What's next for FB?

[Jnovak]

Jay,

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

Charles

I see a problem with the class withering away because few can afford the cost of engines that are required to run at the front. That is why Brian and I got out of the class. The costs of blown engines was not worth racing in the class to us. IMO restrictors will help this simply because the competitors and the engine builders will stop searching for more power with higher revs. Restrictors will stop this continued search for more power at higher revs.

Why to you think the stock Kawasaki revs to 14000 rpm. It is because there is more power up there. Put a modest cap on high rpm power with a modest sized restrictor and the engines will live a LOT LONGER. I know this is a fact because we have restrictors in F600 and plain and simple the engines will simply stop pulling after a certain RPM is reached. That did not stop Calvin Stewart from winning the Runoffs and going 158.988 mph at Daytona with a 600cc RESTRICTED engine. The motor in Cal's car has NEVER been apart and still runs great but it just stops pulling at 13,500. You can easily rev it higher but the lap times just get slower.

When restrictors are implemented the engines will LIVE A LOT LONGER and we and many others who have stopped racing in FB might come back.

Look at the decline in FB entries the last 3 years. Down OVER 50% from the early days in FB. This is not an accident. It is because the racers cannot afford 2 or 3 engines a year to compete.

IMO you should stop complaining and go racing. If the cars are slower then ask for bigger restrictors. The CRB actually does listen.

[ghickman]

I see a problem with the class withering away because few can afford the cost of engines that are required to run at the front. That is why Brian and I got out of the class. The costs of blown engines was not worth racing in the class to us. IMO restrictors will help this simply because the competitors and the engine builders will stop searching for more power with higher revs. Restrictors will stop this continued search for more power at higher revs.

Why to you think the stock Kawasaki revs to 14000 rpm. It is because there is more power up there. Put a modest cap on high rpm power with a modest sized restrictor and the engines will live a LOT LONGER. I know this is a fact because we have restrictors in F600 and plain and simple the engines will simply stop pulling after a certain RPM is reached. That did not stop Calvin Stewart from winning the Runoffs and going 158.988 mph at Daytona with a 600cc RESTRICTED engine. The motor in Cal's car has NEVER been apart and still runs great but it just stops pulling at 13,500. You can easily rev it higher but the lap times just get slower.

When restrictors are implemented the engines will LIVE A LOT LONGER and we and many others who have stopped racing in FB might come back.

Look at the decline in FB entries the last 3 years. Down OVER 50% from the early days in FB. This is not an accident. It is because the racers cannot afford 2 or 3 engines a year to compete.

IMO you should stop complaining and go racing. If the cars are slower then ask for bigger restrictors. The CRB actually does listen.

Where do you get this 2-3 engines per year?

In 5 years I've had 3 engine failures. In the past 3 years I've had ZERO. Some of this is due to timing the engines out. The same 2 engines I've run for the past 2 seasons are the same ones I used in the 2014 and 2015 Runoffs.

Ask Jeremy Hill how many he's gone through in the past, likely not many.

In the past 2 season my total engine budget was $6100. I'm doing all the Majors and flogging it hard.

The decline has nothing to do with using up engines. It's this constant yammering over the restrictors that's the cause among other things.

[Charles Livingston]

I see a problem with the class withering away because few can afford the cost of engines that are required to run at the front. That is why Brian and I got out of the class. The costs of blown engines was not worth racing in the class to us. IMO restrictors will help this simply because the competitors and the engine builders will stop searching for more power with higher revs. Restrictors will stop this continued search for more power at higher revs.

Why to you think the stock Kawasaki revs to 14000 rpm. It is because there is more power up there. Put a modest cap on high rpm power with a modest sized restrictor and the engines will live a LOT LONGER. I know this is a fact because we have restrictors in F600 and plain and simple the engines will simply stop pulling after a certain RPM is reached. That did not stop Calvin Stewart from winning the Runoffs and going 158.988 mph at Daytona with a 600cc RESTRICTED engine. The motor in Cal's car has NEVER been apart and still runs great but it just stops pulling at 13,500. You can easily rev it higher but the lap times just get slower.

When restrictors are implemented the engines will LIVE A LOT LONGER and we and many others who have stopped racing in FB might come back.

Look at the decline in FB entries the last 3 years. Down OVER 50% from the early days in FB. This is not an accident. It is because the racers cannot afford 2 or 3 engines a year to compete.

IMO you should stop complaining and go racing. If the cars are slower then ask for bigger restrictors. The CRB actually does listen.

