F-1000 Sub Committee Rules

[AEA_Team_Lotus]

Out of curiosity what rule changes do you think the new F-1000 Sub Committee should implement?

Obviously the use of aftermarket ecu is a hot topic so motors like the BMW S1000RR can be used.

My suggestion is increase the width of the front wing to 180cm in order to increase the aerodynamic influence over the front tires, in addition the additional aero will allow for better use of the increased power produced by the new engines.

[RussMcB]

One of the reasons I left the class is the potential of ever increasing HP levels. No other class is as exposed as FB. There is no benefit when competitors are forced to re-engineer their cars simply to stay at the same level of competitiveness. Some type of restriction/cap would allow car owners to use the same drive train for much longer and not lose ground as rapidly.

I imagine FB would be even more attractive if the HP was more consistent, with a smaller gap between the lower and higher budget teams.

I don't expect rules to allow a $20,000 car to be competitive with a $80,000 effort, but it'd be better if the lap times were five seconds different rather than ten (just using round numbers).

[glenn cooper]

Given that seemingly everyone has an 07/08 Suzuki, I can't see how the lap time disparity is down to what you stated.

I agree something should be done about the introduction of new engines.
My friends in other car racing disciplines utilising m/c engines have a moratorium/freeze on engine years, which we have kicked around here for quite some time.

The big problem as I see it is rebuild costs (when an engine has timed out) far exceed the cost of procuring a much lower mileage used engine.

Finally, I'd also mention that the 20k cars are quite competitive w/ the 80k cars - see R/O's results from a few months ago.

[Wren]

I imagine FB would be even more attractive if the HP was more consistent, with a smaller gap between the lower and higher budget teams.

Right now there is essentially no HP difference in FB. Basically everyone runs the 07/08 GSXR engine, so everyone has the same HP.

The lap time disparity you see has absolutely nothing to do with HP levels and everything to do with car quality and level of effort.

[Brett Lane]

Just out of curiosity, how much would it cost to replace a set of valves, pistons and rods? To completely rebuild an engine would still be less expensive than putting in a new ZX-10R, or the BMW plant..right?

Even the newer engines have yet to surface and still has to be proven to go the distance in a race car.

[Phil Creighton]

180cm is 20" wider than current approximately (130cm) - an 014 FA in the shop is 150cm approx - sounds a bit extreme to me. I think Brandon proved that a lot of downforce is not a pre-requisite for this class - drags still real important.

I would say, as one of the bigger suppliers of FC wings, that going away from FC sizes/fitments will probably increase costs across the board for little appreciable gain as you can achieve just about anything required in F1000 with various FC wing/flap combinations. At the moment most F1000 wings are sticking to the available sizes and fitments as they are readily available from a number of suppliers.

[Mike Devins]

I have had at least one person float the idea that the weight be adjusted based on the manufacturers claimed hp. Question is where to put the stake in the ground, 07/08 GSXR 1000 to 1000#'s or the new Kawi or BMW to 1000#'s

seems reasonable since it will not require restricters.

It would also be nice to have an open ECU rule since sooner or later all of the bike engines will be as complicated as the BMW and will not run in a car application.

[Daryl DeArman]

Given that seemingly everyone has an 07/08 Suzuki, I can't see how the lap time disparity is down to what you stated.

I agree something should be done about the introduction of new engines.
My friends in other car racing disciplines utilising m/c engines have a moratorium/freeze on engine years, which we have kicked around here for quite some time.

Having spent time in another m/c powered car racing discipline I was one of a few who tossed around the idea of a moratorium/freeze when this class was first being proposed.

In practice, it would seem that most everybody is using a motor 5 years old or older right now, with possibly a few new model year motors in the works.

I'd suggest you lock in 2013 or older motors until 2018. That hurts ZERO people with anything currently in the works and you don't have to worry about what the next 4 model years bring. IN 2018 you can change it to 2018 and older unitl 2023, etc.

Just a thought to slow the HP progression.

[JerryH]

It is important to find a way to allow newer engines into the mix.....and at the same time not obsolete the ones being used now. Changing over to a totally different engine involves lots more than just buying the engine........most of it costly.

The best idea I have heard was to allow open ecu's.....which makes it easier to adapt some engines....but limit revs to 12500. Rev llimiters are inexpensive and easy to police.....and because newer engines seem to make more hp only by reving higher, rev limiters would keep older engines competetive.....and possibly increase the life of our engines. Yes, there might still be some difference in performance, but it would be small.

