FB attracted me to open wheel, but it quickly became obvious the cost was exponentially higher than advertised.Originally Posted by Zcurves
Best in what regard?
How can you reconcile the "development" aka spending with diminishing open wheel participation and the constant discussion about controlling costs?
It is already an exclusive aka rich mans class.
Modern cars? Everything on an FB is essentially the same things that are on any 1990-ish and later FC: diffuser, pushrod/pullrod suspension, multi-adjustable shocks, etc. the only difference is the evolution of the aero rules and the powertrain.
i don't care if it has a steam engine in it as long as it looks and drives like an open wheel racer, everything else is just different toppings on the ice cream.
That’s exactly what I was referring to, although my 92 Reynard Pinto didn’t even have pushrods.
Development doesn’t have to be expensive if you think outside the box. There are things that other types of racing are doing with motorcycle engines that have not been considered by many competitors in SCCA. Power train and shifting systems are a prime example.
Regarding cost of development, the majority of the cost is incurred by the early adopters. Once successful, others generally follow at a reduced cost. Secondary adopters of the Kawi didn’t have to sell their first born. Sometimes it’s ok to stand on the sideline and watch some idiot fall on his sword. However, if that idiot is successful is he now a pioneer? Either way someone else did the hard part in proving the concept.
My point is the class becomes stagnant without development. We need excitement and to attract new drivers if the class is to thrive. At 43 years old, I’m likely one of the younger drivers in the class (sans Alex).
Tim, you're one of the younger amateur drivers anywhere. It takes money and time to participate in this sport, and if it doesn't come from a trust fund, then you lack the time because you are earning it. I was 39 before I got on the track, and with a much more low-budget effort than you have. It's pretty hard to find poplin they mid-20s who want to do this and aren't immersed in student debt and working 60 hrs per week.
But really, if we sort of did a business forensics, maybe it's just that the class wasn't needed at all. You had one guy with a bunch of money and some drive, crash an old van diemen and decide that re-engineering the whole thing would be cheaper than just putting it back together again. I mean really, do the economics work out long-term? There was a lot of initial enthusiasm, the rules committee, etc and the class was born.
What it was really doing was expressing some creative frustration due to the stagnation in the FC community and the spiraling costs of the FA community. An interesting exercise, but if it was such a good idea, why haven't more of us cut up our old cars and stuck bike motors in them? And if it was to be so cost effective, why hasn't the sale of new cars moved well past the initial enthusiasm phase and spread into the other classes like FF?
Innovation is expensive on track. If you innovate in the shop, then maybe the costs can be brought down - but didn't all the various manufacturers just shift more cost into the chassis and aero because there was less money going into the motor and gearbox? So if the original idea of some was to make it cost effective and if others thought it was going to be about innovation, then there was probably a huge invisible rift in the concept from early on.
Somebody had the chance to dramatically cut the parts count, skilled fabrication and touch labor in the chassis, make a sophisticated suspension system for less than VD does it, and back that up with the cheaper power train - but nobody did, and it all just got more expensive.
I would guess it's because it really didn't hit the mark. Maybe if we had a different class governance and rules-making structure in the SCCA or a different sanctions body the traditional formula car ladder would be more evolutionary and stuff like F440/500, FM, FR, and modern FB wouldn't have ever got off the ground because of no perceived need. All these various classes have really done is show various committees that yes, they better figure out something to do about the rising cost and parts availability of engines (FV, FF, FC, ), scratch the itches of a few people here and there (F5, FB), satisfy some temporary sponsors (FM, FR) and throw shade at everything else as being old, slow, pathetic, stagnant, costly, pick your term - and gradually show people why they should racing Miatas instead.
Sorry, I sort of diverged this thread further. It started with a stupid rule for a cheap bracket and diverged into class participation numbers. You want to really race in a big group? Change that number from 4 to something like 12 average. Of course, if us open wheel guys are unable to get our respective acts together then there would just be 4 large groups of various Miatas.
On a more personal angle - you staying dry? Obviously your part of Wilmington has internet or cell service. I picked up my Motorhome and trailer from Sneads Ferry and got it home last Friday.