1. There is no reliability problem with the 07/08 GSXR and other early motors, provided you don't regularly rev them over 13,000 (see #2 below). In my own experience, I ran an 08 GSXR for 8 weekends in 2013/2014 with no problems. I hit the rev limit (13.2-13.5) numerous times a weekend and shifted just under 13,000 (12.7-12.8). The motor is tired but is still going.

2. As I understand it, the way the newer motors make more power is by revving higher. In contrast, there is not much, if anything, to be gained by revving the 07/08 GXSR and other early motors over 13,000. Hence the proposal of restricting the later motors but not the 08 and earlier motors. This not only lengthens the engine life of the newer motors, but also addresses the issue of motor creep by restricting the newer more powerful motors while leaving the motor that is most widely used alone.

3. For whatever reason, you left the class. It is ironic to me that you are fighting so hard for a rule change that is opposed by those who chose to stay (or join).

Charles

[Daryl DeArman]

The decline has nothing to do with using up engines. It's this constant yammering over the restrictors that's the cause among other things.

Yep. Get rid of the restrictors and if you want to control the engine costs/speeds, put a moratorium on years.

Keeping these FB's away from FA territory isn't "in the name of safety". That's the same wolf in sheeps' clothing the CRB hears with many rule change proposals, the CRB/BOD is just using it on the racers this time. This has everything to do with protecting the egos and investments of the FA competitors from harm.

[ghickman]

Yep. Get rid of the restrictors and if you want to control the engine costs/speeds, put a moratorium on years.

Keeping these FB's away from FA territory isn't "in the name of safety". That's the same wolf in sheeps' clothing the CRB hears with many rule change proposals, the CRB/BOD is just using it on the racers this time. This has everything to do with protecting the egos and investments of the FA competitors from harm.

I couldn't agree more Daryl, nice to see someone else notices this.

[Shane Prieto]

NO RESTRICTORS
I got into this class just a year ago. I made my decision based on how these cars performed on the track. If I wanted to go slower and spend less money I would have bought a FF, FC or FE.
What is the real reason for slowing the cars down?????
As far as reliability, I ran all season on one motor no problems.

[ghickman]

NO RESTRICTORS
I got into this class just a year ago. I made my decision based on how these cars performed on the track. If I wanted to go slower and spend less money I would have bought a FF, FC or FE.
What is the real reason for slowing the cars down?????
As far as reliability, I ran all season on one motor no problems.

Oh but Shane you are driving one of those big bad Gen4 Kawasaki powered cars. You must have an advantage of 15HP.

[Saracen]

Oh but Shane you are driving one of those big bad Gen4 Kawasaki powered cars. You must have an advantage of 15HP.

Please, who is presently on the FB Ad Hoc Committee, I was unable to find a list on the SCCA web page. They need to be hearing from us now as this change is not acceptable. Oh and I just looked at JR segment times for a race lap at Daytona and he was pulling a second in the infield section isn't that the home of the Suzuki advantage? NOTHING needs to be done!

[Saracen]

Please, who is presently on the FB Ad Hoc Committee, I was unable to find a list on the SCCA web page. They need to be hearing from us now as this change is not acceptable. Oh and I just looked at JR segment times for a race lap at Daytona and he was pulling a second in the infield section isn't that the home of the Suzuki advantage? NOTHING needs to be done!

Mr. Jnovak states in post 6 of this thred that the FB Ad Hoc committee was directed to make sure the cars don't go faster. This is not what is going to happen!

[JohnPaul]

All you whiners are missing the sciencetifical facts: the scca sucks nut sacks

[Jnovak]

Please, who is presently on the FB Ad Hoc Committee, I was unable to find a list on the SCCA web page. They need to be hearing from us now as this change is not acceptable. Oh and I just looked at JR segment times for a race lap at Daytona and he was pulling a second in the infield section isn't that the home of the Suzuki advantage? NOTHING needs to be done!

The FB ad hoc was disbanded about a year ago. Letters should be sent to
Www.crbscca.com

[glenn cooper]

I didn't invent this stuff.

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

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

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

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

Jerry

What the vid doesn't really show, is that the 2 cars directly behind JRO were very slow through T1, ridiculously slow in fact, which held everyone else up - RACE OVER!
Seconds later, Hickman was so sideways in front of me exiting the Int'l Horseshoe I had to get completely out of it.. The race was over in the first 2 corners...