I simply can't find fault with the idea.

Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars

[Mike B]

Rev llimiters are inexpensive and easy to police

How would the SCCA police rev limiters?

[RobLav]

Air restrictors at 12.5K RPM and Stock or Manufacturer's race ECU with open programming (which would also by default specify that re-flashing stock ECU's is allowed).

If a common and policeable soft type rev limiter is cheap and readily available, then that is preferred over restrictors.

Analyze the torque curves as well as HP curves in the feasible engines when looking at the rev limit.

Do not force the competitor to have to go through a certified engine builder process to allow new engines. Explicitly stick to the five major engine manufacturers.

Allow machining of transmission components to run that expensive shift system.

Fix the floorpan width specs to prevent running a wide floor in front of the rear edge of the front tire.

Since I'm out, my recommendations are more objective rather than emotionally attached like previously. Good Luck.

[Wren]

Air restrictors at 12.5K RPM and Stock or Manufacturer's race ECU with open programming (which would also by default specify that re-flashing stock ECU's is allowed).

Reflashing of stock ECU's is already specifically allowed.

Allow machining of transmission components to run that expensive shift system.

I was not aware that machining transmission components was required for any of the shift systems. Care to clarify?

Fix the floorpan width specs to prevent running a wide floor in front of the rear edge of the front tire.

The rules already disallow this without bodywork out there. The smart thing would have been 95cm bodywork, but that horse is out of the barn. The attempt to stop wide floors is a dumb rule to start with.

Since I'm out, my recommendations are more objective rather than emotionally attached like previously. Good Luck.

I'm out too, but something has to be done about engines. Everything else is fine.
I'm out too

[RobLav]

Roger all Wren... I don't recall the words in the rules that specifically says ECU's can be reflashed.

Roger with current rules width.

[DonArm]

http://pnwriders.com/marketplace/161...no-graphs.html

[Ivinsea]

open ecu's.....which makes it easier to adapt some engines....but limit revs to 12500. Rev llimiters are inexpensive and easy to police.....and because newer engines seem to make more hp only by reving higher, rev limiters would keep older engines competetive.....and possibly increase the life of our engines. Yes, there might still be some difference in performance, but it would be small.

I simply can't find fault with the idea.

Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars

I agree 100%. Open ECU rules; limit RPM.

We need to open up the supply of new engines.

There are 8 BMW S1000RR engines on ebay right now listing between $2500 and $3850. They cannot be made to work with the stock ECU. Let's get these things installed in our cars!

[Stan Clayton]

I agree 100%. Open ECU rules; limit RPM.

We need to open up the supply of new engines.

There are 8 BMW S1000RR engines on ebay right now listing between $2500 and $3850. They cannot be made to work with the stock ECU. Let's get these things installed in our cars!

I was wondering why the interest in the Beemer...so I looked at their dyno charts.



And then the GSXR.



And then it all made sense...

[KVS84]

Not only that Stan but German reliability. The Suzuki makes crap idle oil psi. My BMW has a nice lumpy idle and 35-40 psi at 240 degrees oil temp. Shift at 14k all day too and it sounds amazing!

[Ivinsea]

Not only that Stan but German reliability. The Suzuki makes crap idle oil psi. My BMW has a nice lumpy idle and 35-40 psi at 240 degrees oil temp. Shift at 14k all day too and it sounds amazing!

Keegan - does the Halltech ECU offer an adjustable soft rev limit?

[crowe motorsports]

New engines will work there way in eventually and open ECU's may be the answer to making other motors work in our type of racing. But I know developing an ECU map is complex, expensive, and takes a lot of time by an experienced person. With an open ECU rule some will spend a lot of money to develop their secret optimized ECU mapping that will then be held as a proprietary guarded secret formula. That is one reason the 07/08 GSXR works so well as a stock ECU by itself is pretty efficient for stock and even built motors from what I have experienced. Furthermore I know two DSR competitors who installed expensive MOTEC systems on their cars and spent a lot of time and money to get it right. Both finally dumped the system for stock because it was overly complex to make it worth the trouble and expense.

I am winging it here based on limited knowledge of what I hear and what has been on the forums, so others will need to set the record straight based on real tested experience.

GSXR - The GSXR 09 up is a smaller lighter motor with more HP over the 07-08. But I heard it requires a dry sump only (not a big deal) and may have had oiling problems thereafter. When they came on the market everyone thought that was the future motor package. It has not played out that way.

JR/Wayne worked on the BMW package and finally gave up making it work in F1000. A DSR guy has one installed and developed his own ECU map. The car is for sale. Not sure why it is for sale as the ad talks how great the motor is. Unfortunately, there is no on track performance that has been observed or reported to prove it is a great motor in our type of racing.

The new Kawasaki was being touted as the next motor to have. Some have had these motors for over a year, but there has not been any on track data to show it is viable.

So in summary, it is a confusing landscape that can cost someone a lot of time and money to install, test and optimize a new power plant. However, we know well many competitors will do just that. If open ECU's are allowed, a way to keep cost down may be to have a designated engine builder design a map that everyone must use for a particular motor. It will reduce development cost of everyone going out trying to develop their own expensive proprietary map.

[John Mosteller]

A while back my friends at Ducati Seattle did a back to back to back test on three motorcycles A BMW S1000R, a 09 GSXR 1000 and a 09 R1, These were all motorcycles that had approxemently 200 miles box stock with cat converters and exhaust systems, Their dyno is a Super Flow Cycle Dyn identical to mine using ram air etc, Here are the results

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...1&postcount=79


Here is a dyno comparison posted by George Dean in the above link that shows a back to back comparison on the same dyno of Suzuki,Yamaha and BMW.On this comparison the BMW has more power from 6500 and up over the Suzuki and Yamaha.

How will a rev limiter equalize these power plants? To get the same peak power the Suzuki would have to be left unlimited and the BMW would have to be limited to 10200 but the BMW would still have more power from 6500 and up.

[KVS84]

Ivinsea - yes it does. Also built in flat shifter!

Crowe - my father and I are "the DSR guy". Unfortunately as I'm approaching 30 things like engagement ring, buying a house, etc need to take priority over my racing for a couple years. My job also has me at racetracks during the season making it difficult to race myself. The Halltech system is neither expensive or complex. Yes you need an experienced tuner familiar with the BMW. The only on track data I have is beating my track record when my car was Suzuki powered at our home track in NH. The previous record was held by Garret Kletjian who is a top DSR driver and knows the NH track well.

[crowe motorsports]

Sorry Keegan, I did not mean to be impersonal but I was on my IPAD and could not back out to find your name or I would have lost my content.

Yes Garrett is normally quick and that says something.

[JohnPaul]

2011 Kawasaki ZX10 dyno ala George Dean. This can be run with the stock ECU.

[Stan Clayton]

2011 Kawasaki ZX10 dyno ala George Dean. This can be run with the stock ECU.

Can you make the image larger, John? Thx!

[John Weed]

Stan,

Just left click on the graph.

[Stan Clayton]

Stan,

Just left click on the graph.

Interesting...it didn't show as a link the first time I loaded the page, but it's working properly now. Thx!

[ghickman]

There will be at least two Z10 powered F1000 at the COTA race so we will get a chance to see how they hold up.

There are distinct reliability problems with the BMW and frankly I don't believe they will stay together under the stress that a 1000 lb car puts on them without making engine mods that make it out of spec.

[crowe motorsports]

Summary thus far.

So we see these Dyno numbers on some motors that indicate the 07/08 Suzuki should be a back marker. But no competitor has yet to prove another motor superiorty in race proven conditions/over multiple weekends (Maybe they have and I don't know of it).

For the most part, the 07/08 Suzuki motor has proven to be pretty bullit proof over a season (or more) of racing for most competitors and they are still regularly available as a donor or they are being rebuilt.

So the question is - are we too early to determine a formula for controlling parity of motors that will find their way to the track? Even if their dyno numbers show great potential, they still must prove they can live in our type of race environment. They may have reliability weaknesses under hard full length race conditions. If someone has any proven experience, they should share some info as it will be known sooner or later. (I.e. Suzulki 09 and up; BMW, Kawasaki, others?)

So let's say a motor shows up and begins to dominate the field. Then many will ask for a competition adjustment. So weight or SIR or rev limit or ECU maps will be put in place to level the field. Right?

So the next question. Can that be determined now or do you wait until it happens?

I really don't know.

[ghickman]

Some insight from someone that has reverse engineered several liter bike engines for wet sump pans. The new Z10 is by far the most challenging but we are close to having it done.

The Z10 weighs roughly 18lbs more than the Suzuki but develops roughly 10-15hp more. Add the weight of a dry sump 15-20 lbs you may not see a big advantage here based on the weight penalty.

[Jnovak]

I will take a 15-20 lb weight penalty for 15-20 hp any day. That is 1 lb/hp for cars that have about 5.7 - 6 lbs/hp. Just my opinion though.

Let's say that the best GSXR makes 180hp and weighs in at 1010 (about the best you can get). That is 5.6 lbs/hp.

Now take a ZX10R at 195hp (less than GRD dyno results) at 1030lbs (+20 lbs instead or 18lbs). Now you get 5.3 lbs/hp. This will result in a very significant acceleration advantage.

Ok, now someone builds a super light car with a ZX10R that weighs in at 1010lbs and has the 200hp that has been seen on the dyno. Now you get 5.0 lbs/hp. Do not think that it can't be done, it will be done and all it will take is lots of $$$.

F1000 is a great class but it is still in it's infancy and MUST GROW to survive. Now if you want F1000 to be as fast as Atlantic cars this is very good, but is it good for the future of this growing class? Or do you want to be merged with Atlantic and their budgets in 3-5 years.

Your call, it's your class.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[crowe motorsports]

Jay, excellent point. If we allow ourselves to achieve Atlantic speeds, we will be merged with Atlantic's. CSR/DSR is proof of that.

Your weight to power rational makes sense as well and inexpensive.

So with that in mind, an easy inexpensive way to engine parity may be to have a designated engine builder Dyno motors under repeatable environmental conditions and determine max HP. Obviously torque/HP will vary up the slope on different motors. Then apply a weight to power ratio based on top HP. Current Suzuki 07/08 would be the baseline benchmark to determine the ratio. Stock ECU would be required.

Yea/Nay comments
If (Nay), what would you recommend?

[Mike Devins]

There are distinct reliability problems with the BMW and frankly I don't believe they will stay together under the stress that a 1000 lb car puts on them without making engine mods that make it out of spec.

What durability issues have you heard of with the BMW other than the obvious issues that Wayne and JR had?

[Purple Frog]

I had the priveledge of sitting in on many of the formative meetings when the inital F1000 rule set was being developed (before it got in the hands of the CRB).

The engine equivalency issue was a major concern of the founding fathers. I admit i was in favor of restrictor plates having seen it's application in FC. At that early time in the founding of the class the fathers wanted no restriction, because there was an air of wildness and discovery. There was a sense that since the perception was that a new engine would only cost $3,000, changing bullets was cheap. After a few years it is obvious initial engine fitment and development is more than that amount.

Now, let us review history, and observe what formula car classes have stood the test of time. FV has lasted 50 years with one engine. FF over 40 years with one engine. FC went 30 years with one engine. A consistant engine package soon arrives at a fairly level development, and over time the scutineers build up adequate control measures. Learning new technologies every year is a major strain to arriving at nationwide scrutineering knowledge. The front of the FB field by defacto has run for a few years on one engine, thus some stability.

Now, look at Formula Atlantic. A complete hodgepodge of engines. Confusion and bickering follow. The class is weak in participation.
Look at DSR. The engine of the month system has weakened the class.

If possible, pick one engine, even if in 5 years the protaganists are crying that it is a "tractor motor", and run with stable rules that the constructors will then be able to develop to, without fear that six months to a year of development will go down the drain with another new engine anouncement. It will also strengthen the resale value of the cars.

Those that fail to learn from history, risk repeating past problems.

[S Lathrop]

It seems to me, and this discussion confirms my opinion, that we don't have an engine issue yet but every one is anticipating one in the future.

The Suzuki engines, that most people are using, are becoming increasingly hard to find and to stay with the Suzuki, costs will escalate dramatically.

All other engines are problematic at this point. But there is a need for an alternative to the Suzuki 07-08 engine.

And most people would like to see the HP level stay where we are today. Say 180 max.

That means that we would like to see after-market ECUs to solve the problems of getting engines to operate properly in a race car application and somehow peg power at current levels.

Am I missing something?

[S Lathrop]

Another observation.

If we, as the FB community, do a good job of solving the engine issue, over the next decade, FB could replace FA as the top level formula car class because of the inherent cost advantage of FB.

