2008 Engine Rules Compromise

[Sean Maisey]

Redirected from the SIR discussion:

After a long phone cnversation, RobLav and I came up with the following idea:

"F1000 Engines must be mass production items with at least 400 units sold during a given model year. For the 2008 racing season, only model year 2007 and older units are eligable"

At the end of the 2008 racing season we would review the model year eligibility and likely allow 2008 model mass production units for the 2009 season (and so on).

Reasoning:

This will still allow competitors to source new '0' mile units late in the sales year (like now) to race in the folowing season. There will be plenty of time to figure out wiring harness, mounts, sumps etc., so costs will still be reasonable.

At the same time it will reduce the tendancy for an early season or mid-season changeover as new bikes hit the market (as Steve L. posted, that would be very expensive).

Finally, it will allow us to pause at the end of each year to make sure that no new engine that came out would be harmful to the class before approving a new batch of engines.

Thoughts?
Sean

[Wren]

so we would go through the expense of engine changeover every year?

[RussMcB]

Sean & Rob,

Thanks for stepping up to the plate. You have my support.

[Wren]

how are we going to decide what is harmful to the class?

Pretty much any new engines may obsolete the older stuff just b/c it will have more horsepower. That is going to get very political and likely cause a lot of arguing by the guys who don't want to have to swap engines or have a stockpile of the best things currently allowed and eventually we are all scrounging for 4-5 year old 2007 engines.

If you approve a new batch of engines every year, you have all of the costs of changing over because you will end up needing to buy to buy the best eligible engine, you just don't get the latest technology.

Why not just a two year rolling cut-off? 2007 engines for 2007-2008...2009 engines for 2009-2010. Get this in now before anyone fits a 2008 engine and all is well(although the suzuki 2007-2008 engines are supposedly exactly the same and even share the same parts microfiche).

[carnut169]

I'm good w/ this plan as well.

[Brandon Dixon]

Is the "we" above the comp board? Is there a committee that would be empowered to make these decisions?

[carnut169]

I would imgine that "we" are the folks who have an active interest in FB. Sometimes "we" are just the people who decide to go the extra step to actually do something.

In this case Sean & Rob are the we doing something, then will make take the idea and membership support to the comp board for a rule change.

[Sean Maisey]

Wren,

The crux of this compromise is that we all agree to limit racing next year to 2007 and older motors. This will give us a full year of F1000 racing perspective to debate this further.

It seems like almost no-one is opposed to keeping 2008 motors out for next year. So can we all agree on this much?

If so, we can continue the longer term debate over next season, by mid-year we will know much more about the 2008 motors and will be in a better position to decide on the longer term repercussions of changes.

Sean

[Wren]

are we really expecting people to reach a consensus on what is "harmful to the class?"


If I have a 2007 suzuki and the 2008 Kawasaki makes 186 HP, IMO, that is harmful. To someone who's chassis fits a kawasaki, it is not harmful. Now we have more political bull****.

Please explain how a 2 year rolling cutoff isn't cheaper and easier?

[RussMcB]

It seems like almost no-one is opposed to keeping 2008 motors out for next year. So can we all agree on this much?

Russ votes yes.

Would an ApexSpeed poll be a good vehicle for tabulating?

[carnut169]

are we really expecting people to reach a consensus on what is "harmful to the class?"


If I have a 2007 suzuki and the 2008 Kawasaki makes 186 HP, IMO, that is harmful. To someone who's chassis fits a kawasaki, it is not harmful. Now we have more political bull****.

Please explain how a 2 year rolling cutoff isn't cheaper and easier?

Because right now a bunch of cars already have 2007 motors. Could be considered next year.

[Sean Maisey]

I agree with Sean O., my thoughts are that we (the F1000 community) discuss and build a consensus here, and then communicate our desires to the CRB. My experience is that the comp. board doesn't want to arbitrate a debate, they want some clear indication on where the participants want the rules to go.

Wren,

To be clear, I agree with a two (or maybe three) year freeze personally. However, there has been a firm bit of resistance to doing this from those who want to be able to buy and run brand new motors. The idea of this compromise is to at least agree that we will freeze at 2007 for next year. Hopefully, during 2008 we can all come to a mutually acceptable agreement on what to do for 2009.

We need to get the 2008 rules decided now befoe any bikes are out and people begin converting. Otherwise it will be too late to do anything at all.