The gearing on the Kawi can't even be compared to the Zook, because the Gen 4 Kawi has a close ratio gearbox, w/ a super tall 1st gear, good for something like 90mph or so.

[ghickman]

What the vid doesn't really show, is that the 2 cars directly behind JRO were very slow through T1, ridiculously slow in fact, which held everyone else up - RACE OVER!
Seconds later, Hickman was so sideways in front of me exiting the Int'l Horseshoe I had to get completely out of it.. The race was over in the first 2 corners...

The gearing on the Kawi can't even be compared to the Zook, because the Gen 4 Kawi has a close ratio gearbox, w/ a super tall 1st gear, good for something like 90mph or so.

I'll post a link to the opening of the race. What put me sideways was Mayer and I touched tires as I went under him.

That was a weird start it seemed like Alex checked up in T1 then Roggenbuck went wide we know the rest. JRO was gone and Roggenbuck was mowing the grass on fire!

The challenge with the Kawi is the gearing and without the geartronics even worse.

[Jnovak]

Where do you get this 2-3 engines per year?

In 5 years I've had 3 engine failures. In the past 3 years I've had ZERO. Some of this is due to timing the engines out. The same 2 engines I've run for the past 2 seasons are the same ones I used in the 2014 and 2015 Runoffs.

Ask Jeremy Hill how many he's gone through in the past, likely not many.

In the past 2 season my total engine budget was $6100. I'm doing all the Majors and flogging it hard.

The decline has nothing to do with using up engines. It's this constant yammering over the restrictors that's the cause among other things.

My apologies Gary but only 3 engine failures in 5 years? and how much workload did that add to your effort? what does it cost to buy, build, dyno. ship 5 engines and then change 3 engines in your car?

How many motors failed at the Runoffs? I know of 4 that I saw out of cars. Now they may not have been failures but they were out of the cars.

I know that we failed 3 motors in 2 seasons and that simply drove us out of the class as much as we both loved it. I know the cost of 3 engines and there are many racers like us who cannot afford it. Now these failures were all associated with turning over 13000 rpm with our Suzuki engines and that was our fault for trying for more power.

My last post on this forum subject as I am not currently a competitor in the class.

[billwald]

Jay, I hope we don't lose your observations and opinions. I think all of us welcome them. Even Gary. 48 years in the SCCA - we are lucky to have your interest. I'm on 13, never going to make 48. We attended a worker's memorial last weekend at the Turkey Trot. 250+ people, free food, drinks, a lot of new and old friends. A lot of old stories.

Going forward it would be great if the manufacturers, top engine builders, and major suppliers formed a committee to try and work together. I think Mike B, others, and the ad hoc tried. Time to try again - If you can find some volunteers for this thankless task. Meantime, we are ordering our restrictors to have in the Stohr by the January races.

Edit: PS: If you have any thoughts on PFM's, please feel free to post there anytime.

[JerryH]

What the vid doesn't really show, is that the 2 cars directly behind JRO were very slow through T1, ridiculously slow in fact, which held everyone else up - RACE OVER!
Seconds later, Hickman was so sideways in front of me exiting the Int'l Horseshoe I had to get completely out of it.. The race was over in the first 2 corners...

The gearing on the Kawi can't even be compared to the Zook, because the Gen 4 Kawi has a close ratio gearbox, w/ a super tall 1st gear, good for something like 90mph or so.

If Alex and Gary had trouble In turn one, that could explain how JRO pulled the lead in the infield.....but look at how much of a lead he pulled as soon as he got on the oval......not exiting the last corner.... but well after.....that was power. Gary and Alex would gain some of it back near the end of the straights....because JR was carrying more wing....and most would argue the car is not as slick at the Phoenix and JDR....but he had the power to pull that drag....and to out accelerate them.

As far as gearing is concerned, the kaw may be to close...but I think the gsxr is a bit wide. A closer ration box could help....except in very slow 1st gear corners.....and there are damn few of those.....none at Daytona. Maybe on the start....but oddly, no kaw car seems to loose any ground on starts.

Sorry you got held up Coop.....I was rooting for you.....sort of.....had to root for my guys first.

Jerry

[jchracer]

If Alex and Gary had trouble In turn one, that could explain how JRO pulled the lead in the infield.....but look at how much of a lead he pulled as soon as he got on the oval......not exiting the last corner.... but well after.....that was power. Gary and Alex would gain some of it back near the end of the straights....because JR was carrying more wing....and most would argue the car is not as slick at the Phoenix and JDR....but he had the power to pull that drag....and to out accelerate them.