I appreciate your perspective. Things aren’t looking so hot this year, but I expect next year will be better. The NAF1000 series intends to schedule Majors next year and several of our fellow competitors who were sidelined this year are committed to running with us.
It’s a good thing you got your equipment out of Sneeds Ferry. North of Wilmington got hit very hard. I lost power a 0830 yesterday and internet well before that. Trees are down everywhere and they are forecasting another foot of rain. Rivers are spilling over already and more to come. My family is safe, no major damage to the house, have generator and plenty of gas. The wine and beer supply is still looking good as well. Thanks for asking.
Just pondering...
I recall that when FB/F1000 was first discussed it was essentially going to follow the rules that were previously in place under FC. Roughly the cars would fall under the same frame, wheel, body and aero rules as FC, but would sport 1000cc bike engines. Obviously that was derailed during the birthing process. Just wondering out loud - what do you think would be the status of the class if it had stuck with that philosophy?
I recall a lot of folks thinking that the cars wouldn't be much quicker than a FC because of the torque deficiencies. I remember folks thinking there was no need to worry about "engine of the year" because the late model GSXR had set the bar and were abundant. I disagree on both counts.
Engine of the year hasn't materialized because of the difficulty making new engines work within the ECU rules. Secondly, who in the heck is going to put a new 200hp stock engine in a FB only to have it immediately neutered? So, that was one way to address the engine of the year equation, but I don't think it was best for the class in the long term.
In my opinion, if the rules were put in place making it very similar to FC in terms of chassis, aero, and wheels the FC chassis constructors and FC owners would have benefited (ease of conversion, larger market, standardization), and the Pinto/Zetec engine builders and transaxle shops would have suffered (not as many folks would be racing pintos/zetec when you look at costerformance.
Obviously this thread has veered off some from the original post so I guess I can add to that.
I agree with Jay, this class could easily be one of the best SCCA classes. I don't think the Novak's get into any class they don't feel has cool factor and cost to performance benefit to justify their time. Jay would be like the last person on the planet I would question about how he came up with that thought.
I came back into the SCCA because of FB. I'd raced Atlantic's and FF back in the 80's and felt that FB/F1000 was a Formula that allowed car development and cost to performance that was right up my alley. I took some time away from SCCA and went USAC racing for a decade.
I'm not a rich person and honestly if you saw my budget you'd say how the heck do you do it for that.
These cars are not expensive to run. I'm still running my original Taylor differential from 5 years ago. I have my 2 engines that I've run for 4 seasons now and I run the piss out of them.
I prep my car well with a goal to finish races. I've always had a development plan in process but I would say most of my gains have just come from not being afraid to make setup changes, heck you can always go back to what you had.
My tire budget is probably less than what most FF guys spend. I might add that FB's are very easy on tires.
My biggest expense is entry fees and getting to and from the races, you can't get around that no matter what class you are in.
So what class can I go as fast as I am now and spend as little as I am now? Formula Atlantic performance at a fraction of the cost, yep that's F1000.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
actually i said potential best and what i meant was the cost performance relationship.
If the costs to compete can be reduced the class would grow imo
We left simply because the cost to compete at the front was way beyond our means.
We would be back in a heartbeat if the costs to compete were reasonable.
Just an old mans thoughts.
Last edited by Jnovak; 09.15.18 at 9:33 PM.
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)
Yep. That's why my comment about reconciling low car counts in open wheel and open rules for spending money.
(maybe not adding a lot to this discussion, but...)
A few of the things I REALLY liked about F1000 were:
- Combined engine/trans with many advantages over heavy, old, stressed engines and transaxles
- Fuel injection, alternators, stock ECU's managing the engine systems, no jump battery
- Final drive ratio - Occasional sprocket changes vs. frequent messy gear changes
- Low price of engine/trans
- Lots of internet information from bike racers and street riders
- (for me), very affordable mid-90's VD chassis, parts, knowledge.
At first I wasn't too far off the pace of the front runners, but as the class got more competitors and manafacturers, I fell further behind. I'm not complaining about that part, but the early years of F1000 were better for me in that respect.
