CRB letters - equalize engines in F500

[mcs11]

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

we saw 7.7hp for a dry sump and external water pump back then on the stock motor in the previous years car which put us at 115 to the wheels after everything else also on an 05 motor (new in the day). Quite honestly we were just curious as we were moving from a single cylinder Honda 450 motor and had a local bike shop help us out. Hadn't run the restrictor at the time as it wasn't machined. Wound up not using either during competition so our cost report looked better and we were shooting for minimal weight since the motor was already heavier and taller then previous years. If I can dig up those old dyno sheets I will post them here specifically just for you since this is a seemingly pointless argument anyway with everybody, including Jay, suggesting it be banned for cost purposes rather then tested for future reference and restricting.

[mmi16]

Today is Friday.

but not the 13th

[SEComposites]

but not the 13th

Or is it Ernest Novak?

[Jnovak]

Or is it Ernest Novak?

Who dat?

[SEComposites]

Ooops, that's what happens when you study English Literature at school! Ernest Hemingway story called Today Is Friday. No wonder I couldn't quite figure out why that was applicable to this thread!

[Jnovak]

Ooops, that's what happens when you study English Literature at school! Ernest Hemingway story called Today Is Friday. No wonder I couldn't quite figure out why that was applicable to this thread!

I get it now. That was a a very f-ing long time ago.

[f500racer]

I honestly don't think the class has generated this much commentary here since......ever. In fact I'm so frustrated now that I think I'll buy a ten year old 2 stroke car simply because I still enjoy the class and still believe it is the cheapest way to go fast. Wait, already did that.

Jeremy Swank
Mid Ohio 2016

[Calvin Stewart]

I honestly don't think the class has generated this much commentary here since......ever. In fact I'm so frustrated now that I think I'll buy a ten year old 2 stroke car simply because I still enjoy the class and still believe it is the cheapest way to go fast. Wait, already did that.

Jeremy Swank
Mid Ohio 2016

Looking forward to racing with you next year Jeremy. That's a fast car buddy. Welcome back after many years off.
Cal

[f500racer]

Thanks bud, I'm pretty excited.

It's not often that I'll get the chance to race against a Mark Donahue Award winner. Much deserved as I remember some of the frustrating ones back at Mid Ohio. Sorry for the tread hijack.

Jeremy Swank
Mid Ohio 2016

[Bill Butterworth]

Does anyone have a status update on these three proposals?

Thanks, Bill

[cory mcleod]

Does anyone have a status update on these three proposals?

Thanks, Bill

Take a look at the FasTrack that was just published. Dry sump and water pump addressed.

Restrictor was addressed in Nov or Dec.

[tedsimmons2]

Status Update?
As Cory pointed out the CRB is asking for input (comments for or against) on the proposal to codify the elimination of the use dry sump and external water pumps in F500.
I will be asking for them to be eliminated.

There were additional comments about the 600 motorcycle engine restrictor. See:
SCCA Fastrack News, December 2015
Page 24 Formula/Sports Racing
F5
1. #17826 (James Weida) Restrictor change In F500, make the following changes:
Motorcycle engine (all)
31mm to 30mm - Flat Plate Intake Restrictor
This has been approved and the change a reduction from 31 to 30mm is in effect as of 12/01/2015.

I still have some questions regarding the Flat Plate Intake Restrictors. Below is an excerpt from the 2016 GCR for MC engines used in F500:
15. 600cc Motorcycle Engines
B. It is the purpose of this section to control the power level of current and future 4 cycle engines to yield approximately the same on track performance as the 2 strokes. Thus all engines must use individual inlet restrictors (IIRs) that comply with Appendix F, Flat Plate
Intake Restrictor, except the third and fourth bullet items. The IIRs holes shall be as listed in table 1. The IIRs shall be placed between each cylinder throttle body and its corresponding inlet port. The CRB may at any time require adjustments to items including but not limited to restrictors, minimum weights and final drive ratios by publication in Fastrack.