The relative cost of an FA especially when you look at new cars vs. the FB package is something on the order of double or more. I don't see that that is sustainable at any level over the long haul.

I don't think we have seen the maturing of the FB concept yet. The cars will get faster, even without increasing the power of the engines.

We need a formula that utilizes the supply of new bike engines that have been recently purchased and totaled.

[KVS84]

Mike,

There are no reliability issues. 09 models had rod bolts loosening up and transmission gear alignment problems. Our motor is a 2010 and after 4000 bike miles and another 400 in the car it still runs awesome. An employee at Halltech has a BONE STOCK engine with a turbo kit making 400hp that they drag race.... For 2 seasons! They're convinced it can't be broken. They are building an engine with rods and pistons now for a new turbo making 500hp!!

Wayne/JR weren't having engine problems. Keeping the ECU out of limp mode with the stock electronics was the issue they were having last time I asked Wayne about it.

The oiling system is the best part of the BMW. No need for the latest oil pan of the week or having to run 2qts over filled.

[reidhazelton]

Huh? FB that is equal to Atlantic speeds?! Uhh...not sure that is such a good idea. Essentially, FB is an FF chassis. Who wants to get in an Atlantic-fast Formula Ford...seems pretty sketchy to me.

HP needs to be capped...not easy to do obviously.

[RobLav]

I recall the Grand Poobah being part of our initial discussions in developing the FB rules. We (at least I was) were full of blind enthusiasm in creating something that was to be quite cool, and restrictors had not yet become quite the heated debate because we had many other issues to solve. Towards the end of our discussions, when Mike E. was not present, we argued quite intensely about what size restrictor to use (if we used them at all). Some wanted the size set to fit the 03/04 Suzuki and others wanted larger. We argued and argued; never coming to a consensus. Dave Gomberg, our liaison, was intent on using a restrictor and wanted the smaller size. Since we did not reach consensus on restrictor size, the BOD left restrictors out, which I think is one of the best things I've ever seen from our SCCA Club Racing Leadership. If we had restrictors set by the conversations back then, you guys would not be running the 07/08 GSX-R nor Yamaha R1 engines!

It seems that we still have not quite yet solved the restrictor size issue. We could not reach a compromise back then, so no doubt a compromise will be difficult today. This compromise must look forward as well as not completely disengage those running the 07/08 GSX-R engines nor those who are currently developing the ZX-10R or CBR1000. This is why I think a compromise at slightly over the current 07/08 GSX-R engines is the most valid. These engines will not be around cheaply forever, as has often been said here. This is why I believe a compromise at somewhere around 190 HP is about right. Is this about right so as to not completely disaffect both sides?

Back to ECU's and re-flashing... I recall back in 2008 seeing Ron Ignatowski's FB creation with a 05/06 GSX-R. He mentioned using a George Dean re-flashed ECU. I'll never forget my thought at the time... "You're using a WHAT?" That was completely out of scope of my understanding of the rules, but this is a good lesson between rule "intent" and practice and the difference between them. So, as I've said many times, if you change the software settings in an ECU, you effectively already have an (almost) open ECU rule. I've sent two requests to the CRB to open up the ECU rules; both shot down. This needs fixed now as well as the HP limit.

I wish this committee good luck in finally reaching a final and conclusive outcome to the restrictor size and desired HP level.

[Phil Creighton]

I had the priveledge of sitting in on many of the formative meetings when the inital F1000 rule set was being developed (before it got in the hands of the CRB).

Actually a number of issues in FB did surface (like wing measurements and diffuser widths) because the CRB effectively took the rules set that the committee developed. In any innnovative class you have to phrase and word things VERY carefully to avoid mis-interpretation and SCCA speak and a big rules section is usually as a result of this. Don't blame the CRB - they were really arms length on this class. None of the restrictor suggestions had time for development before the class was instituted - going straight to National status sure didn't help the timeline.

From my observation - there are fewer drivers that are capable and comfortable of driving at the current FB speeds and I believe its one of the factors holding the class back. If it was firmly between the FA and FC classes rather than creeping into slow FA times............Restrictions of some sort of engine HP would certainly help.

[Purple Frog]

Phil,
I wasn't picking on the CRB, just trying to date when i was involved.
I don't think you'll get much agreement about slowing the formula down.
That is part of the appeal. Just saying.