Interesting
As if he saw something coming it seems all pictures were taking down from a previous thread that was posted displaying the work of one their cars.
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68086
What I find interesting is the posts were adjusted a day before this thread started.
Steve Bamford
Steve, you have a devious mind. I had to remove a lot of pictures as I had exceeded the allowable memory for posts. Something had to go to make room for my ads that I placed with pictures. I simply deleted an entire 2 pages of pics.Originally Posted by Steve Bamford
If anyone wants pics of my cars just send me an email and I will send you all you want.
jaynovak at Comcast dot net.
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 do indeed have a devious mind and was trying to figure out how you had the insight to see this thread coming. Not taking anything away from your work, your posts or Matts on the other side....as I said I found it interesting.
Steve Bamford
I doubt there's ever been a class that hasn't had this same argument/debate. But if you don't want to be in a position of having to compete against people who will go to extreme lengths of effort and spend stupid amounts of time and money to win, racing is probably not going to make you happy in the long run.
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
Yes, it is VERRRY EEENTERESTING.
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)
Most have managed to stay away from the personal accusations.
Not so sure about that.
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
I know Jay's aero design had a lot to do with the performance of Calvin's car, but I agree with Matt and Clint that there was some power advantage too. Without data, the percentage breakdown is just speculation. Jay is very methodical and calculating. He didn't just put an electric water pump and dry sump system on the car for the heck of it. Everything on that car for the Runoffs was on that car because he believed it provided a performance advantage. Considering that both of those items add some weight to the car, it is probably safe to say they provided some amount of power advantage.
Cost creep in the F5 class should be a priority. That is part of what the class is all about. You can try to balance the performance of cars with dry sump, cars with electric water pump, etc. etc. but for this to work you need data from a large enough group to get a good statistical average. That is going to cost $$$ to get dyno runs on the numerous different engines with the numerous different options. Best bet is to revise the wording on the rules to state the engines have to run the factory water pump. Also revise the wording to outlaw the dry sumps. I know there is an argument that dry sump improves the reliability, but everyone except for Calvin's car has been using a wet sump for years and I am not aware of anyone blowing up an engine due to oil starvation with a well baffled wet sump pan. It is my understanding that motorcycle engines gain a larger than normal benefit from a dry sump compared to an automotive engine because the transmission shares the same oil sump as the crank case. So with a significant performance advantage and no real durability benefit over a wet sump I think the dry sumps should be outlawed. I'm not saying this because I can't afford it either. I have one of Jay's Blades I could just buy the complete kit from Jay tomorrow if I wanted. I just don't think it matches up with the spirit of the class.
Chris Ross
09 NovaKBS F600 #36 Powered by '09 600 Suzuki GSX-R
"If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error." John Kenneth Galbraith
Potato, pahtahtoe. I'm guessing those advantages were more than just claimed. Otherwise you wouldn't have spent 100's of hours on them and then kept them on the car. Unless of course said bits and pieces are left in place merely as a diversion from the less obvious bits that did work.
Response to PF's story: If I had a body that I felt was an advantage but a motor package that was a disadvantage, why use it to prove the other camp doesn't have an advantage? Why not wait until the other camp has been castrated and then bring it out where I can point to the body as being the difference?
Get rid of the competition adjustments and let the cards fall where they may, or know that as long as you have competition adjustments you are always going to have politics and bickering enter the fray.
Considering that Jay's rules proposal didn't include the dry sump and that it got added in by someone else, I doubt highly that he or any one else would be against their allowance being dropped from the rules.
Get the rules proposal written up, submitted, and start calling everybody you know in the class to get them to write in letters one way or the other - don't just rely on Apex and Fastrack to get the word out.
Why F500??
There are a lot of good F500 cars for sale and not selling. WHY?
If I can offer an amateur opinion from a point of someone who wants or wanted to get in to Formula 500, has money to spend but is very hesitant and is looking into other divisions because of the very argument everyone is presenting and I would offer the following;
You all played within the rules, which in my opinion are very ambiguous for F500 class, so the blame is not on any of drivers or car designers, it is SCCA committee for not defining them better.