Sean

[RobLav]

I was the one not wanting the 2 year rule. At least not yet. The compromise for now is what Sean M wrote - allow 2007 and earlier engines for the 2008 season. Then look again later in 2008 to decide what engines are allowed in 2009. After thinking it over, I think we should be deciding in July/August 2008 what engines to allow in 2009 - rather than waiting 'til later in the season. September / October is a good time to be picking up that model year engines. Crate engines are still available and those of us willing to gamble on used cheaper ones can still do that.

Also, I'd like to add another piece of our input - no SIR at this time.

Why are we trying to decide what is harmful to the class? We all have different opinions anyway. I can live with this compromise. So far, most others do too.

[jtspitler]

Ok, The direction is good but the timing is off. AS some have said this is the first year for the class so at this point the proposal as I under stand it is that we can run a motor for the 08 and then its open for debate and new approvals at the end of 08 for the 09 season for 2 years, correct?

So with that said some my be compelled to an engine change after only 1 season or 1.5 seasons at best. I don't feel that this is a good move so early on! Think About It!

Now if you want to implent a freeze for thru the 09 season, I think would make more sense for the stibility of the class.

But whatever is going to happen needs to happen fast as there are those now in limbo do to this development.

Just my 2 cents
Jay

[Sean Maisey]

Can we all agree on the following concepts at this point?

1) No one supports a SIR
2) We would like to limit the 2008 season to 2007 model year and older motors
3) We would like to limit participation to mass production motors, (defined as having sold at least 400 units in the US).

If we can agree on this much, I think we can write it up properly, attach the names and SCCA#s of all in agreement and send it to the board members for consideration.

THEN we can begin a fresh debate about the merits/costs of the new 2008 units as they hit the market, are used in DSR etc... By mid-year we should be able to build some consensus on what to do for 2009.

Sean

[rickjohnson356]

The decisions need to be made in the middle of the summer for the following year.

for those of us in warmer climates (SEDIV, AZ, SOCAL). the 2008 season has already started. The first SARRC (regional championship series) was at VIR the week or so following the SIC chanpionship race.

Kinda sounds like some people are thinking that (if chassis needed modifications for following year for new engines) that winter would be the time to do it.

Not so for us, we (and our racing brothers out west) are racing for championship points during NOV,DEC, JAN, FEB too.

so you need to consider if engines are for calendar year or racing year.

[RussMcB]

Can we all agree on the following concepts at this point?

1) No one supports a SIR
2) We would like to limit the 2008 season to 2007 model year and older motors
3) We would like to limit participation to mass production motors, (defined as having sold at least 400 units in the US).

If we can agree on this much, I think we can write it up properly, attach the names and SCCA#s of all in agreement and send it to the board members for consideration.

I'm in. Russ McBride 110999.

[Mike B]

Can we all agree on the following concepts at this point?

1) No one supports a SIR
2) We would like to limit the 2008 season to 2007 model year and older motors
3) We would like to limit participation to mass production motors, (defined as having sold at least 400 units in the US).

Sean

I can only agree to 1 & 3. #2, as outlined in your initial "compromise" post, is just too subjective and requires too much hand-holding. Any rule should be self-supporting and not require readdressing every year or two. Talk about rules instability! I'm suppposed to wait each year until an unknown "we" decides which engine I can use? No thanks. If the intent is to keep out current year engines, then just write that without giving specific year models. There's just too much left open-ended.
I'm not comfortable putting my name on a rule that requires rewriting every year and I sure can't imagine the CRB accepting it.
As was alluded to earlier, who decides what is best for the class next year? The year after? 8 years from now? There could be totally different people that are passionate about F1000 and totally different people on the CRB, none of whom have the history that we do.
What criteria is used to determine what is harmful? Is it just a bump of 5 hp? Is it a titanium gearbox? Is it a bike purchase cost? Engine availability?

My point is that the rule needs to be stable now and still applicable 3, 5, or 10 years from now with little or no interference from us or the CRB. A lot of this gnashing of teeth is based on supposition, anyway. Nobody knows for certain what a bike engine will look like or put out in 2011.

As an aside, I'm very pleased that there is this much passion about our formula. I have confidence that you'll do the right thing but I'm sorry that Rob was the only member of the committee willing to have a discussion offline. Oh well.

[Matt Conrad]

Sean,

I think we're getting somewhere....I have already sent a letter to the CRB and I've made two main points....1. NO SIR 2. Engine Freeze at 2007 model years (2 years).

I would rather see the freeze go through the 09 season, but if we can all agree to at least one season, that will accomplish the main goals of why we would do this:

1. Keep the 2008 engines, and their increase in performance, out....at least for now.
2. Limiting the engines to 2007 and earlier, we are also keeping the new 200hp 2008 "exotic" motors out as well (like the Aprilia, Ducati, etc.) I don't even think we need the production cut-off number you guys keep bring up because I think by allowing 400 units or greater you aren't cutting them out anyway...Ducati is taking orders for 1,500 units of the Desmosedici RR (that's the 200hp V4 GP replica bike). SEE BELOW.
3. Allows us time to evaluate the new engines and come up with a plan for whether we allow new one's in or not.
4. Keep the costs for engines low.

FYI...I had a conversation earlier with George Dean on these exotic bikes and I hope he'll post some of the info he shared with me here. In a nutshell, he says we really do not need to worry about these new engines making their way into our cars for these reasons:

1. Cost. I thought it would take about $35K to get one into a car....George thinks it would be more like $100,000.....for ONE engine....no spare.
2. Availability. George says you will not be able to get a motor unless you buy the entire bike ($73K alone)....and, for example, you can't even get a Ducati Desmosedici RR unless you already own one of their bikes (kind of like the Ferrari Enzo deal).
3. Technical Issues. George does not think anyone except a very few select technicians could even be able to get the thing to run outside of the bike.
4. By limiting the engines to 2007 and earlier....we've already kept them out of the cars because they are all 2008 models.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[Matt Conrad]

Mike,

I know you are very passionate about this class...and I respect your input greatly....but the point is that by NOT freezing the motors now.....the rules ARE unstable. The performance envelope will change every time a new motor comes out.

The status quo allows any motorcycle manufacturer to heavily influence our class....without us even doing anything. How much more unstable could it get?

To borrow from a Rush song "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". By not doing anything we are allowing the rules to change every year and I do not think that will be healthy for the class.


Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[Wren]

Because right now a bunch of cars already have 2007 motors. Could be considered next year.

I want a 2 year rolling cut-off that allows in the latest technology. I really don't like making everyone run 2 year old engines.

2007-2008(calender year): 2007 motors

2009-2010: 2009 motors

that lets everyone buy engines new if they want to and keeps us from having to search for older engines if we don't want to.

[Mike B]

In a nutshell, he says we really do not need to worry about these new engines making their way into our cars for these reasons:

1. Cost. I thought it would take about $35K to get one into a car....George thinks it would be more like $100,000.....for ONE engine....no spare.
2. Availability. George says you will not be able to get a motor unless you buy the entire bike ($73K alone)....and, for example, you can't even get a Ducati Desmosedici RR unless you already own one of their bikes (kind of like the Ferrari Enzo deal).
3. Technical Issues. George does not think anyone except a very few select technicians could even be able to get the thing to run outside of the bike.
4. By limiting the engines to 2007 and earlier....we've already kept them out of the cars because they are all 2008 models.

Famous last words...

Why not just write a simple rule with no downside and ensure that it doesn't happen? For the record, I didn't say 400 units. I think it should be closer to the actual average # of units sold over the last 4-5 years with a comfort factor built in.

Matt,
You're confusing rules instability with technology "instability." The rule hasn't changed and everyone currently knows that you can use any 1000cc motorcycle engine as long as it's stock. Simple. The rule is constant, just the engine technology progresses (a good thing, by the way.)
With a vague rule like Sean's, I know I can use a 1000cc motorcycle engine but I'm not sure if I can use an '08 ZX10 or only an '07 GSXR but maybe an '08 V-4 as long as it's under 190 hp and not made in Italy prior to August of the previous year. That's the definition of rules instability and nobody in a position of authority will even consider it (I hope.)

[Daryl DeArman]

I'd be careful about ruling out the 08 motors for the 08 season as some cars may be under construction right now with plans to run an 08 motor...those owners may not be happy. I bought an '07 bike in October of 06'. Aren't some of the 08' bikes out right now? It is the middle of November.

As far as running zero mile motors...if you know in '10 you will be forced to use an 09 or older motor you can buy a zero mile motor anytime in 09 and be ready for your winter project.

[Matt Conrad]

Mike,

That's fair...and technically you are right. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "formula" is changing when the performance of the engines changes. Do the math right now on a power to weight ratio for an FA and a FB....I think you'll find we are already pretty close. Do we really need to start pulling FA lap times and then have the SCCA step in and mandate changes....like rocks for tires or SIR's to slow us down? We can either make sensible proposals now to maintain our current performance levels (which by the way are AWESOME)or we can have others do it for us.

Quickshoe,

No 2008 bike are out yet. If anybody is designing a car around one....they are guessing they'll be the same as an 07.

I believe the cars are very fast right now and will only go quicker with more development time. Do we really need to keep throwing 5% more performance EVERY YEAR (from the engines alone) at the cars. I don't think so.

I believe a "freeze" on engines right now is the smart thing to do and it is by far the simplest and easiest idea to implement. Thousands and thousands of dirt roundy-round guys across the country have the exact same rule (they mostly use a 2-year old rule like I proposed) and they do it for the same reasons we are looking at...

Keep costs low
Keep the performance of the cars similar

If the dirt roundy-round guys can.....oh, never mind....I don't want to go there.....

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[RussMcB]

My understanding of Sean's proposal is to say now that during the 2008 season you can only run 2007 engines or older. I think his proposal is NOT intended to go past 2008. It is merely to buy us time and we can totally rethink the rules we should implement mid 2008.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it's a good thing. It does not penalize anyone since 2008 engines are not available yet, and it buys a few months where we can methodically arrive at a good rule. It also protects everyone in case the 2008 engines might provide a HP increase.

[Brands]

Like Matt I like the two year freeze, but at the same time by the end of '08 I'd want to fit a newer motor. The 2007 freeze is definately a good thing (for me!) as that will keep my '06 Suzuki close enough to the '07 motor. As Russ mentioned it gives us time to figure out thoroughly what we need to do beyond '08.

In short I'll be happy with either the 1 or 2 year rule! Not much help I suppose.

My winter time will be spent looking a drag and weight reductions rather than BHP gains!

Ben

[Daryl DeArman]

Quickshoe,

No 2008 bike are out yet. If anybody is designing a car around one....they are guessing they'll be the same as an 07.

Matt,

I just called Del Amo motorsports (large dealer in So-Cal) because their website shows several 08 models available. I called Art in sales they have an 08 R1 on the floor right now, as well as a ZX. They did confirm the GSXR's aren't out yet with no release date. Said no change over the 07 so they are probably waiting until most of the 07 inventory is depleted before they start badging them 08.

[RobLav]

Russ's comments are spot on. Although I prefer no rule changes at all because it is too soon (system tampering in my professional world), I do support the compromise.

We can call it "The FB Compromise of 2007". Sortof like the 1812 Missouri Compromise...

[RussMcB]

Matt,

I just called Del Amo motorsports (large dealer in So-Cal) because their website shows several 08 models available. I called Art in sales they have an 08 R1 on the floor right now, as well as a ZX. They did confirm the GSXR's aren't out yet with no release date. Said no change over the 07 so they are probably waiting until most of the 07 inventory is depleted before they start badging them 08.

I just did some Googling looking to see if the 2008 Kawasaki is more powerful than the 2007. I haven't seen any numbers, but the following excerpt sure sounds like it's better.

"At the heart of this capable package is a new engine tuned for even greater high-rpm performance, without sacrificing the stellar mid-range performance of its predecessor. Refinements include installing secondary fuel injectors, changing to oval throttle bodies and reshaping the intake ports. Intake flow was further enhanced with reshaped ram air ducts and a larger airbox that feeds into the new oval shaped velocity stacks. Exhaust efficiency was boosted with a new system that not only flows better but generates less noise and emissions. And to suit the enhanced power delivery, the transmission features new gear ratios for 1st, 4th and 5th gears along with an extra tooth on the rear sprocket. These changes make it essentially a race-ready engine with performance similar to Kawasaki’s factory Superbikes."

[cparsons]

I agree with Sean's proposal in spirit, BUT would prefer that by mid year 2008 we agree on how engine homologation be dealt with on a more permanent basis rather than revisiting the issue every year (as I interpreted his proposal) We have a tough task at hand. Technology makes advances that are embraced by some, at a cost to others. Not all will be happy but I believe all can live with this proposal. This is a new, exciting class! The ONE I have been waiting for and I intend to have a blast.

I'm in,
Chuck Parsons - will provide member number when I remember it.

Concern - can we safely assume that MOST of the FB community is aware of the discussions taking place on this forum regarding FB rules?

Sidebar - It's a blessing that the "FB creators" are here, have shared their passion and successes with us, and continue to solicit our opinions on such a difficult task as this. Thank you guys for all the hard work done, and in the future.. Good luck.

[martyb]

It seems the sticking point at the moment is when you allow a newer generation motor be installed. While there are a lot of other organizations that could be affected by this theory, I'll stick with SCCA for a second and propose that no one can install the next generation motor until after the Runoffs each year. That way no one has to race all year with their 2007 motor only to get beat at the Runoffs by someone who just added 10 HP with their new 2008 motor.

A consequence of this timing would be the need to decide some time before the Runoffs what the legal next year motors will be; maybe there would be enough information available to discuss the issue in August and make a unified proposal to the CRB in September. That way when everyone is planning their annual overhaul/upgrade after the Runoffs, they'll know what the options are.

Marty

[jerry freeman]

I agree with Sean M.

1. no SIR(never)
2. limit the year model to 2007 until we can get a better system. I think a 2 year limit is better but can live with one year. If you want a fresh motor after a year rebuild it.
3. 400 or more produced.(I think it should be limited to inline 4's)

Jerry Freeman #338117-1

[S Lathrop]

New models get to the dealerships when? Say any model that is on the show room floor by the first day of the fourth quarter (Oct. 1) is eligable to race the following year. Or better yet, move that date back to January 1 (the first day of the first quarter).

Limit the eligable bikes to those bikes mass produced and generally available throughout the US. Or write a list of eligable bikes and revise it annually.

At a minimum I think the engines should be esentially last years engines. I don't like the idea of making the lead time more than one year.

Isn't this the consensus that is building?

Speaking as a manufacturer, there needs to be a reliable source of new engines. In the cost of a new complete car, the cost of a new engine is not a major consideration. Unreliable engines are a real problem. Also as a manufacturer, we need time to design and produce components for our customers to install new engines. If we can do it over a reasonable time and produce sufficient examples, then the cost to the customers is reduced.

Like it or not, this will probably be the engine of the year club. But that may have a bright side too. There might be a lot of very good used equipment available for guys with lower budgets at lower prices. Lots of good cars will keep prices reasonable.

As an aside, I am finding that the bike powered cars are significantly less costly to produce than the Zetec powered cars. The rear dirve assembly in my cars is less expensive to build than the Zetec bell housing. All the other costs appear to be the same and some are less.

[Mike B]

Disclaimer: these comments are not directed at anyone specifically so don't take them personally.

Let's back up for a minute. What event took place between the time we submitted our rules package and today that has precipitated this sudden concern with engine technology (or cost, I haven't figured out which one everyone is so afraid of)?
Did you get your ass handed to you at Road Atlanta? Last time I checked we all got our asses handed to us, including a Champcar driver and a future IRL driver. I don't think it was the engine.
Did your engine blow up recently? That's no reason to punish the rest of us that use engines that don't blow up as often (I know I'm going to eat those words... )
Did it suddenly dawn on you that the bike manufacturers make improvements every few years? We've known that for the last 10 years and knew it when we created the rules.

So what is it that you're trying to accomplish by revising the F1000 rules before the class is even a year old?
Is it the yearly improvements in performance by the bike makers that you're afraid of? Say you implement a freeze until a given year, let's say 2010. When 2010 rolls around and you permit a 2009 engine, what difference does it make if you permit it all at once or creep up on it on a yearly basis? The end result is the same.
Is it to reduce the cost of having to buy an engine every year? By throwing around exaggerated costs and other disingenuous tactics, even I start to believe that this class is headed for an early demise (it's not, by the way.) Who pays $350 to modify a harness? If your engine choice requires a new $2500 dry sump system every year, maybe you should rethink your engine choice. In reality, nobody is going to replace an engine every year and if they do, they're not going pay the prices listed on this forum. For 2 to 3 years the new engine will be a drop-in replacement meaning the only cost is that of the engine, which is offset by sale of the old engine (unless it looks like Sean O's ). This means your big costs (again, not as big as some would have you believe) only occur every 3 years, or whatever the bike design cycle is, assuming you stick with the same mfr. I may be off base on this one: I don't see the DSR guys changing engines every year and I also don't hear them complaining about engine costs. I know, not apples to apples but it's the closest thing to F1000.

Bottom line: it's too early to have a knee-jerk reaction to some outside force, real or imagined. Leave the rules as-is until we see what will happen.
At the very MOST, implement a rule that only allows previous year engines in the current season. This prevents the upgrade between new model introduction and the Runoffs. Make it effective on January 1 of each year.
No interim rule. Why do you need time to buy time to rethink it? What will be different in 12 months? If there is a need for a rule change (there isn't) then just do it now but do it right.

That feels better.

[Sean Maisey]

My proposal as it stands now is three items:

1) No SIR
2) Only allow 2007 model year motors or older through the end of the 2008 season. (2008 season is defined as ending after the ARRC). Future seasons should probably be defined as ending with the Runoffs once we qualify as a class.
3) Only mass production engines are eligable. Mass production is defined as sale of at least 400 units in the US market.

That is ALL I am proposing for now. If we can agree on this much, let's try to get it passed.

Then let's start the longer term debate on the engine rules for 2009 and beyond...

Mike B. (and anyone else) I am always available to discuss this kind of stuff offline. Just call me. Robert and I talked today because he invited me to call him, and I felt that while we were on opposite ends of the 2/3 year freeze, we could probably talk through a good compromise on the phone (which I think we did).

Sean
757-220-7312 9-5:30 EST
804-966-4294 Evenings until 11 EST

[Mike B]

My proposal as it stands now is three items:

1) No SIR
2) Only allow 2007 model year motors or older through the end of the 2008 season. (2008 season is defined as ending after the ARRC). Future seasons should probably be defined as ending with the Runoffs once we qualify as a class.
3) Only mass production engines are eligable. Mass production is defined as sale of at least 400 units in the US market.

That is ALL I am proposing for now. If we can agree on this much, let's try to get it passed.

Still too open-ended. Why specify allowable engines for 2008 only? Just say: "only engines produced in the previous year are eligible in the current year" and be done with it. The CRB is not going to go for an interim rule and hope that we're still around in a year to re-revise it. Don't write a rule around the Runoffs. After last weekend, I would be okay with never going back to the Runoffs, unless there are some significant changes made (never say never, though.) The rest of the GCR rule changes revolve around Jan. 1 and so should this one. I'm okay with the rest but I think the minimum production numbers should be a bit higher.

Mike B. (and anyone else) I am always available to discuss this kind of stuff offline. Just call me. Robert and I talked today because he invited me to call him, and I felt that while we were on opposite ends of the 2/3 year freeze, we could probably talk through a good compromise on the phone (which I think we did).

Will do!

[Sean Maisey]

Mike,

I sounds like we are getting a little closer. Lets discuss more off line when you get a chance. My fingers hurt from all this typing

Three brief comments on your post.
1) January 1 is no longer the right date because some regional series and now some Nationals (SWDIV) are run before January for the 2008 points season. That is why I picked the ARRC/Runoffs, but it is the concept I care about not the specific date. I think we can both agree that the change should occur at the "end of the season" how ever that is defined on the calendar

2) I picked 400 because it works for the AMA. I am not married to that number at all. Just some verifiable cutoff that will prevent 'boutique' motors.

3) I urge you to make a few calls and see what Stohr/West/Phoenix charge to 'remotor' their DSRs and F1000s. I think you will be shocked at what market prices are for engine mounts, wiring harnesses etc... I didn't make these numbers up (I paid $350 for my cars wiring harness mods-have the invoice).

Finally, I think you underestimate what the wealthy racers that will flock to the class in the next 2-3 seasons will spend to get a slight advantage. If the Kawi ZX10 is the motor next year, they wlll convert. If the 2009 Suzuki is better, they will convert again. Spending will rapidly get out of control.

I am not just making this stuff up. I LIVED it in DSR...

Sean

[Daryl DeArman]

Trying to verify production numbers or availability dates (especially with any kind of documentation) seems to be pretty dificult in the motorcycle industry.

I don't think it has much to do with anyone getting their butts handed to them at the ARRC wanting an engine rule change. I think it has everything to do with people who have finally took delivery of their new cars, or completed their conversions actually looking forward a season or two as opposed to looking forward to turning a wheel.

Anytime a new class is introduced it is touted as being great bang for the buck. As the numbers grow so does the level of competition. In the case of FB this curve has been much steeper as there are numerous very tallented and intelligent people behind some of these cars, the competition will get real stiff, real quick even with small fields. People will spend thousands to upgrade for 10HP. To think that people won't do the same in FB is rather naive. How much is that pinto aluminum head again?

[RussMcB]

Daryl, I was just going to post something very similar. You said it well.

The original committee did a fantastic job. Now that I actually have a car after a huge investment of time, effort & money, I'd like for it to be as competitive as possible for the longest amount of time (while realizing I can't compete for national wins). I just want to drive it, get it working well, & have fun. The engine rules are much more important to me now compared to a year ago. The arguments I'm making these days are entirely selfish, BUT, I believe rules that benefit me (the low buck racer) will also benefit the class.

[Duane Dyckman]

http://www.motorcycledaily.com/19july04_turbos.htm