As far as gearing is concerned, the kaw may be to close...but I think the gsxr is a bit wide. A closer ration box could help....except in very slow 1st gear corners.....and there are damn few of those.....none at Daytona. Maybe on the start....but oddly, no kaw car seems to loose any ground on starts.

Sorry you got held up Coop.....I was rooting for you.....sort of.....had to root for my guys first.

Jerry

I'm sorry Jerry but I cannot make any kind conclusions about engine power from on track observations. There are just too many variables. The only way accurately compare usable engine power is to look at the area under the power curve over the useful rpm range. Peak HP is only an indicator and does not tell the whole story. Ideally, this data should be taken with a dynamic engine dyno calibrated to produce a comparable acceleration time. A statistically valid number of engines should be tested to ensure that the results are representative of the total engine population.

For all the reasons noted above, engine specific restrictors are almost impossible to fairly administer in a cost effective manner.

I am OK with a single restrictor size for the class as long as it does not slow us down significantly. From what I read, the 37.5 mm restrictor is not the correct choice.

[problemchild]

Can someone clarify a point for me?
The November GCR presented rules for restricted engines that need to be applied by competitors for January 1st, 2016. So, if competitors want to race at Homestead on January 9th, they will have had less than 3 months to develop their engine program.
Is this correct?
Are they doing this by calling it a rule clarification, rather than a rule change?

[Mike Devins]

Greg it is a competition adjustment.

and yes 3 weeks to implement, I did get a picture showing the restrictors that George Dean uses fared top and bottom

[jchracer]

Can someone clarify a point for me?
The November GCR presented rules for restricted engines that need to be applied by competitors for January 1st, 2016. So, if competitors want to race at Homestead on January 9th, they will have had less than 3 months to develop their engine program.
Is this correct?
Are they doing this by calling it a rule clarification, rather than a rule change?

3 months would be nice, I think we are talking 3 weeks......total BS.

It's not in the published November or December GCR. For the novice here, can someone point me to the official requirements if it's not in the GCR?

If I'm not on APEXSpeed, how was I supposed to know about this if it's not in the GCR?

[ghickman]

Can someone clarify a point for me?
The November GCR presented rules for restricted engines that need to be applied by competitors for January 1st, 2016. So, if competitors want to race at Homestead on January 9th, they will have had less than 3 months to develop their engine program.
Is this correct?
Are they doing this by calling it a rule clarification, rather than a rule change?

It gets worse for the Gen4 Kawasaki owners.

1) As of now no dyno work has been done with the venturi type 37.5mm restrictor. To my knowledge only a flat plate was done last year.

2) No shaped restrictor exists (as of a week ago) for the Gen4 Kawasaki

3) There's only one person supplying these restrictors, GDRE. And do you think you are going to get the best restrictor that his regular paying customers are going to get?

[ghickman]

3 months would be nice, I think we are talking 3 weeks......total BS.

It's not in the published November or December GCR. For the novice here, can someone point me to the official requirements if it's not in the GCR?

If I'm not on APEXSpeed, how was I supposed to know about this if it's not in the GCR?

In this age of the internet and email there's no reason that the SCCA couldn't send out mass emails to all the competitors. It's done all the time in business. They leave it up to us to keep on fast track and then be surprised.

[ghickman]

I'm always reluctant to show things like this because I somehow feel I'm giving something up or a competitive edge I might have. I've been asked by several folks to send them a picture, might be simpler just to put it here.

This was at the time 42mm and was good for 1.2 seconds off my back to back times at WSIR done November of 2014.

There's some trickery that you can do with these that I'll keep to myself.

So for your viewing pleasure here's what I came up with last year to game the flat plate restrictor rule being proposed. Double sided venturi blended into a flat plate restrictor.

[mikeism]

Not proposing the following; just trying to understand the pro/con views of rev limiters. So... why not rev limits instead of restrictors?

Why not look at available torque and hp curves for all relevant engines and pick an RPM limit for each make/gen engine and leave it up to competitors to configure/flash the ECU limit? Or pick one RPM limit as a compromise if that can work? In this scenario podium finishers would have to supply rev info from car data acquisition system to check rev limit compliance after a race.

Pros:
- Cheap and easy for competitors; just flash your ECU.

- Competitors won't have to come up with the kind of engine program/testing needed for restrictors.

- Longer engine life, thus less expensive racing

- Less blown engines, thus less expensive racing

- Less blown engines = less oil on the track = improved perception of class = more participation in F1000

- With time... maybe a hardwired rev limiter could be utilized that is easy to police.