Matt and Cal smoked the rest of the field, if Clint did not break I wonder what would have happened.
Mr. Novak, genius in car design and working within the rules. You cannot put any blame on him.
MC motors and transmissions are far superior in HP band, torque, gear box and looking at the results are the Rotax and CVT transmission is obsolete in the class? I would say at Daytona and in 2 years at Indy yes!
$20,000 questions?
Why would someone spend between $8,000 and $20,000 on a car? Plus trailer, entry fees and travel expenses and have no chance of being competitive?
Is this what the SCCA F500 is about, with competitive affordable racing?
At the next run offs do you only want 3 cars competitive?
I am holding off as well as others on purchasing a F500 car until these questions are answered.
The original F600 rules proposal specifically did NOT allow for the use of dry sumps. The CRB was convinced that reliability would suffer without dry sump and put it into the rules.
Personally I have zero problems if the CRB changes the rules to not allow dry sumps. We will make it work.
The 600cc bike motors probably need to be pulled back a bit. However at the Runoffs there was really only one 2 stroke capable of challenging the MC powered cars.
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)
"Matt and Cal smoked the rest of the field, if Clint did not break I wonder what would have happened."
If Clint didn't have to hit walls, many of us in the SEDIV thought he would have smoked the whole field. In which case Matt and Cal would have been battling for second.
Then what would the discussion been about?
1) Did another search on dry sump systems and the standard benefit for a well designed system is 3%. For a 125 HP 600 cc bike engine that is 3.75 HP.
2) Did the math on the aero numbers provided from Jay. If correct they are:
'Your Car': 30 hp @ 100 mph 83 hp @ 140
Blade : 23 hp @ 100 mph 64 hp @ 140
In fact this discussion should be all about CFD.... or more accurately aero. The performance of the 1st and 2nd place cars during the Runoff race has almost no value when make future decisions about the F500 engine rules.
Brian
Thanks Brian, your drag HP numbers are close to ours. Ours are a bit higher but the difference between the cars is very close.
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)
To make the point a bit clearer with an example, the top FE trap speed was 5 mph slower than the top F500 trap speed, even though FE has significantly more horsepower and turned faster total laptimes.
Dealing with aero is a real drag.....
Marshall Mauney
Milwaukee Region
Thank you very much for summarizing why having 2 incompatible motor/drivetrains is killing F500. All of the 2-stroke guys have been sitting back and watching this thread. We had a class with stable rules and minimal cost escalation. A small number of people were able to force through MC engines in our class and no one listened to our cost escalation concerns. Now the 2-stroke guys have to decide between 3 bad options: convert to MC power for $10-15k, buy a new MEC car for $30k+, or be an also-ran with a 2-cycle car. And the promise of increased participation from MC powered cars has not happened, so we have to spend extra money to run in smaller fields.
Jay "built a better mousetrap" and now the other MC proponents that created the cost escalation in the first place are crying because it's effecting them also. I find that hugely entertaining.
Cory
Yeah this whole thread blew up way bigger then I was expecting. Summarizing my points then you all can have this.
It was noted by myself and Clint that at slow speeds (less than 50) Cals car could instantly start pulling away when he hit the throttle. The straight pipes we all ran (thanks no sound control) made it real easy for us to hear it during the week. We asked for data boxes to be put on the cars for the race to confirm. Primarily we wanted to show if Clint and James in a 2 stroke were on pace with each other since they have the same car/aero just the different motors. We had 5 boxes, Clints did half a lap but the other 4 finished, Cal myself James and Cory I believe. I have no idea what came of this information. I know my time through the infield during the race was within 2 tenths of Clint and 2mph on the banking in open air. Would have been real tight between the 2 of us.
Regardless, with this still being early on as far as cars running the engine add ons, I'm suggesting the rules be rewritten to compensate for the performance advantage they have. Wether that is to ban them or just slow them down is up too the board. It will help keep the cost of a competitve engine lower in the long run. If somebody wants to spend a pile of money on a dry sump system or anything else for reliability purposes I have no problem with it. I don't personally believe its necessary as the car i run has not blown a motor in over 2 years.