Racer Russ
Palm Coast, FL
Brian and i loved FB when we were in it. Our first season 2011 we won the Runoffs with a bone stock GSXR motor. We bought 4 sets of tires all season including a set of rains at the Runoffs!
Now admitedly it was a rain race and we got the setup just right for the wet race and Brian drove the wheels off the csr in the race!
We did do a bunch of very low cost aero development and lots and lots of chassis development though. The car was quick but not the quickest turning a 2:06+ in qualifying at the Runoffs at RA.
The next 2 years we went broke trying to keep up with engine development and we did not have much fun because we were broke.
The car was always very quick but the budget to compete at the front was not available so we went back to F5-6 were we could afford to race at the front.
We know how to reduce costs but that wont happen so we probably will not be back in this potentially great class.
Last edited by Jnovak; 05.09.19 at 1:27 PM.
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'm at the beach on my mobile so can't do qoutes. But to address Jay's remark about cost that may be true at the beginning but I got back into FB spending 30K for a car. Pretty much in line with costs to get into FC, FF or one of the other OW classes. So that it's "too expensive' that ain't true. You spend what you want to spend. You can get a pretty compitive car on the used market for less than I've seen for some FC's
About Rick point about class growth. I did a entire demographic study when I ran the F1000 Pro Series. The problem with growth is the only way it happens within the SCCA is by poaching from other classes. That's difficult to do because competitors in those classes have investments in their equipment. Along with a wife, mortgage, etcl. they have to run costs by. To make that move is costly. Probably more than they are willing to spend exspecially in the class infancy when the cars were more expensive to buy and operate. Also many of them are firmly entrenched in the class they are already in. More reason not to switch. Real growth needs to come from new blood, outside the SCCA. Now that costs have stablized and reduced that's probably more possible today than ever before.
Sorry for typos. Screen really small on this phone.
Last edited by Thomas Copeland; 09.16.18 at 12:47 PM.
Firman F1000
That's what I found when I looked at the class 4 years ago. Now that ebay engine needs a $10k visit to the moon.
The cheap engine promise is folklore and just like any other class any car you buy likely needs a big over hall.
If they had kept the engine in check I think the class would have grown more. But guys just can't help themselves.
Funny, I just bought 2 really good spare engines (freshly rebuild) for less than $3000. Along with the one in the car I got enough engines to last me for the next 5 years if I'm careful with them.
And the car finished 2nd at Watkins Glen in it's last race. Ask Jose Garardo. He thinks the car is pretty good.
Terry Biner had his car for sale for 35K with 2 spare engines, an installed Geratronics system, pit spares and the works. I talked the new owner last week. H s pretty happy with the car.
Let's put an end to this "it's too expensive" myth shall we. At one time that might have been true. It isn't anymore.
Edit: sorry this should have been under $4000. They were part of a spares package that I bought for $3950. Accounting for the value of the other spares in the package the costs of these two engines we're probably less than $3500.
Last edited by Thomas Copeland; 09.16.18 at 3:54 PM.
Firman F1000
Sure. Do all the cheap cars available mean people are leaving the class ? Get out while you can?
You are grossly misinformed. The engine in my trailer dropped a cylinder after 3 strong seasons on a $2,000 George Dean rebuild (that wasn't really needed). When I send it back to George, I expect it to cost around $3500. I can't even fathom what he would have to do to it to spend $10,000. But please, continue to propagate the myth that bone stock bike engines are expensive.
We get it. You strongly dislike F1000. FA performance at FC costs isn't for everyone.
Granted, the Northampton F1000 series did a disservice to the class as a whole by running regionals but that is what their competitors wanted so it was the right thing to do at the time. I understand that things will be different next year and I'm confident you'll see a big F1000 field at VIR.
I think it's: love the cars, hate the class. Maybe it's calmed down but the class still seems to be a moving target with participants pushing for more. And there are like 2 on the west coast. All classes have geographic preferences.
I think most people that look at the class feel the same way.
Sure, VIR will be big since there are a lot of cars back east. Has nothing to do with the class growing. They just exist there.