Excerpt from the Appendix F referenced above in paragraph 15:
F500 Version/Model Weight (lbs.)
Inlet Restrictor Outlet Restriction Notes
Suzuki, GSXR600 (Really it’s all motorcycle engine)
30mm Flat Plate Intake Restrictor
Notes 2, 3, 4, and 5
Questions:
1. In Appendix 4 I have found explanations for Notes 2, 3, and 4 but where would I find note #5? Just trying to make sure I’m legal when I show up for my first race in 2016.
2. …“Thus all engines must use individual inlet restrictors (IIRs) that comply with Appendix F, Flat Plate Intake Restrictor, except the third and fourth bullet items.” So, where are bullets 3 and 4 located in the Appendix F


And below is the definition of a Flat Plate Intake Restrictor:
GCR Glossary
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.

[cory mcleod]

Ted,

I'm not sure this technically answers your question, but the "new" 30mm restrictors are the same as the "old"/2014 30mm restrictors. If you still have the 30mm restrictors you used in 2014, they would now be legal again.

Oh, and I will definitely be protesting your car at VIR. There has to be something illegal on it.

Cory

[Mike Devins]

The CRB is looking for input on dry sump systems.

This is what I submitted:

As a member vested in the success of the f5 class I would ask that the CRB consider using a smaller restrictor to equalize the drysumped motors.


There is no doubt an hp increase with a drysump but there is normally additional reliability with a drysump as well.A smaller restrictor size could equalize the motors and offer greater durability and in the end reduce the cost for the competitor.

Regards.

[tedsimmons2]

Quote –

“Oh, and I will definitely be protesting your car at VIR. There has to be something illegal on it”.

My previously installed 30mm restrictors were render useless by the idiot (me) who removed them to install the 31mm restrictors. I’ll have to order new ones from Dave.

I’m just trying to ascertained if I’ve missed anything in “Note #5” and just what bullet items 3 and 4 refer too. Always looking for any help I can get.

As far as what to protest at VIR – I’d start with having tech check the balance pipe or plenum being removed from the carburetor mounting and the ports in the inlet boots being plugged. Then I’d move on to measuring the bodywork nose to tire relationship. After all if the bodywork is 0.5 inch or more above the tire diameter it adds about 40 mph top speed.

[cory mcleod]

As far as what to protest at VIR – I’d start with having tech check the balance pipe or plenum being removed from the carburetor mounting and the ports in the inlet boots being plugged. Then I’d move on to measuring the bodywork nose to tire relationship. After all if the bodywork is 0.5 inch or more above the tire diameter it adds about 40 mph top speed.

That is awesome!

Sorry, but I can offer no help answering your real questions. I'm just a lowly 2-cycle guy, so I can barely read anyway.

[Jnovak]

Quote
As far as what to protest at VIR – I’d start with having tech check the balance pipe or plenum being removed from the carburetor mounting and the ports in the inlet boots being plugged. Then I’d move on to measuring the bodywork nose to tire relationship. After all if the bodywork is 0.5 inch or more above the tire diameter it adds about 40 mph top speed.

You exaggerate the effect of the higher Nose Ted. The advantage was only 39.22mph. However we were actually under the top of the tire so if we were above it might have been 40mph. We will test that next season. It may actually be more after we remove our dry sump that was costing us another 17.265 hp. Who knows what our top speed will be next season?

[tedsimmons2]

Jay, I was poking fun at this year’s Runoff’s tech inspections on Jack Walbran’s car. They disallowed his qualy times based on the bodywork being higher than the tire diameter.

SCCA National Championship Runoffs
Judgement of the Court of Appeals
CSOM Reference Number 47
Jack Walbran vs. SOM, COA Ref. No. 15-01-RO
September 23, 2015
FACTS IN BRIEF
In impound after Formula 500 (F500) qualifying session #2 at the 2015 National Championship Runoffs, Tech staff measured bodywork on Jack Walbran’s #67 F500 including the nose/tire relationship as specified in GCR 9.1.1.D.9. Per this rule, the nose body work may not stand taller than the front tires. Tech measured the left front body to be 5/8 inch higher than the tire with the driver in the car, and the right front as 7/8 inch taller. A Chief Steward’s Action (CSA) was filed removing his qualifying times for
September 22, 2015.
Mr. Walbran protested the CSA penalty. He contended the rule does not indicate how compliance measurement should be done and is subject to interpretation. Per Mr. Walbran’s testimony, on track the nose will drop 2 to 2.5 inches, thus making the bodywork compliant to 9.1.1.D.9. He further stated that a visual examination of the car at speed is possible.
The Stewards of the Meeting (SOM), Dan Hodge and Tom Brown, determined the only practical way to accurately measure the nose/tire difference is a static measurement with the car on a level surface. A definitive measurement of the nose at speed on the track is not possible. The SOM concluded the intent of GCR 9.1.1.D.9. is a static measurement rather than a dynamic (on track) measurement as suggested by Mr. Walbran.
Mr. Walbran appealed the SOM decision.

[Jnovak]

Jay, I was poking fun at this year’s Runoff’s tech inspections on Jack Walbran’s car. They disallowed his qualy times based on the bodywork being higher than the tire diameter.

SCCA National Championship Runoffs
Judgement of the Court of Appeals
CSOM Reference Number 47
Jack Walbran vs. SOM, COA Ref. No. 15-01-RO
September 23, 2015
FACTS IN BRIEF
In impound after Formula 500 (F500) qualifying session #2 at the 2015 National Championship Runoffs, Tech staff measured bodywork on Jack Walbran’s #67 F500 including the nose/tire relationship as specified in GCR 9.1.1.D.9. Per this rule, the nose body work may not stand taller than the front tires. Tech measured the left front body to be 5/8 inch higher than the tire with the driver in the car, and the right front as 7/8 inch taller. A Chief Steward’s Action (CSA) was filed removing his qualifying times for
September 22, 2015.
Mr. Walbran protested the CSA penalty. He contended the rule does not indicate how compliance measurement should be done and is subject to interpretation. Per Mr. Walbran’s testimony, on track the nose will drop 2 to 2.5 inches, thus making the bodywork compliant to 9.1.1.D.9. He further stated that a visual examination of the car at speed is possible.
The Stewards of the Meeting (SOM), Dan Hodge and Tom Brown, determined the only practical way to accurately measure the nose/tire difference is a static measurement with the car on a level surface. A definitive measurement of the nose at speed on the track is not possible. The SOM concluded the intent of GCR 9.1.1.D.9. is a static measurement rather than a dynamic (on track) measurement as suggested by Mr. Walbran.
Mr. Walbran appealed the SOM decision.

I knew that Ted, just joking myself. Now I noted in the past that Jack said that his car was legal on the track. How is that possible? Unless he has a lot of Df, maybe?

[tedsimmons2]

I can't answer the Df question, but I’ve never known Jack to knowingly run a illegal car.

However, I want to point out that without denying or confirming my car has any illegal tricks I wanted to poke fun at both the bodywork issue and since Cory was asking the question thought I'd poke fun at techs interpretation of his Rotax carb balance plenum. What I quoted was what he was suspected of having - a non-complainant balance tube. (Just to be clear it was NOT an illegal balance plenum).

Also, just trying to stir the pot during the long winter months.

[Jack Walbran]

Jay,
Straight answer, very soft set up and, yes, downforce.
Jack

[R. Pare]

Mr. Walbran protested the CSA penalty. He contended the rule does not indicate how compliance measurement should be done and is subject to interpretation. Per Mr. Walbran’s testimony, on track the nose will drop 2 to 2.5 inches, thus making the bodywork compliant to 9.1.1.D.9. He further stated that a visual examination of the car at speed is possible.
The Stewards of the Meeting (SOM), Dan Hodge and Tom Brown, determined the only practical way to accurately measure the nose/tire difference is a static measurement with the car on a level surface. A definitive measurement of the nose at speed on the track is not possible. The SOM concluded the intent of GCR 9.1.1.D.9. is a static measurement rather than a dynamic (on track) measurement as suggested by Mr. Walbran.

Hmmm... seems to add some validity to my argument ( tongue in cheek) a while back that in the FF/FC rules that state heights to be "as raced" means that static measurements are not valid in the case of those classes since that is what is stated.