If somebody here took what i did as a personal attack on Jay and/or Cal, my apologies. I'm well aware aero was the primary factor on that car to win the race, have said that from the beginning. Still wasnt the point of my rants. I believe Cal had more power primarily from those addons. He probably still would of won, I get it. I needed a draft partner and knew that before the race. We all did. My issues and questions were concerning the cost of the class in the future, not at Daytona. Daytona was only being used as an example not a "I should of won because.." pissing contest like some here are implying. Again sorry if it was confusing. I won the championship in the F600 Challenge in a car you can buy for about $15,000. I wanted to run it in Daytona but a busted fuel cell prohibited that. The car Sven de Vries had on pole in Charlotte is also for sale for $18,000 from Metalloid. I believe Aaron Ellis is selling his after the season for about the same. The price of a fast car is still there, despite what some think.. want to stop the escaltion of our cost before they do start get out of control though.
-Matt
Last edited by mcs11; 10.29.15 at 10:40 AM. Reason: Still can't speel...
"im so broke it makes ted kennedy in a bikini look good...true story"- adam g
Final point since all the 2 stroke guys are sitting back watching this thread. Come to Road Atlanta next weekend. We'll have 15 possibly 16 cars at Road Atlanta right now. 14-15 of which 4 stroke. If the 2 strokes come out to race we could actually get some more data off the cars to compare rather then just yelling back and forth at each other. All we have for logged data on track comparing the 2 is the June Sprints last year, Gingerman from Clint and James, Laguna? and whatever happened to them in Daytona.
"im so broke it makes ted kennedy in a bikini look good...true story"- adam g
My understanding is that all but one of the data boxs failed for some reason or other. I know nothing else about this.
We put the dry sump on early because we saw oil pressure drops when there should not have been any. Please note that no one paid ANY ATTENTION to our dry sump before Daytona.
No one paid any attention when James Weida was nearly 1 second faster than Calvin at Gingerman this year.
http://cdn.growassets.net/user_files...pdf?1436731366
I am also afraid of cost creep. Thus I will state that I am ok with changeing the rules to not allow dry sumps in F500.
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)
We raced the Majors all year. Where were the 4 stroke cars? We would welcome the F600 Challenge to come race with us on Majors weekends.
Speaking strictly personally, i dont support the majors series and extra time/cost to run it. Also why I qualified for Daytona via regionals outside of the Challenge series. With that though I did lobby hard for the challenge series to go back to the June Sprints in 2016. As for a full majors based schedule though I wouldn't count on it because of the time/cost thing again. We'll see when the schedule gets released.
"im so broke it makes ted kennedy in a bikini look good...true story"- adam g
Question concerning making sure that engines don't get wasted by short drops in oil pressure:
Wouldn't an accumulator solve that problem for you?
If so, it would be a lot less expensive than going the full-blown dry-sump route.
If not allowed in the rules, then it should be added in as part of the request.
As for trying to somehow equalise things through data aquisition on race weekends - don't waste your time. What you will get is a lot of almost meaningless squiggles. Instead, rent a drag strip of small local airport, and run the tests there under controlled conditions.
1) The dry sump was good for 3.75 hp. This is not much. If the engines beginning discussed were not blueprinted there could easily be this much difference in engine outputs. How do we know that you did not have a better engine in its 'as delivered' condition before any add ons?
2) The exhaust system is not controlled and never will be. If you did not do a lot of work on the exhaust systems then you really missed the boat.
For Daytona you could easily have two different designed exhaust systems... one for quali and one for the race. This was a very special track when it came to car preparation between quail and race configuration.... if one was motivated to spend the extra time and money. Was you exhaust optimized for anything?
Brian
How much better Cal's car handled and braked later in the race"Matt and Cal smoked the rest of the field, if Clint did not break I wonder what would have happened."
If Clint didn't have to hit walls, many of us in the SEDIV thought he would have smoked the whole field. In which case Matt and Cal would have been battling for second.
Then what would the discussion been about?
You don't go as fast as you can when you don't need to....
An accumulator does nothing for the quality of the oil. A dry sump allows for aeration and additional oil dwell time in the oil reservoir.
