the crb increasing the wing size....and using my request as a basis for the change.

It seems obvious that this was already decided before my letter was written.

As far as the P2 dyno data.....There was none for a kaw on 37.5....so a decision was made without any info on one of the engines......so a precedent has been set.

Jerry

Jerry, there were many letters that posted on the same day as yours and within 2 days there were many more. When we spoke I probably did not remember correctly how many letters had arrived.

Remember that Restrictors were/are already legal for FB from day 1. I know that restrictors had been discussed at many other times. I assume that the batch of letters arriving on the same date simply accelerated the process.

It is clear that the CRB thought that the best and fairest way to start was to use a common size for all engines and make further competition adjustments as needed.

Believe me the CRB did the class a favor by defining that the restrictors to be used would be the air horn faired restrictors. The 37.5mm faired restrictors are better for the engine and produce a better power curve than with the true flat plate restrictors.

Now your letter was very specific and exempted the 2007-2008 Suzuki from any restriction at all and restricted the Kawasaki pretty significantly (my position based on dyno database from FB and P2 dyno data).

While I am not privy to the discussions of the CRB I am quite sure that their position for implementing the use of restrictors in the class had to be done evenly and fairly as a starting point. Thus the use of a common size for all current late model Suzuki and Kawasaki engines

If what you had suggested (effectively 41mm flat plate restrictors on Kawasaki engines only) had been implemented then it would have been clear to the club members that the Suzuki engine was being given an advantage (just my opinion) and the Kawasaki competitors would be at a disadvantage. (again just my opinion)

Based on dyno data that I have seen the 37.5mm faired in restrictors have a bit more power and torque than the 41mm true flat plate restrictors on the Suzuki engine.

Based on the very extensive dyno data we have both seen on both the Suzuki and the Kawasaki engines using multiple different sizes of flat plate restrictors on both engines, it is my opinion that the Kawasaki engine will have a slight peak hp advantage and a slight disadvantage in peak torque when compared to the Suzuki.

[Daryl DeArman]

If all have 1,000 cc and all have to breathe through the same size hole, it pretty much levels the playing field.

All due respect there PF, that would certainly depend greatly on your definition of "pretty much".

I'm saying, and have been since day 1, that it's not close to "pretty much". I had/have a lot of knowledgeable detractors....I just don't believe they are being forthright with their opinions due to a vested interest in the outcome.

[Zcurves]

Like many of us, I've been watching this thread with great interest. I'm sure if we gained consensus as a class, the CRB would accommodate our request so long as it met their objective. We have some extremely passionate members of the class and you all have positive things to contribute.

My personal opinion is that the Suzuki should not be restricted for any existing model up to and including current. If Suzuki makes a huge leap in the next generation, then it should be addressed. I have chosen to run the 09, so restricting engines based solely on year (09 up) puts me at a disadvantage when I clearly don't have one. Engine longevity is not an issue for me, knock on wood. If it lasts the first session, it's good for up to 15 races. If it doesn't, I likely did something wrong. I shift at 12.5 and only go beyond in the draft. If you think the Kawi, BMW, or whatever new killer comes out should be restricted then the decision should be based on data.

I just went through this crap 10 months ago. I procured flat plate restictors, put in the dyno time, for nothing. Let's just say I'm less than thrilled to go through it again.

It's been discussed before, but I would be ecstatic if a weight penalty were added. Those of us with limited resources and expertise wouldn't have to sink big $ to shed weight or buy a new car. I could see where it could boost participation as well. I know of several older cars that are likely gathering dust. Just my 2 cents.

[Jnovak]

There currently is a very robust team of folks on the FSRAC. I'm guessing over 350 years of collective experience racing in formula car and sports racers within SCCA Club. These guys didn't just fall off the turnip truck. They are very actively racing in these classes and are aware of what's happening. Jay is only one of over a dozen that debate these issues every month.

As a member of the FSRAC and one of the guys that helped write the original FB rules, it has been clear from Day 1 that the CRB had the option to require restrictors as needed as a "competition adjustment" that requires no letters being submitted to enact. So, folks... it doesn't matter how many letters were on file at the time of the decision.

OBTW, I support what Clayton has said (that way I don't need to retype it.)

An attempt to put restrictors on only a select group of manufacturers would have created as much a firestorm as what was attempted. If all have 1,000 cc and all have to breathe through the same size hole, it pretty much levels the playing field.

Oh man, the Purple One states it so very simply and elegantly than I ever could. Thanks Mike.

[Stan Clayton]

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.

If the engines are going to last longer with restrictors like in P2, then why not allow a stand alone ecu that will enable tuning the engine to work in a car much like P2.

Say hello to your fat-tired classmates in FA, folks. Because an FA-FB merger is the likely outcome if folks keep pushing proposals like this. The CRB and BoD are under constant pressure to hold the line at the number of classes, and there will always be a Spec BMW E46, Mazda MX-5 Cup, or some other new door-slammer group that's bringing X times as many cars as we can manage to push us off the grid.

The Club's leadership will be loath to get rid of FA, which is crashing even harder than FB, so modifying FB to permit P1-like engine rules is just the ticket it needs to merge with the bigger engine cars.

Class 2013 2014 2015
FA 435 259 68
FB 399 292 141

Of course, that might help sell some new cars, so there is an upside. Just be careful what you ask for. Don't believe me? Seen an A Prod, B Prod, C Prod, D Prod or G Prod car lately? How about the disappeared Touring classes? No? I thought not. Now days we have AS, STU & STL in their place, and G Prod was divvied up between F Prod and H Prod. CSR, DSR and S2000 were consolidated into P1 and P2. See a pattern here? Refuse to make changes to strengthen your participation numbers and it will happen to you, too. Sure as the sunrise.

Just ask the FF-Kent guys what happened when their numbers crashed.

[Stan Clayton]

If we keep going faster let them lump us in with FA and the SCCA can go nuts trying to keep parity with the FA engines and the MC engines.

I missed this post earlier, Gary, but someone just pointed it out to me.

Anyway, if this is really how you feel, you, Jerry and I should get together to submit a joint proposal to the CRB and BoD to roll FB into FA for 2017...race-prepped liter engines on 6" & 8" wheels at 1000 lbs, or stock 1340cc 'Busas on 8s & 10s at 1150. Otherwise same rules as FA has now, just open the engine rules to permit m/c engines on skinny tires. Why wait until "we keep going faster"? After all, the Club leadership always prefers a plan...

The cars would kick a 1600cc FA to the curb, but those guys are toast anyway.