- Easy and cheap to change if we don't like it on the first go.

- Rev limits really limits revs as opposed to restrictors which give you a reason not to overrev but you still can do it.


Cons:
- For SCCA... more time consuming to police after a race when compared to measuring restrictors.

- ???

There. I said it

Mike

[Northwind]

What is the projected cost for these new multi-element restrictors? It looks like there will be a development war on what lead in/lead out transition will perform the best and a continual cost as competitors keep chasing this development cycle.

[Mike Holland]

Flat plate restrictor definition from GCR
Flat Plate Intake Restrictor (FPIR) – a metal plate through which all engine combustion chamber air (and possibly fuel) must pass. Unless otherwise specified in a category, class or individual engine specification, all flat plate restrictors must meet the following requirements (more than one plate restrictor may be required in some applications; each shall meet the requirements):
The restrictor shall be made from flat steel or aluminum sheet at least 0.060 inches thick no radiusing, chamfering or beveling of the hole is permitted. The restrictor plate must be located between the throttle body or carburetor and the engine within 4 inches of the centerline of the carburetor or fuel injection butterfly. Alternate locations may be specified in class specific rules. A steel or aluminum spacer no more than .75 inches thick may be placed between the throttle body or carburetor and the restrictor to allow for clearance of the butterfly. The hole must be the same shape and size as the throttle body or carburetor flange; no radiusing, chamfering or beveling of the hole is permitted. The restrictor plate shall be mounted on the bolts or studs used to locate the throttle body or carburetor. There shall be no movement of the restrictor plate possible when mounted. Alternate mounting may be may be specified in class specific rules.

[ghickman]

What is the projected cost for these new multi-element restrictors? It looks like there will be a development war on what lead in/lead out transition will perform the best and a continual cost as competitors keep chasing this development cycle.

I'm going on record right now that should this venturi restrictor pass that there will be a development battle going on with making these flow the best they can.

Of coarse this all goes on behind the scene and you really don't hear about it but you'll feel it in the pocket book if you are wanting to run at the pointy end.

Do you really think that Chris Farrell is running the same restrictor in P2 as some of the others are? I really doubt it.

I'm lucky, I happen to own my own machine shop and have a dyno. The flow bench is next door.

Let the wars begin.

[ghickman]

Not proposing the following; just trying to understand the pro/con views of rev limiters. So... why not rev limits instead of restrictors?

Why not look at available torque and hp curves for all relevant engines and pick an RPM limit for each make/gen engine and leave it up to competitors to configure/flash the ECU limit? Or pick one RPM limit as a compromise if that can work? In this scenario podium finishers would have to supply rev info from car data acquisition system to check rev limit compliance after a race.

Pros:
- Cheap and easy for competitors; just flash your ECU.

- Competitors won't have to come up with the kind of engine program/testing needed for restrictors.

- Longer engine life, thus less expensive racing

- Less blown engines, thus less expensive racing

- Less blown engines = less oil on the track = improved perception of class = more participation in F1000

- With time... maybe a hardwired rev limiter could be utilized that is easy to police.

- Easy and cheap to change if we don't like it on the first go.

- Rev limits really limits revs as opposed to restrictors which give you a reason not to overrev but you still can do it.


Cons:
- For SCCA... more time consuming to police after a race when compared to measuring restrictors.

- ???

There. I said it

Mike

Mike
All good points. The rev limiter would be super easy to do but it won't happen. The SCCA has ZERO way to police it. They simply don't have people to volunteer to read data. If they did we'd all have had the AIM Solo boxes on like they told us they'd do.

I sat in at the CRB meeting at Daytona. They admitted that reading data was not going to happen until they had people to do it, good luck with that.

ALSO A GOOD POINT is that blown engines will still occur because even with a restrictor you can still over rev the engine.

[Daryl DeArman]

Flat plate restrictor definition from GCR
Flat Plate Intake Restrictor (FPIR) – a metal plate through which all engine combustion chamber air (and possibly fuel) must pass. Unless otherwise specified in a category, class or individual engine specification, all flat plate restrictors must meet the following requirements (more than one plate restrictor may be required in some applications; each shall meet the requirements):
The restrictor shall be made from flat steel or aluminum sheet at least 0.060 inches thick no radiusing, chamfering or beveling of the hole is permitted. The restrictor plate must be located between the throttle body or carburetor and the engine within 4 inches of the centerline of the carburetor or fuel injection butterfly. Alternate locations may be specified in class specific rules. A steel or aluminum spacer no more than .75 inches thick may be placed between the throttle body or carburetor and the restrictor to allow for clearance of the butterfly. The hole must be the same shape and size as the throttle body or carburetor flange; no radiusing, chamfering or beveling of the hole is permitted. The restrictor plate shall be mounted on the bolts or studs used to locate the throttle body or carburetor. There shall be no movement of the restrictor plate possible when mounted. Alternate mounting may be may be specified in class specific rules.

I see what looks to be a .060" thick flat plate restrictor sandwiched between the two machined pieces. The flat plate restrictor doesn't appear to have any radiusing, chamfering or beveling of its hole.

Just make some ears on the OD of that mounting spacer to allow the restrictor to mount on the bolts studs used to locate the throttle body and I say well done.

It appears a moot point now though.

[ghickman]

Flat plate restrictor definition from GCR
Flat Plate Intake Restrictor (FPIR) – a metal plate through which all engine combustion chamber air (and possibly fuel) must pass. Unless otherwise specified in a category, class or individual engine specification, all flat plate restrictors must meet the following requirements (more than one plate restrictor may be required in some applications; each shall meet the requirements):
The restrictor shall be made from flat steel or aluminum sheet at least 0.060 inches thick no radiusing, chamfering or beveling of the hole is permitted. The restrictor plate must be located between the throttle body or carburetor and the engine within 4 inches of the centerline of the carburetor or fuel injection butterfly. Alternate locations may be specified in class specific rules. A steel or aluminum spacer no more than .75 inches thick may be placed between the throttle body or carburetor and the restrictor to allow for clearance of the butterfly. The hole must be the same shape and size as the throttle body or carburetor flange; no radiusing, chamfering or beveling of the hole is permitted. The restrictor plate shall be mounted on the bolts or studs used to locate the throttle body or carburetor. There shall be no movement of the restrictor plate possible when mounted. Alternate mounting may be may be specified in class specific rules.

Mike
On the flat plate restrictors for the M/C engines it had to be above the throttle butterfly. The reading you posted here didn't apply to the M/C engines and it was later specified above the throttle butterfly.

[jchracer]

Once again can someone point me to the official ruling for this? The link that Jay provided in post 173 does not work for me.

Is this in the December Fastrack?

[Mike Devins]

I would encourage everyone to call write their area director and ask that the have the CRB change the effective date to allow competitors to have time to implement. Would be an unwanted outcome to have motors grenade due to a lack of time to do proper tuning/dyno time.

[billwald]

Joel; took me awhile to find it again. Scroll down to Tech Bul dated 12/7. Above that are the Prelim. Minutes. I counted 15 letters, 11 for restrictors, 3 against, and a question, I think.

http://www.scca.com/pages/cars-and-rules

[jchracer]

Joel; took me awhile to find it again. Scroll down to Tech Bul dated 12/7. Above that are the Prelim. Minutes. I counted 15 letters, 14 for restrictors, 1 against.

http://www.scca.com/pages/cars-and-rules

Got it. Thanks Bill.

[ghickman]

Drivers / Car owners
There will be a survey sent out to all involved.

This will then go to the CRB / BOD.

Along with this process it may involve some phone calls.

Stand by we are working on it now.

[Jnovak]

If I'm not on APEXSpeed, how was I supposed to know about this if it's not in the GCR?

every month the SCCA posts the minutes of the CRB meetings an technical bulletins. I have been reading them for MANY YEARS. However the notices are easy to miss IMO. The most certain way is to bookmark the link on your computer and look every month.

A Club employee, Pamala Richardson also posts a link on many forums including this forum every month to let competitors know when they are out.

[J Leonard]

So I get email from SCCA marketing, media services, majors and inside line. Do I need to Email someone special to let them know I own and drive an FB car?

[glenn cooper]

For the record - George Dean is the fairest, most straight up guy building bike motors, and Farrell kicks ass like he does, because the sumbish is fast...

Jerry - The International Horseshoe is bottom gear in the Gen 4 Kawi.
(Thanks for semi-rootin' for me!)

[Daryl DeArman]

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

Letter 18344 F1000 Restrictor
Due to the late date, the CRB has changed our recommended Tech Bulletin for 1/1/16, to a Recommended Rule Change for 3/1/16. The final version of the January Tech Bulletin and Minutes will reflect this change.
David Arken representing the CRB

[glenn cooper]

Good on the folks that got that rule modded.