Now you can increase your oil operating viscosity to makeup for the quality of the oil supply using a wet sump but the guys with budget will just accept the additional risk and run with lower viscosity. I am assuming that there is not much that can be done to enlarge a motorcycle sump.
Brian
They are allowed as the oiling system is free. One of our customers put one in his car.
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)
Tire temps. We were a bit to easy on the rear tires. We had no long runs on this setup before the race and it was cooler than in qualifying. If we had more experience with racing this setup it would have been better.How much better Cal's car handled and braked later in the race
You don't go as fast as you can when you don't need to....
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)
You (2 stroke cars)have your preferred series, we(mc cars) have ours. I don't expect that to change anytime soon especially after forum feedback. Regionals allows for cheaper entry fees and a lot less BS from a race officials.
Your "findings" are theoretical not practical. Matts is a PROVEN fact when it comes to the dry sump HP difference. In case you don't know, a fact is something that can't be argued with.
My understanding is that all but one of the data boxs failed for some reason or other. I know nothing else about this. This convienent excuse is getting old (NOT BLAMING ANYONE IN PARTICUALR)
We put the dry sump on early because we saw oil pressure drops when there should not have been any. Please note that no one paid ANY ATTENTION to our dry sump before Daytona. THIS IS BECAUSE NO ONE THAT WAS AT THE EVENT COULD SEE IT UNDER THE BLANKET............AND NO ONE THAT YOU RACED WITH UP UNTIL DAYTONA WOULDVE HAVE KNOWN WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IF IT WOULD'VE BEEN VISIBLE (TWO STROKE GUYS)
No one paid any attention when James Weida was nearly 1 second faster than Calvin at Gingerman this year. NO ONE WOULD'VE QUESTIONED IT AS THE TWO STROKES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED FASTER ON THE SHORT COURSES. PLUS HAVING RACED WITH JAMES AT GINGERMAN I WOULD'VE PUT MY MONEY ON HIM SINCE GINGERMAN FOCUSES MORE ON DRIVING ABILTITY AND HANDLING THAN DAYTONA. (NOTHING PERSONAL MEANT BY THAT STATEMENT)
Actually it was just a lower rod end on the upright that broke under breaking. The rod end had been cracked for a while judging by the rust mark. Didnt think anything of it especially since that side hadn't made contact with anything other than asphalt. If you ask some F500 competitors they will tell you that I did this while warming the tires up on the pace lap"Matt and Cal smoked the rest of the field, if Clint did not break I wonder what would have happened."
If Clint didn't have to hit walls, many of us in the SEDIV thought he would have smoked the whole field. In which case Matt and Cal would have been battling for second.
Then what would the discussion been about?
. As always, I appreciate the vote of confidence with the SEDIV group!
Sorry that you view rules compliance as BS.
.........................................
Clint,
Judging by the video, if on the pace lap I warmed the tires on any of my cars the way you did, the whole suspension would have fallen off.
Matt stated: "I won't even say the near 8 we saw from the sump system at the school I worked at". I am assuming this is a FSAE using a 600 cc motorcycle engine. These are restricted engines with a power range of 75-90 hp. So 8 on a 90 hp engine is about 9%. This is not a realistic number for a standard dry sump system... unless it used an electric oil pump system! Could not find any power gain estimate reviewing FSAE articles. The FSAE competitor's main pitch was related to engine reliability. Not a word about a engine performance gain for some unknown reason.
I continue to bring this up as the CRB is being asked to review the use of dry sump systems... yet there does not seem to be any data available to facilitate a judgement.
Brian
You know this thread is bat $#!+ crazy when this guy ^^^^ is making sense.
(Just teasing you Brian, as you get ragged on here a lot.)
Today is Friday.
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)
What I think is crazy is that contention that the CRB OK'd dry sumps in the first place without any data or even a request from the class. There has to be more to the story.
Matt King
FV19 Citation XTC-41
CenDiv-Milwaukee
KEEP THE KINK!
I think that the CRB was looking at all the blown motors in FB At that time and was trying to head off a problem.
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 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote