is there anyone even left using a TRD crank ? that was the 1st thing to go when they changed the FI rules in 2001 and removed the 'pro spec' requirements. The TRD cranks were heavy as hell.
Like I said, I'd love to design an Atlantic car. We'd probably even be willing to start work in expectation a market will eventually develop. However, the current rules are so permissive that fully exploiting them would result in a very expensive chassis that would completely dominate existing cars. That's not a recipe for growing the class or developing a new pro series.
The last chassis designed in a competitive environment (non-spec) were developed in around 1998 if I recall correctly. That was well before CFD revolutionized our understanding of formula car aerodynamics.
We could design a car that does not fully exploit the rules, but what if a market does develop and Mygale or Dallara enters it?
I still wonder what the 1600 cc engines you are discussing would cost and what the projected TBO might be. Remember, a bespoke 1.6 liter race engine could develop in excess of 350 hp, but at very high rpms and at extremely high cost. I don't think anyone finds that a good alternative, but we are moving in that direction.
This what the GCR says as of January. Might have changed, but I can't find the latest GCR on the redesigned SCCA web site.
Quote:
A.2. Engines
a. Engines shall be derived from automobiles and may be prepared for
competition in accordance with SCCA GT preparation rules, except
as specified in the Table below.
I'm no expert on FA rules, but from what I can tell you have to use at least the stock block and head.
is there anyone even left using a TRD crank ? that was the 1st thing to go when they changed the FI rules in 2001 and removed the 'pro spec' requirements. The TRD cranks were heavy as hell.
As I read the rules now there is no requirement that any part of the engine be derived from any OEM engine manufacturer. When the rules got re-written and table E added all refernces to anything other then dispacement got removed. You can build anything you want with any combo of parts as far as I am concerned.
I havent read latest fastrack to see if anything has changed but I doubt it.
Kevin,
Here is where my uncertainty comes in : the GCR says tat FA is a controlled class, therefore if the GCR doesn't say you can do it, then you can't. The GCR says crank, bore , stroke, rods, pistons, intake, exhaust , etc are open. It specificly omits block and head from the open items.
Previously , I asked and paid for a rules clarification on my alloy block for a Cosworth 1600, and was granted approval. I believe that approval only lasts for 1 year, and the allowance never made it into the GCR.....so what now ??
Also, The GCR says the engines must be automobile based....what does that mean ? I believe it was put there to eliminate motorcycle engines, but what else does it imply ?
The FA engine rule proposal for next year specifically restricts FA engines to OEM heads and blocks. I know it is just a proposal for now, but those in favor of aftermarket heads/blocks should write to the CRB.
Look I am in favor of putting things back the way they were a few years ago but that likely isnt a very popular opinion. BD series 4ag and 12a. Of course things have changed and mabe too far to ever get back. there are 1600cc toyotas that dont use the 4ag block anymore. should they be made illegal ? well by my rules they would but thats not really what I want. I am more looking for a return to a 1600 cc automotive class and how you get there really doesnt bother me. The 016 ? kinda causes a problem as it never was built to the rules that the rest of the cars in the class were. I/d let it run its pro spec engines, built only by who was building them during the pro series, the hang a IIR instead of a SIR and a sealed ecu. If the motor can be brought down to 255hp then let it run the normal FA weights with the normal add on for FI and sequential. will the owners squeal ? yeah, but worst case they have a 2.3 liter restricted to the point that it will last forever and make competitive hp with w/o the riska the 1600 guys run.
I see Bill's issue. Frankly its one I always wondered about. the rule was opened up when the book was changed from BDA series motors ( most were BDD by then) to BD series( the A was dropped). There were ally BD blocks that could be sleeved and used but a builder made a full on replacement version of the BDA/D block in ally which never existed. I dont know if thats what Bill has/had but I know guys were running them and I always wondered how they were legal.
Even with the current rules as they are written there is nothing stopping me from taking a head from 1 make and a block from another and mating them together. I guess thats more what I was talking about and did a bad job of wording. Both are auto based. It would make for an interesting debate.
__________________
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Runoffs - 1 gold, 3 silver, 3 bronze, 3x drivers of the year
2004 Star Mazda East Coast series champions
8 Divisional championships 6 Regional championships
Look I am in favor of putting things back the way they were a few years ago but that likely isnt a very popular opinion. BD series 4ag and 12a. Of course things have changed and mabe too far to ever get back. there are 1600cc toyotas that dont use the 4ag block anymore. should they be made illegal ? well by my rules they would but thats not really what I want. I am more looking for a return to a 1600 cc automotive class and how you get there really doesnt bother me. The 016 ? kinda causes a problem as it never was built to the rules that the rest of the cars in the class were. I/d let it run its pro spec engines, built only by who was building them during the pro series, the hang a IIR instead of a SIR and a sealed ecu. If the motor can be brought down to 255hp then let it run the normal FA weights with the normal add on for FI and sequential. will the owners squeal ? yeah, but worst case they have a 2.3 liter restricted to the point that it will last forever and make competitive hp with w/o the riska the 1600 guys run.
I see Bill's issue. Frankly its one I always wondered about. the rule was opened up when the book was changed from BDA series motors ( most were BDD by then) to BD series( the A was dropped). There were ally BD blocks that could be sleeved and used but a builder made a full on replacement version of the BDA/D block in ally which never existed. I dont know if thats what Bill has/had but I know guys were running them and I always wondered how they were legal.
Even with the current rules as they are written there is nothing stopping me from taking a head from 1 make and a block from another and mating them together. I guess thats more what I was talking about and did a bad job of wording. Both are auto based. It would make for an interesting debate.
Kevin,
For the record, I had/have 90mm bore alloy aftermarket block.....same as late BDG's. It was also supplied to Cosworth for retail sales......we used a short stroke crank to arrive at 1600cc....legal under the rules.....I asked for the clarification from SCCA, because some folks thought I might be cheating. The answer agreed with my interpretation.....clear as mud ?
Bill I think the BDG block, or any ally block supplied to cosworth for a BD series motor motor *is* legal based on the wording at the time making BD series engines legal as long as they were 1615 cc. I see nothing wrong with your solution. I was refering to the alumunim BDA blocks, that never existed anywhere, that were briefly being made that I had a problem with.
__________________
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Runoffs - 1 gold, 3 silver, 3 bronze, 3x drivers of the year
2004 Star Mazda East Coast series champions
8 Divisional championships 6 Regional championships
Since the only source of BD blocks was the alloy aftermarket version for the BDG some years ago Bill G asked for a legality clarification - must have been about 2001.
The CRB at the time looked at it and felt that the upside of keeping BD engines running was worth dropping the letter A and D from the BD series so any alloy or cast iron BD series block was OK. Its been a total non-issue'in practice, since most are in vintage anyway and the engine table killed off the Jennings BD Club engine a couple of years ago.
Phil
__________________
Kevin Firlein Autosport,Inc.
Runoffs - 1 gold, 3 silver, 3 bronze, 3x drivers of the year
2004 Star Mazda East Coast series champions
8 Divisional championships 6 Regional championships
It is my understanding that the FSRAC and/or CRB will be discussing the proposed FA 2013 engine rule changes during their call tomorrow. If you have an opinion on this proposal, now would be the time to make your thoughts known. Here is the link for CRB input:
Thanks for the reminder, Rick. Here's what I sent in:
Quote:
I urge the CRB to cancel this poorly conceived plan. It actively discourages innovation and bringing new cars in the class, and appears specifically designed to protect the competitiveness of a small cadre of competitors.
Responding to specific sections of the proposal;
1) the proposal looks like a naked attack on the Swift 016a. Rather than discourage these cars (of which there are ~40 sitting idle in racing shops around the country), we should be actively looking for ways to encourage them to join SCCA. Protecting the Swift 014a at the expense of newer cars is killing this once-mighty class.
2) if the CRB is genuinely concerned about bespoke engines with radical techologies, change the engine rules to require an OEM engine from the GT3, GTL, E-Prod or F-Prod tables with stock bore (+1mm) and stroke. Add the BD engine and you're done.
3) to bring in a new engine (including apparently any non-4age from the existing table), the proposal "must include a minimum of the following information: engine manufacturer and engine size, dyno sheets showing horsepower and torque curves, and on track test data taken from the onboard data system showing speeds from both the proposed engine and a Toyota 4ag." And all of this must be done prior to January!? What about cars designed for the VW 1835cc SuperVee engine? They are already underpowered and the chassis were never intended to fit the 4age -- do I have to install a 4age in my 180 hp SuperVee to prove it won't pose a threat to the front running 014's? Come on, guys...you can't be serious!?
In short, this proposal is too drastic. It is compressed into too short a time frame, and it is too blatantly protective of a specific combination to be worthy of consideration. Please cancel it.
Thanks for sharing your comments. It was my understanding that the proposal did not seek to change the current Swift 016a rules. What am I missing here?
Rick, my beef with the engine rules is that the CRB keeps the 016 restricted to the point that it is non-competitive with the 014. That's why we have only a few in the Club, and why the rest of them are sitting idle. Who wants to spend that kind of money only to finish behind the 014s because they don't have enough power to stay with them? Stan
as the owner of an 016, i bought the car because it was in line with the fc zetec philosophy,
under stress an engine that will last, now engine builders are getting into the engines for more power when we have a restrictor that can be easily changed for +- power.
hopefully the pro series will get it right and drag club racing along
as the owner of an 016, i bought the car because it was in line with the fc zetec philosophy,
under stress an engine that will last, now engine builders are getting into the engines for more power when we have a restrictor that can be easily changed for +- power.
hopefully the pro series will get it right and drag club racing along
Do you think that the 016 could be made more competitive thru restrictor adjustments alone? If so, I don't see how the June Fastrack proposal for 2013 comes into play. I probably need to review the Fastrack, but I thought that it left the specific 016 rules pretty much untouched, which would allow the CRB to adjust the 016 restrictor sizes as needed going forward.
That said, I understand many of the other concerns that you raised in your letter to the CRB. I am just trying to get a better handle on how the Fastrack proposal affects the future of the 016 cars. Thanks.
[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]The discussion for the What Do You Think? Letter regarding the engine table for next year may be discussed tomorrow, but I don’t think a decision will be made by tomorrow. I do agree that all FA competitors should get their thoughts in-the sooner the better.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]I don’t believe the idea is to keep the 014 competitive or to beat up on the 016. From my point of view I have 3 016’s, 3 014’s with 1800s, and 2 014’s with 1600s in my shop. I want innovation in FA. I love FA’s. I want every Swift, Ralt, Reynard, everthing to show up. It’s an engineering class as much as it’s a driver class. But, I don’t think bigger engines in current FA’s is a reasonable idea. I have talked to many FA drivers and the overwhelming majority do not want Table E for big engines. I have talked with 4 that want big engines to stay. Only 2 of them are currently running in FA, and both have 016’s which can easily have 2.0+ plus engines. There are roughly 40 016’s built, but what about the 100’s of 1.6ltr FA’s built before the 016? Only a small handful of drivers could afford the conversion to a bigger engine. Forget about ruining the handling of a 1.6ltr by putting a big motor in, think of how long would you have to race that car before cheaper engine rebuilds would pay off.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]I did the research on putting a 2.0 in an 014. Start with just getting the engine bolted onto the rear bulkhead-that’s the easy part- make new pickups, brackets, etc… Don’t forget that this engine, as most don’t, a stress valve cover and sump, make those also. Now bolt the gearbox/bellhousing to the engine-design and make an adaptor plate, wheel the bellhousing up to the back and guess what? The crankshaft is higher. In many cases, much higher. Now redesign and make every suspension pickup, rear wing mounts, and the rocker angles are different… It’s not like you can hack these out with a grinder. It’s expensive. And, to tell you the truth, I’m not sure that I would want to drive something that some may create. The Carousel exit speed at RA is 140mph+, the Kink is faster. No, you can test the new suspension pickups that now hang below the bellhousing and gearbox. I’ll watch. But, now you’ve done that. None of the bodywork or tunnels fit. I have a saw. A grinder. I can layup basic carbon, and that could get time consuming and expensive, but if you really want it to look good, fit right, and not destroy the aero, you need to have new parts made. If you make a mould to repeat the parts, the cost would be enormous. I figured it would cost $50,000 to convert the car before you bought an engine. Sure a few could do this in house and save a minimal amount, but most can’t. I forgot to mention new wire harnesses, ecu, sensors… How many years would it take to benefit from fewer engine rebuilds? Which under this current table is not really the facts. Yes, I realize that some would have the intent to install a big motor, rev it less, use it close to stock form… But, that’s not the way the table is. You can do anything you want to make those engines faster. Anything. (except a turbo) Before you know it you’re turning the RPM for all it can do, developing lighter parts, and you now have a motor that goes 1000miles the same as the 1600. Restricting the motors to OEM blocks etc. could be an idea, but it still has to be installed, which is very expensive and not even practical in some cases. [FONT=Calibri]I'm not blinded by my own beliefs. I don’t think anybody’s trying to impose law. The WYDT? Letter will hopefully help FA. Write a letter whatever “side” you’re on. Believe me, if the best thing for FA is Chevy small blocks and 5 inch wide tires, and the overall FA community says, “Yeah, Hell with 4 cylinders!” I’ll listen. Have an idea? Tell me. Tell everyone. I love new ideas and concepts. But, say that me, or drivers have cheated. Or, we are only considering our own agenda.. Some can imagine the response they might get. [/FONT]I’m not in love with the Toyota. I don’t think anybody is. No FA drivers want to spend more on engines. Find a long life motor that’s not a fortune to install, and we’d all be thrilled, from most I talk to. Except the engine builders. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]There’s plenty of ways to be innovative and outsmart your competition in FA without creating an engine of the month club. If other FA builders are being discouraged from making new cars… Who? I’ve read ideas for how some constructors detail the failings of FA’s and describe cars that they would build for the class, but they are so different they sound like they are another class, not FA. Yes, I know F3 is cool and great, but it’s not anything like an FA. I’ve driven both. Anybody I’ve ever spoken to (including Indycar drivers) say the FA was the most fun car they have ever driven. With the demise of the FA Pro Series, is FA going to decline until it fades away? Sadly enough, probably. But there’s still a bunch of them around, and sticking a big motor in the back doesn’t seem like the solution to most drivers I’ve talked to. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]Now on the 016.. I would love for that car to work. I have 3 of them here myself. All I can say, is that’s incredibly complicated. The 016 is an FA only in name. It was like saying Indy-Lights cars look like FA’s, let’s put a restrictor on them and race them in FA. The 016 has a bigger engine, and as Chris said, in pro form was limited in RPM etc, therefore producing longer engine life. Well, according to the rules now you can do anything you want. But, it also has bigger tunnels, bigger taller wings… The car’s huge. All I can draw off of is my experience, so take it easy on me here… I drove 014-016 back to back at HPT and produced the same laptime. But each was a little better in different places, but the same lap time. It’s tough to equalize a completely different car. This year I took Hans Peter to Hallett. It is a small race track. Short straight with some fast corners. He was 1 second faster in the 016 than he was with the 014. But, if you go to Road America, which Hans will this year, it will probably be slower. It’s big and restricted on the long straights. It sucks the Runoffs are at Road America, but should we make the 016 faster at RA to the point until it blows everything away at other tracks? I’m open to ideas different ways to restrict the 016 to make it faster at RA and other long straight tracks, but what about everywhere else? It is tough when you take a car that is not really an FA and try to make it equal, but not faster or slower than all FA predecessors. But, I do agree with Stan that there’s a bunch of 016’s out there. They are in the class. Let’s find a way to get more of those cars racing. We can start by telling Jacek to sell a couple of the 8 he owns. Just joking Jacek. [/FONT][/SIZE]
Last edited by MirlSwan; June 19th, 2012 at 10:41 PM.
Reason: Sorry for the [/SIZE] stuff. I type slow. The only way I can type that much is to cut and paste
Thanks for addressing this problematic area. To vett your beliefs, I estimated the cost of converting my RT41 to a fire-breathing 2litre to be around 80k....This included a 5spd JFR. It would have been cheaper to go with a BDG since we had already done the necessary conversion work, but I believe a JFR would have still been necessary.
Stan, Do you think that the 016 could be made more competitive thru restrictor adjustments alone?
Yes, absolutely. I don't know what the "correct" SIR size is, but it's bigger than the current one, that's for sure (or we'd have more 016s in the Club). Paradoxically, the 016 being larger, heavier and draggier than other Atlantics makes it easier to balance 016's bigger engine with the smaller cars. Giving it a bit more hp won't create an outsized torque advantage.
Quote:
If so, I don't see how the June Fastrack proposal for 2013 comes into play. I probably need to review the Fastrack, but I thought that it left the specific 016 rules pretty much untouched, which would allow the CRB to adjust the 016 restrictor sizes as needed going forward.
All Fastrack says is that the 016 is one of just two configurations that can race starting on 1 January that does NOT have to supply all the information and testing results demanded lower down in the article.
It seems that the CRB is convinced the 016 is already at a disadvantage, so there is no need to put it through the mill. My complaint is that other, even less competitive options (e.g., ex-Fran-Am, ex-F3, SuperVees, FF2000, etc.) are being squeezed out by the proposed rule change.
It seems that the CRB is convinced the 016 is already at a disadvantage, so there is no need to put it through the mill. My complaint is that other, even less competitive options (e.g., ex-Fran-Am, ex-F3, SuperVees, FF2000, etc.) are being squeezed out by the proposed rule change.
This is an interesting point. The Fastrack proposal does not specifically address this issue, but I personally see no reason why all of the "legacy" engines should not continue to be allowed without further documentation (e.g. Cosworth 1600's, rotaries, F3, Star Mazda, etc.). I thought that the proposal was aimed at the Table E engines only, but you have a point here, as the other past engine options are not specifically mentioned. This particular issue may require clarification from the CRB.
In my comments to the CRB I did request that all past engines (pre Table E) be allowed to continue in the class. For example, if a 1600 cc Cosworth was OK for the past 20-some years, why should it require special approval now?
I fully agree that Super Vees, Fran Ams, Cosworth powered FA's, Rotary FA's that have been racing for sometime and have good parity should continue. I don't think there was ever intention to get rid of cars. Just stop the rabbit hole of Table E. I didn't write this proposal, but calling anything that's trying to save FA from the abomination know as Table E, "poorly conceived" is blind. Just write in that all of those cars should be allowed to continue as they were. Nothing was put in stone. It's a WDYT? letter. While the letter may need more clarity, I'm pretty sure the goal is to help all of FA, not just 014's, as cynically stated. The poorly conceived plan was jamming an unlimited engine development Table E, into FA in the first place. I believe the intention was good, but poorly thought out. Remember, until last year, some engines on Table E were only restricted by compression. We ran the numbers on a 2.0ltr back then and figured 330hp. Looking back and knowing how much Hp I could still get from a Table E engine, I know we were conservative. I knew it was the wrong thing to do. Maybe great for a year for my driver. But, would destroy FA.
I fully agree that Super Vees, Fran Ams, Cosworth powered FA's, Rotary FA's that have been racing for sometime and have good parity should continue. I don't think there was ever intention to get rid of cars. Just stop the rabbit hole of Table E. I didn't write this proposal, but calling anything that's trying to save FA from the abomination know as Table E, "poorly conceived" is blind. Just write in that all of those cars should be allowed to continue as they were. Nothing was put in stone. It's a WDYT? letter. While the letter may need more clarity, I'm pretty sure the goal is to help all of FA, not just 014's, as cynically stated. The poorly conceived plan was jamming an unlimited engine development Table E, into FA in the first place. I believe the intention was good, but poorly thought out. Remember, until last year, some engines on Table E were only restricted by compression. We ran the numbers on a 2.0ltr back then and figured 330hp. Looking back and knowing how much Hp I could still get from a Table E engine, I know we were conservative. I knew it was the wrong thing to do. Maybe great for a year for my driver. But, would destroy FA.
Nobody said you wrote the letter, Mirl, and I agree that it needs "more clarity". That said, the proposal as written emphatically states that all FAs not 4age powered, or Swift 016s, would need to go through the vetting process prior to the end of the year or they would not be permitted to run in the class.
My critique was of the WDYT letter that appeared in Fastrack, and addressed specific areas of that letter. Quit trying to cast my comments as criticizing attempts to "save FA". If you want to "save FA" then say so. And state clearly that the CRB is reconsidering Table E. As it is, Table E is not mentioned in the letter.
And yes, I'm cynical about the motivations of a small clique of 014 drivers...because I have seen how they manipulated the rules to ensure no 016 could be competitive while fully exploiting the rules to their own advantage. If the CRB erred several years ago, even with the advice it got at the time from the engine builders, then FIX THE TABLE. Throwing the baby out with the bath water is unnecessary. So is adding 300 lbs to the Swift 016.
Stan, I will address your comments then move on. I realize this is useless, because I know that you're always right and a really smart feller. But, I have to tell you.. You're wrong. If you have questions, call me, email me. I'm actually straight forward, and zero percent BS. You have never called me. You've thrown a lot of acusations my way direct and indirect over the past year. I don't even know you. You don't know me. You've never closely looked at one of my cars. Never talked to me, but still the acusations. I only address this now because you're very active on this forum, and I want to let others that may be reading this know that you're wrong.
I did the 016 testing when the car was being considered for SCCA. I didn't have any preconceived desire to not make this car fast. The others that were there were Cosworth Engineers, a Data and Devopment Engineer and a couple SCCA staff. None of those people were thinking of slowing the car. The data from the test is what was used. You think Cosworth wanted the engine to be slow? Oh yeah... The 014 posse was lurking around screwing the 016 over. Come on Stan... Are you serious?
I know that I've offended you, and you may feel the need to refute my words, but all I'm writting is the facts. This isn't just my opinion.:trophy :
Stan,
Can you please tell me what data you are using to state that the 016 is not competitive? Have you recently competed with them? Have you driven the RT-40/41 vs the 014 vs the 016?
I was never in favor of allowing Swift 016s into FA. But, that horse has left the barn, so now what do we do?
To me, as a 26-year driver/entrant in FA, Table E is a bottomless engine development hole into which everyone would end up pouring lots of money. I realize that there are some who enjoy spending lots of money on cars. I'm not one of them. I like to make the cars fast with the minimum expense.
I agree that the 'pre-table E' (PTE) cars should continue to be allowed. I see no sense in not allowing them.
Some have pointed to the f2000 Zetec engine and the FF Fit engine as goals to shoot for - lower cost, same performance engines. Certainly a worthy goal for FA.
If Honda/Toyota/Dodge/Chevrolet/BMW/Mercedes were to come up with a new FA engine that would run for 5000 miles and would deliver current performance, and (this is the important part) came with 'kits' for the majority of current cars, I'd sign up in a minute. That is not Table E by a very long shot.
So, the proposal on the table, if it includes the cars/engines in the GCR PTE, with 1600cc OEM-based engines, plus the Swift 016, gets my vote.
The sad thing is, Mirl, that you didn't address my comments. You ignored my actual points and instead recast my comments as attacks on you and efforts to "save FA". And when your straw man didn't work, you turned to ad hominem attacks on me. Odd tactic for a "zero percent BS" guy, don't you think?
mirl, thanks for the reply, while i don;t claim to know the right restrictor size to equilize the different cars i do have a different oppinion on your comment that FA is na engineeing class as well as a drivers class, the club has frozen the 016 siilloette ? , wing profile, etc to the old pro spec, which is fine, it seemes to me the only engeneering comes in how much money i'm willing to spend to get my car to weight, 60 lbs over, carbon brakes light weight body parts, all the same profile of course , mag wheels etc, or go to the engine builders for external oil pumps , new pans etc, if the 016 is a spec car fine leave it as such set a realistic weight for a 180 lb driver and lock the engine specs and adjust power with my $3,800 restrictor
Ab Absurdo, Stan. I'm sorry the facts are insulting to you.
Listen, Mirl, you aren't just some Joe Bag o' Donuts SCCA member getting into a pissing contest with some other nobody on the internet. You are a member of the Club Racing Board, and as such represent them here. In fact, for all intents and purposes to most readers of this forum, as the de facto Wings & Things member of the Board, you ARE the CRB.
So you could at least try acting like it.
After all, how are we to have confidence that you will represent our collective best interests if our interaction with you is limited to petty defensiveness, junior-high-level personal insults and pithy aphorisms? Because at the end of the day, Mirl, the CRB is not a social club where you condescend to notice your social inferiors. On the contrary, you're expected to work you ass off in our service, and if you can't, or won't, you need to step aside for someone who will. It won't be me, though, so don't go thinking I want that job back.
Furthermore, you need to be transparently honest about your interests, Mirl. Whining about how you didn't write the letter or weasel-words about 'nothing was put in stone' just feeds the mistrust. You may not have written the letter, but it went out on your watch, so you ARE responsible for it.
Moreover, you DO have interests in this class, Mirl, and everyone here knows it. That doesn't mean you can't look after those interests, but it can't have even a whiff of taint on it or you lose all credibility.
Which is your only coin in trade, Mirl, in case you hadn't figured that out.
As a CRB member now I will try to carefully express a general thought, but keep in mind this is MY opinion, and nothing more....
I have a certain philosophy about rules, in this case, an attempt was made to reduce costs for competitive engines in FA without obsoleting current stuff. In such a case, I tend to consider what Hendrick Motorsports would do if faced with such a rule. Would they focus on the part of the car covered by the rule (engine), or would they be better served spending money elsewhere because the rule 'worked'? In the case of of table E they would have probably tripled their engine budget trying every conceivable option. Would take forever to recoup that even if the end product was cheaper over the long haul.
This is mostly because doing what was intended is damn near impossible. Low displacement hi rev stuff is tough to equalize to high displacement low rev stuff because torque plays such a big role in road course lap times. Plus 10 other differences....
However, alternate engines are very possible, as long as everyone gets realistic about how "even" we can get. Settle for .5 percent, cause the driver variable is at least 1.0 percent.
This is not FE.
Tony
Last edited by tonyave; June 21st, 2012 at 9:28 PM.
I don't particularly care about the FA engine table, other than it should be a horrible warning to anyone who want something similar in another open wheel class.
I will say that after reading through this thread and seeing what Mirl has to say, I am even more impressed with him. I have had zero problem tracking the points that he makes and he has shown more restraint and class than should reasonably be expected. He is by far the most competent open wheel/sports racer representative that the CRB has had in a long time. I was glad when he was put on the CRB and this thread has just reinforced that I have every reason to be glad.
I usually learn a lot from the different perspectives presented here in this forum, whether I am in agreement with them or not. So I am really glad that Stan, Mirl, Paul, Tony, Bill, etc. have chimed in here. I've only been messing around with FA's for a few years now, so it is nice to hear from those that have been deeply involved in the class for a long time.
I guess I viewed the Fastrack WDYT proposal as just what the name implies......a request for member comments and input on the subject. For any SCCA member that has an opinion on this issue, now is the time to write the CRB. You have an audience (the CRB) who is literally waiting to hear from you.....they have specifically requested member feedback.
That said, if the majority consensus is that the current Table E is a problem for the class, in my opinion the time to address it is now, not a year or two down the road. My car will remain 1.6L Toyota powered regardless of what happens, but some folks have already spent a lot of money in pursuit of Table E alternative engines, and this will continue if things remain unchanged. Those that are spending that money deserve to know where they stand going forward. So I think the CRB needs to objectively consider all the "evidence", make the call, and present it to the BOD for approval if necessary. Continual change and uncertainty regarding the engine rules is not in the best interest of the class.
Tony -- welcome to the CRB. I expect that it will be a largely thankless job, so I will go ahead and thank you right now for stepping up and volunteering your time to the cause. Good luck!
[SIZE=4]One of the things I have been thinking about is how to produce a really durable high-output engine based on the Toyota model and main dimensions so that it may have major components progressively substituted in during rebuilds, and also allow for "new" engines going foward without conflict between the two.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]One approach with the block might be to use an insert "cassette" assembly system as described by RET two issues back. This was a method used by Aston Martin to achieve a strong, lightweight structure with minimal tooling, since they were building in extremely short quantities. In their case, they machined both the cylinder bore insert as well as the block exterior, but a good approach for Formula Atlantic Toyota engines would be to cast the block from a material such as A 357-T6, and then use a low-silicon cast or wrought alloy for the bore insert, which could then be Nikasil (or similar) coated. The simplified shape of the bore insert allows for reasonably economical production of this component from high-strength, high-hardness alloys that can be in the 60-70 ksi range, creating an excellent base for the nikasil coating and assuring good longevity. Assuming good cylinder head compression strength, later on the bores could be taken out to 83 mm; because of the improved material characteristics, this close edge-to-edge distance would be fully viable. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]This would mean that the block itself could last indefinitely, as the inserts could be [/SIZE][SIZE=4]an "off-the-shelf" item. The block could be a deeply reinforced structure with triangulated exterior ribs that terminate at the bearing caps, where it can then be cross-bolted into the caps. This would further enhance stiffness and strength, and reduce the “weaving” from the secondary imbalance forces that are present in all four-cylinder engines. Properly done, it should weigh at least 30-40 pounds less than the iron block that it would replace, and allow for a correct deck height with an improved rod-to-stroke ratio, plus enlarged main bearings. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]The replacement cylinder head would also bolt to a standard block, assuring reasonable interchangeability with the original Toyota components. However, it would have improved cooling, porting, and strengthening in key areas. It could be cast out of A 357 as well. Re-spacing the valves about 1 mm would eventually allow for larger valve sizes, and make for better cam bearing surfaces, but should not require new camshafts. (Richardson BDAs have done this successfully for years)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=4]With development, this combination of replacement head and block should eventually result in a very reliable 280-290 hp with conventional porting, or 310-320 hp with dual swirl porting when taken out to the bore limit. This package would fit the existing cars without any significant modification and would be a very light, compact power plant.[/SIZE]
I do
:trophy :