There are at least 10 mimimum I know of on the West Coast and im not even trying to count them all. There were 18 FB's at the Runoffs last year same number of FC's there are at Sonoma this yeari think. I've seen more cars for sale in the FC section at various times. Just normal ebb and flow. People get out. People get in.
Firman F1000
Moving target? To my knowledge there has been exactly one rule change in the last 11 years that pertains to the engine. Have you looked at the P2 engine rules lately? P1? FA? F1000 has had one of the most stable rules package in all of the SCCA.
I guess 7 is like 2: https://www.motorsportreg.com/index....7A7C5F63C5C0AB
I'm not sure which part of your post this refers to but if they have the same beliefs about F1000 as you do, they're also wrong.
Agreed 100%
Last edited by Mike B; 09.16.18 at 4:25 PM.
there sre very easy ways to stop engine development and hp growth.
For example f600 engines with wet sumps are good for 2 - 3 seasons as long as you pay attention to things like oil, coolant system, fuel systems. Nothing tough or ecpensive at all. 3 seasons on engine number 1 and a Runoffs win included.
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)
Not if both the means and desire to tech engines is absent.
Rules can be written that produce extremely diminishing returns with regards to money and time spent per HP gain. However, all that tends to do is make that last 5% much more expensive than it needs to be and now engine costs rise just to keep up.
I don't believe I have an answer that would be palatable to those in the class.
3 words: spec rev limiter
1. I believe that George Dean is the engine teardown guy at the Runoffs. He was when we won a he TORE our engine DOWN!
2. F600 CARS HAVE EXTREMELY SIMPLE FLAT PLAT RESTRICTORS THAT EFFECTIVLY LIMIT HP BY REDUCING THE PEAK POWER RPM BY ABOUT 2000 RPM. THE ENGINES ACTUALLY MAKE MORE PEAK TORQUE.
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)
Jay,
I really wish you would stop perpetuating all the false information. A competent driver can win with a stock engine in F1000, period. Well cared for, a stock engine will last a LONG time. I hear the same kind of whining from people who get beat all the time......I can't be competitive with a Kent in FF.....I can't be competitive with a Pinto in FC.....I can't be competitive with a stock engine in FB.....waaa.....waaa.....waaa.
The reality is that that driving skill and car set-up skill are by far the biggest factors in who wins races. Done with some smarts, FB can still be done with a reasonable budget (relative to the speed potential of the cars). If the whiners would quit their whining and work on their driving skills as hard as they work on their rules lobbying, maybe they would find themselves closer to the front of the grid.....and we might have more cars as well.
OK, rant over, go back to your previously scheduled programing....
Ciao,
Joel
Piper DF-5 F1000
i agree that you can win with a stock motor Joel as we did it.
I think that it probably takes a well prepped "stock" motor to win today. I may be wrong though!
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)
Means and desire are both critical. Not taking anything away from George Dean, he's the guru. He's not at every major tearing down the top finishers.
They effectively limit HP in legal, to the book, engines. Which brings me back to my first point.
Last edited by Daryl DeArman; 09.17.18 at 1:08 AM.
Too easy to defeat, and too difficult for the SCCA to effectively enforce. Then, we are making competition adjustments for different engines to have a limiter and different rpms.
They effectively limit HP in legal, to the book, engines. Which brings me back to my first point.[/QUOTE]
i know that they work for engines of the same displacement because they limit the air flow as a result of the flow velocity approaching the speed of sound and when this happens the increase in airflow stops no matter hoow high you rev the engine. It works on the 600cc engines for certain and i think it would work on the 1000cc engines too. I suspect that the power would be about 1000/600 x 105hp for about 175 hp hopefully this would be enough to keep the racers happy.
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 happens to that flow velocity at a given rpm when you slow the piston speed down at 90* ATDC, or increase the time spent at BDC?
You can have the same a/f into the engine, same displacement and same rpm and make more power by increasing BMEP. Compression ratios have a large effect on BMEP.
Which brings me back to my original point again. If the club/class doesn't have both the means and desire to effectively tech the variety of engines a restrictor just makes it more expensive to go fast(er).
Look back at the NASCAR plate engines. How much more expensive was it to build a plate engine than the standard cup engine? How much more dyno time involved in developing those plate motors? Yes, the HP was limited by the rules and the plate, but is the goal to reduce speeds and hp, or make it less expensive to compete at the front? I don't believe a plate does both.
clarifying a few things
SOME FACTS ABOUT F1000 THAT PEOPLE FORGET OR OVERLOOK
1. CLASS RULES ARE VERY STABLE. They have not changed. They are still virtually the same as FC (from which they were derived) with the exception of the wider floor/body, and the different engine package.
2. THE WIDER FLOOR has allowed builders and owners to experiment with different aero.....but that DOESN'T COST MUCH.....and there are pros and cons to every tweak. It does create interest in the cars and the class.
3. SCCA HAS DEALT WITH NEWER ENGINES by adding weight to cars with newer engines.....to compensate for the additional power of newer engines. They will not be anxious to revisit the restrictor debates....so we can stop talking about them.
4. CONVERTED FC CARS ARE STILL VERY COMPETITIVE. Jeremy Hill is usually near the front....if not in the front......at Majors and Runoffs. Mike Beauchamp was very fast in his as well. The driver, chassis set up, and effort are the most important factors in going fast. If you are 5 seconds off the leaders pace, work on the driver. If you are 1 or 2 seconds off, then start looking at the car.
5. ENGINES ARE STOCK.......NO POWER MODS ALLOWED.......and a used engine doesn't have to go to an engine builder to be competitive if it still has good compression. The trans is actually better with some miles on it....less friction.
6. An engine will run at least a full 8 to 10 weekend season (often more) before you need a rebuild. Rebuilds are about $3000 to $4000......no more than the annual rebuild of a pinto in an FC.....and there is no expensive transaxle rebuild to budget for.
7. ENGINE DEVELOPMENT COST IS MINIMAL. Basically it is optimizing the exhaust, and flashing the ecu for better mixture. Nothing else is legal. The exhaust work is already done......all the builders know what length and size pipes to use.....its only a matter of packaging it in the car. ECU FLASHING DOES NOT REQUIRE DYNO TIME.....only data logging and a woolich flasher. The stock air boxes (which you can change) work better than anything else I have seen. These engines are very highly tuned by the factory.....and unless you are replacing a lot of the parts (not legal) then there is little to be gained.
8. THE ENGINES ARE VERY DURABLE.......YES, I SAID DURABLE. I have seen engines with 2000 race miles still winning races. Most early engine problems in the class were a result of poorly designed oiling and cooling systems......and drivers coming out of 4 speed h-pattern cars....who found it easy to row down thru the gears much to fast.......resulting in frequent over revs. Now that drivers have acclimated to the sequential six speed gearboxes....and proper oiling and cooling systems are the norm.....we no longer have frequent engine failures at our races. There are some for sure......but the problem is usually a self inflicted mistake that would destroy any engine.........not enough oil.....not enough water......leaks in either of those.....a few poorly assembled engines.....and still an occasional big over rev.
Now there are a few guys in every class who will twist the engines way beyond their rpm limits....in search of some small advantage.....and they will always have short lived engines.
8. YOU DO NOT NEED AN EXPENSIVE SHIFTING SYSTEM TO BE COMPETITIVE. Jeremy Hill has a totally manual system. Alex Mayer has a manual system with a right hand shift lever and a blipper/up shift cut. No geartronics, no air shifter, no electric shifter. So did Lawrence Loshak in his impressive 2013 runoffs win.
9. COST COMPARISONS: New F1600s and F2000s are 80 to 90 thousand. The grearbox is $12000......so don't damage it in a crash!
New F1000s are 60 thousand. No gearbox to damage or rebuild. Chassis wise, they both cost about the same to maintain and/or rebuild.
Competitive used cars can be found in all three classes for 25 to 35 thousand.
F1000 seems like a far better option to me.....way more speed.....same or less cost.
Now if you want a spec car that you can't adjust to suit the driver.....if you don't worry about learning bad driving habits driving around a bad handling car that you can't change.......and you aren't interested in learning how to engineer a car to get more out of it.....then F1000 is not for you. By engineer a car, I don't mean spending a lot of money developing new parts.....I advise against that. I mean changing springs, bars, ride hit, rake, shock tuning, wing angles, wickers, wheel alignment, etc. For me, that challenge is part of the fun of racing.
FYI: There will be a driver coaching and car set up clinic at all the North American Formula 1000 Championship events in 2019. Free to F1000 teams. $50 for non F1000 affiliated individuals.
Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars
NorthAmF1000
Scca member since 1966
First drivers school 1967
First runoffs 1969
Joel if stock engines are fine and all are good, and equal why did you change from your refreshed STOCK GSXR THAT WON THE RUNOFFS to a late model ZX10R? Is it bone stock as original or prepped by a builder?
Sorry to be so blunt. Just curious.
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'd be running bone stock 07/08 engines if I could find them in low mileage condition.
If I picked up a donor engine out of a wrecked bike now pretty certain it would have over 10k miles on it. Too high a mileage to trust.
I believe JRO and Roggenbuck are indeed running low miles donor GEN5 ZX10R engines, got this from a very reliable source.
The engine I had in my car last year that put me on the pole at Indy had 8 race weekends on it. Moon says if its still making better than 40 psi oil pressure at WOT run it.
Most I've ever put into a rebuild was $3,800 and it got all new valves which are expensive.
I own 2 identical cars. One Suzuki 07/08 powered the other Gen4 ZX10R powered. I stuck with the Suzuki after the 25lb penalty was put in place. I like the fact I can ballast with fuel and be lighter than my rivals.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
Thanks for that valuable info Gary!
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 make some valid points. However, I didn't see anybody claiming that certain modifications were legal. Additionally there is a distinct difference between a motor being "stock" as in "as-produced" and "stock" as in "within factory tolerances for that make & model".
Factory service manuals don't list code for the stock ECU, they don't list port dimensions or volume. Granted, these motors are very well engineered, but there are still compromises made to ensure they are street-able, fairly long-lived, and pump-gas-ready engines.
My 2 cents
I ran my Firman FB this weekend at Watkins Glen using the same engine that went in this April and has run all season. Set a new FB track record...on old tires. All that has gone into this car all year is oil and gas, and a new front wing endplate when someone ran over it.
When I was running my Elan with a wet sump 07/08 GSXR, I blew up a bunch of engines. In two years running the Kawi with a dry sump I have not blown a single engine. My biggest cost is tires and races. Oh and did I mention, I do most race weekends solo. No crew, no race engineer, etc. I don't need to rip my gearbox open and put in new gearsets for each track, just change a sprocket if needed.
This is the class I was always hoping for and it has lived up to its hype. I used to drive FM and while it was a great class, the numbers dwindled, we couldn't get donor engines, and the cars drove like trucks with wings. FBs drive like modern cars, pull 3 Gs in the corners, and almost outdo FA's at a fraction of the cost and complexity. My favorite part is having a 6 speed sequential gearbox with paddleshift. Magic.
When I looked to move from FM, I looked at FC but it seemed like a step sideways, not forward. I agree with Jerry that a spec rev limiter would give some assurances to outsiders and also keep the engine wars at bay. But even without it, I made the right decision and have been having a ball. And the NAF1000 pro series has been a great experience as well.
“THE EDGE, there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.”
Hunter S Thompson
X47KPFSOLO2RO. Looked in the GCR at 9.3.16 B on page 71 and there is no mention of a bracket. Do we still need the bracket or where is rule listed?
Thread hijack... where are the Aorilia powered cars that were at COTA ?
Daryl. The club simply does not have the resources to teardown motors at each Majors race.
Agree but no one in club racing is going to spend the $$ required for a restricted hi output modded motor.
I also now expect that the zx10R motor is the new spec.
Imo simple inlet restrictors (flat plate) are the right solution! Just make them the right size, as in smaller rather than bigger
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)
Any comments on the bracket?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote