Restrictors Recommended for 2015

[Purple Frog]

Those of us that sat on the FSRAC meeting on this subject were presented with a lot of data over a period of months. The data was collected about as scientifically as our budgets allow. That said it was only collected because of serious folks dedicated to FB donating a lot of time and effort that SCCA could not possibly afford to pay for.

Now, on the forums, many are screaming for the data. Unfortunately, within the established process those on the committees are not at liberty to release the data. Maybe there should be some process to release it, but currently such process is not in place. Simply releasing a few dyno charts without all the reams of background explanation would only generate more confusion.

A good editor may be able to create a one hour video with the principals explaining the process and results, then that get posted. Who is going to finance something like that?

So, it boils down to those of us on the committees saying "Trust us." Obviously it appears many don't. But, i can vouch for the good intentions and hard work of the committee over more than 6 months.

Much of what i have read here is way off track. There is no agenda to slow the class down. In fact I believe SCCA sees FB as an up and coming class with a strong following, and they are trying to keep it growing.
This was a case of knowledgable FB people making FB rules, which is about as good as you can hope for in SCCA.

YMMV

[jchracer]

Any updates on this? Will this be a requirement for the 2015 Majors races in January?

If so, not much time left to make things happen.

[David Locke]

Any updates on this? Will this be a requirement for the 2015 Majors races in January?

If so, not much time left to make things happen.

See page 2 of the Recommended Rules Changes (October 2014) submitted to the Board of Directors to become effective 1/1/2015 if approved: http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...20%282%291.pdf

[jchracer]

See page 2 of the Recommended Rules Changes (October 2014) submitted to the Board of Directors to become effective 1/1/2015 if approved: http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...20%282%291.pdf

I know that but does anyone closer to the board know if and when the changes might be approved? We are running out of time to incorporate restrictors for the January Majors.

[David Locke]

I know that but does anyone closer to the board know if and when the changes might be approved? We are running out of time to incorporate restrictors for the January Majors.

Items recommended by the CRB are considered twice a year by the Board of Directors, typically during the August and December meetings. I believe the December meeting this year is on the 10th.

[JRO183]

Can anyone tell why the Kawsaki is slated for a 40mm restrictor and the Suzuki a 42mm? I know earlier in the year dyno testing was done and it showed that the Kawi had a substantial power advantage. BUT since then, we have had an entire season of both engines racing together for real world comparison, and I don't think you could get 2 more equal motors based on track performance.

Heck, look at the Runoffs 3rd qualifier (fast quali of the week), and the top guys are all within 1-2 mph. In fact, the Suzuki averages out to be faster.

Having raced with and against both engines, I can attest that they are basically equal. They both have little differences here and there, but overall I do not see anyway someone can say that the Suzuki is at a disadvantage.

Watch the start of the runoffs, Alex and I were side by side from the start all the way to turn 2. How can say someone say that the Kawi warrants a smaller restrictor?

I'm frustrated because the Kawasaki is a wonderful engine. It seems bulletproof. It ran hot all week (230 water/265 oil) because our new side pods were not right, yet it just kept running and running. We went to the track last weekend and just pulled car out of trailer from Runoffs and it ran all day with no issues. I would HIGHLY recommend this engine to anyone just because it is so reliable and that translates to more fun than work. Not to mention you can actually get a low mileage engine for $3,500.00.

We don't race dynos. Can someone enlighten me to other on-track data that supports the smaller restrictor rule that I'm not aware of?

Thanks,

J.R.O

[Jnovak]

JR, the proposed use of restrictors was first posted in the June 2014 Fastrack. Why are you trying to change it at this late date instead of in June, July, August, etc?

There was a great deal of dyno testing and analysis that clearly indicated that the Kawi had a significant power to the ground advantage over all other car and engine combinations when they were at the same weight.

The CRB can adjust the restrictor sizes at any time with a 30 day notice.

[JRO183]

Hi Jay,

Two main reasons:

1) I was hoping that the SCCA was going to utilize the AimSolo data acquisition, that we were required to install the mounts, to get actual on-track data throughout the season. I do not believe that ever happened. The only published track data that I know of are the trap speeds at the runoffs as I previously noted, which show equality.

2) Now that I have been able to run a Kawasaki and compare personal data between the engines at the same tracks, I can honestly and accurately say that the 2 engines have basically the same performance non-restricted.

Because of the reliability and availability of the Kawi, I am more excited about this class than ever before. I don't want people discouraged of putting a Kawi in over the winter because it will have a smaller restrictor.

Thanks

[Jnovak]

What was the weight of all the cars in impound? I know that the JDR was right at minimum.

[allof6]

Is there any on track data from a BMW or just DYNO runs that make it have to run a 38mm restrict or?
Where can we see the DYNO results.

[JRO183]

Jay,

I was 1030. I'll gladly carry an extra 30 lbs rather than a 40mm restrictor. Not sure if the weights were recorded.

JRO

[Jnovak]

Is there any on track data from a BMW or just DYNO runs that make it have to run a 38mm restrict or?
Where can we see the DYNO results.

To our knowledge no one has run an FB with the BMW engine. Other engines that show the restrictor to be 38mm is simply because we have no data on those engines. Applicants that want to use these engines and want a different restrictor will have to supply dyno data from a recognized engine dyno operator. Of course the FSRAC and the FB. Ad hoc committee will cooperate in getting the required testing completed in an effort to get other engine and restrictor combinations approved.

We ran dozens of dyno runs on a very modern computer controlled motorcycle engine dynamometer. Each engine was tested with multiple restrictor sizes to determine the relevant restrictor sizes. This extensive dynamometer work was paid for by members of the FB Ad Hoc committee and there were no other contributors. We are very confident that our data, our analysis of the data and the decisions made using that data is the best place to start with a restrictor program. Please note that the restrictors defined for are significantly larger than those chosen for the motorcycle engined P2 class.

What these restrictor sizes are is a place to start. Adjustments can be made with a 30 day notice. The CRB has a plan to test various combinations at selected races next season.

[glenn cooper]

After running all year w/ the Kawi, it is VERY EVIDENT that using ONLY dyno data is a VERY FLAWED methodology.
What the dyno can NOT take into account is the fact that the Gen 4 Kawi has a close ratio transmission, which sees first gear last up to around 88 mph (More Gigawatts, Marty!), or there-abouts.

The fact that the AiM data collecting plates were NEVER used is quite a sore point.

The 07/08 GSXR1000's are pretty much done, availability wise of low enough mile engines to put straight into a car, which has been my MO for quite some time.

Rebuilding a GSXR w/ high miles necessitates replacement of 16 Titanium valves at considerable expense, and all the other bits needed to get a good solid engine from a umpteen thousand mile donor are making the switch to the Gen 4 Kawasaki a no brainer:

.It is available, as a 2011/12/13/14 model
.It has proven to be MUCH MORE robust than the Suzi
.It is very easy to adapt to car usage, unlike the Honder, and the BMTroubleU

To recap - In light of the VERY SIMILAR performance of the Suzi and the Kawi, it seems, I dunno, disingenuous perhaps, to penalize the Kawi w/ a smaller restrictor.

The fast lap times from the Runoffs FB race show 2nd through 8th w/i 2/10ths of a second, w/ about 5 different chassis and 2 different engines.


Tell me again what needed fixing?

Respectfully, GC

[Jnovak]

After running all year w/ the Kawi, it is VERY EVIDENT that using ONLY dyno data is a VERY FLAWED methodology.
What the dyno can NOT take into account is the fact that the Gen 4 Kawi has a close ratio transmission, which sees first gear last up to around 88 mph (More Gigawatts, Marty!), or there-abouts.

The fact that the AiM data collecting plates were NEVER used is quite a sore point.

The 07/08 GSXR1000's are pretty much done, availability wise of low enough mile engines to put straight into a car, which has been my MO for quite some time.

Rebuilding a GSXR w/ high miles necessitates replacement of 16 Titanium valves at considerable expense, and all the other bits needed to get a good solid engine from a umpteen thousand mile donor are making the switch to the Gen 4 Kawasaki a no brainer:

.It is available, as a 2011/12/13/14 model
.It has proven to be MUCH MORE robust than the Suzi
.It is very easy to adapt to car usage, unlike the Honder, and the BMTroubleU

To recap - In light of the VERY SIMILAR performance of the Suzi and the Kawi, it seems, I dunno, disingenuous perhaps, to penalize the Kawi w/ a smaller restrictor.

The fast lap times from the Runoffs FB race show 2nd through 8th w/i 2/10ths of a second, w/ about 5 different chassis and 2 different engines.


Tell me again what needed fixing?

Respectfully, GC

Coop, you are mistaken. We did not simply use the dynamometer data to make the decisions. We actually used the overall transmission gear ratios from each engine/transmission package to calculate the torque to the rear wheels. This was done in a totally separate analysis that used every gear ratio from 1st to 6th gear ratios along with the dynamometer data to define the torque output to the rear wheels. Each final drive ratio for each engine package was selected so that each engine would reach the same exact speed at its peak rpm in 6th gear. This output torque data analysis is for real and not imagined or estimated. Each and every shift point was selected to produce the highest torque to the rear wheel.

Now of course another very important consideration is that our analysis use the same minimum weight for each car and engine combination. This minimum weight was the 1000 lb minimum weight for the cars. Obviously a car that weighs 50 lbs more as an example will have 5% lower acceleration. This is a most important factor in that the Kawasaki powered cars were all much heavier than the 1000 lb min weight.

Please remember Coop that you were asked to be part of the FB Ad Hoc Committee specifically because you were one of the 2 or 3 drivers using the Kawasaki engine. Also remember that you declined to participate on the committee.

[Jnovak]

Jay,

I was 1030. I'll gladly carry an extra 30 lbs rather than a 40mm restrictor. Not sure if the weights were recorded.

JRO

They were recorded, I will look them up.

[glenn cooper]

Please remember Coop that you were asked to be part of the FB Ad Hoc Committee specifically because you were one of the 2 or 3 drivers using the Kawasaki engine. Also remember that you declined to participate on the committee.[/QUOTE]


Actually...
I got the same response from the ad hoc deal that I got from Lee Stohr when they initially offered up the first TEN F1000 cars at $29,998.00:

"Oh, so sorry - you're the 11th caller"!

I sent in the paperwork or whatever (I don't recall the exact requirements) and was told that the position had been filled, essentially...

The ON TRACK action this year was the TIGHTEST EVER, w/ multiple chassis/weights, and two different engines.
THAT can not be denied.

I do understand the need to slow down the FB cars, so as not to disenfranchise the FA boys (j/k... No, seriously... OK, NOT kidding!), and I suspect that it will all even out once the rather finite and near the end of availability of the allmighty and all-conquering GSXR Thou occurs...

I suspect the Ad Hoc attempted something really simple first? - Wanna run a Gen 4 Kawi?- your new minimum weight is 1025, thankyou for shopping at CoopCo...

[JerryH]

Everyone wants newer engines to come into the class......because of the availablity of good low milage used engines. That is one reason the committee worked so long and hard to find a way to bring the engine output closer together (in addition to the SCCA mandate to limit speed increases in the class). As Jay stated, a very involved methodology was used to equatedyno numbers to actual power to the ground in the car. You will note that the ecu rules were opened up a bit to make it easier to bring in some other engines......and to allow tuning for the restrictor.

It is very difficult to use on track comparisons unless the engines are in the same car with the same driver....on the same day. to many differences in cars...aero and weight being two very obvious. Not to mention aero and chassis adjustments....gearing......etc. Same day, same car, same driver is the only way track comparisons will ever give us reliable data.

Jerry

[ghickman]

I believe I rolled over the scales at 1003 lbs. and I've got 60 lbs of ballast on my car.

I can build you a 2015 Phoenix with a Kawi and Geartronics shift system that a 220lb driver will make min weight.

Larry Vollum will be rockin' his new Kawi powered Phoenix next season.

[Terry Hanushek]

I know that but does anyone closer to the board know if and when the changes might be approved? We are running out of time to incorporate restrictors for the January Majors.

The inlet restrictor table as it appeared in the CRB Recommended Changes was approved by the BoD in its meeting last weekend. It will be effective on 1/1/2015. Full details will be in the December FasTrack.

Terry

[JRMarchand]

Manufacturer specs say bmw/kawi stock power and torque figures are pretty close to each other, 193hp bmw vs 197hp kawi. why does the kawi have this advantage over the bimmer as far as restrictor size. Seems like it would be better if a stock bmw bike is volunteered to go on the same bike dyno as the others on the engine/restrictor table, just to make a baseline for everyone, to make things fair I suppose.

I highly appreciate all the works of the FB committee. I hope the same work that was performed on the other bike models can be done for the bmw s1000rr motorcycle. Is that a possibility? Its ok either way. thank you.

[JakeL]

Solution in search of a problem.

Letter sent.

-Jake

[ghickman]

Solution in search of a problem.

Letter sent.

-Jake

Well said Jake

[ghickman]

We're going to test at Willow Springs in a few weeks with and without the flat plate restrictor.

I'll let everyone know what effect it has on the performance. We'll have 2 different ECU's mapped for each setup.

[DonArm]

Deleted.

[Randy Cook]

Keep in mind as you compare RunOffs trap speeds that the Firmans were dragging F1 Monaco level rear wings and that Larry Vollum's car is significantly overweight.

Shall we start thinking about a spec engine now? One that we can buy brand new? Honda may be the only mfgr open to this but I would welcome it.

[JRO183]

Hi Randy,

FYI- Our wing set up was not slowing the cars down. At the High Plains test, the standard wing set up with a medium DF setting was at 131 mph. Adding the 3rd element and maxing the angle of attack only dropped top speed to 128.

Dan Burnett, the car owner, came out last week and ran over 80 laps at HPR. The engine did not miss a beat. I would highly recommend the Kawi to anyone as it just continues to amaze me of how reliable it is.

JRO

[sprocketmensch]

Maybe I missed it in fastrack but has this been approved yet? If so is anyone making a kit for the GSXR?

[Rob E]

JP, to be fair, in order to really know you would need to have the engines in the same cars with the same wings and setup. Aero drag has to be eliminated from the equation.

Aero drag and set-up are team choices. the HP the engine makes is the item that should be regulated by the rules.

[ghickman]

Maybe I missed it in fastrack but has this been approved yet? If so is anyone making a kit for the GSXR?

Not yet and I've asked them to delay it till March.

I found a discrepancy in the wording that I brought up to one of the key members of the Ad Hoc committee. They intended to clear this up but it got over looked. I was told it was being changed.

I'll have a kit in about 4 weeks that will be both dyno and track tested.

You can email me for more details.

[KodaBear]

Looks like an oversight as the proposal has the 2010 zx10r listed as having the same restrictor as the 2011+? The 2010 zx10r motor is the same as the 2008/09, which are not even listed.

[AEA_Team_Lotus]

What is everyone's thoughts on open ECU rule, it would allow for more engine choices,

I personally think if we want FB to expand we need to keep the rules simple (no restrictions plates) and allow the new drivers to fill the field with the older cars, and allow the front runners to invest in the newer technology that keeps the class interesting.

[formulasuper]

What is everyone's thoughts on open ECU rule, it would allow for more engine choices,

I personally think if we want FB to expand we need to keep the rules simple (no restrictions plates) and allow the new drivers to fill the field with the older cars, and allow the front runners to invest in the newer technology that keeps the class interesting.

I doubt the new drivers are going to want be field fillers.

[ghickman]

What is everyone's thoughts on open ECU rule, it would allow for more engine choices,

I personally think if we want FB to expand we need to keep the rules simple (no restrictions plates) and allow the new drivers to fill the field with the older cars, and allow the front runners to invest in the newer technology that keeps the class interesting.

MEMO to all FB drivers:
The SCCA thinks we are going too fast. Restrictors are coming because we have been deemed as too fast.

Unless we all speak up collectively (and loudly) we are getting restrictors.

I've written countless letters and spoken to anyone that would listen. I'm not alone there are others that are on top of this.

I'm on the fence as far as ECU's.

[AEA_Team_Lotus]

I doubt the new drivers are going to want be field fillers.

I know of very few racers that buy a brand new car and run at the front of the pack in their first year...

[allof6]

Correct me if I am wrong but the proposed new ECU rule change is not for an "Open" ECU but rather the allowing of a "Factory Race ECU"

If thats the case its a good thing and should have been part of the original rules from the start.

[JerryH]

We do need new engines in the class....because the supply of the 08 gsxr that most of us are using will eventually dry up. HOWEVER.....with the factories continually bringing out new and more powerful engines, it seems logical to find a way to achieve some parity between all the engines available. Restrictors do that better than any other method I have heard of. They will never be equal....but much closer than they are unrestricted.

It also increases engine life and makes more engines available in the used market.....and yes, it does limit the increase in speeds that would result from power increases. Note I did not say slow us down. The cars will continue to go faster as we develope them.

It also allows people with a supply of current engines to remain competitive for a year or more.....without any additional expenditures. That has to be good for the class.

IF I WERE ONLY INTERESTED IN WHAT IS BEST FOR MY GUYS, I WOULD SAY NO TO RESTRICTORS......as it would give them an advantage until the competition was able to make the switch......maybe half a season at least. BUT.....I AM FOCUSED ON THE LONG TERM HEALTH OF THE CLASS....which will be better for us all down the road. Parity among several engine choices will help that.

A couple of my guys are already preparing to make the switch to Kaw power if the restrictor rule is not adopted.....can't blame them......we know it will be faster (in the same car) than the 08 gsxr.

The fast guys will be the fast guys either way.....so why not do something that will help keep cost down. Restrictors will do that......longer engine life, more availability, and no need to change over to be competitive. That has to be in the best interest of the class.

I really do not understand the opposition to this.

Jerry

[sprocketmensch]

Jerry,
Well said. I am completely with you. I do think we need to really look at the ECU part of this equation as well. As I said in the other thread, allowing an open ECU would allow more engines to come into the class quicker. This will keep costs down and allow a larger supply of engines, including crate engines to be used. This ultimately means a healthier racing class.

[Jnovak]

Jerry,
Well said. I am completely with you. I do think we need to really look at the ECU part of this equation as well. As I said in the other thread, allowing an open ECU would allow more engines to come into the class quicker. This will keep costs down and allow a larger supply of engines, including crate engines to be used. This ultimately means a healthier racing class.

Any factory ECU, production or race, will be allowed.

[sprocketmensch]

Any factory ECU, production or race, will be allowed.

Jay,
I understand. However the amount of engineering required to run a factory ECU which will include disabling traction control, ABS, etc is significant. it is the reason we have not seen the Honda engine and the BMW engine until just recently. It does not seem to add any advantage to the class in terms of leveling the playing field, rather it works to make it harder to bring new engines into the class.

[Nick77]

Jerry, I absolutely agree with you this will definitely lead to a healthier FB class. Also the restrictors will undoubtably bring parity to all engines now and into the future.
I would also like to thank each and every member of the ad hoc committee for all of their time and money they invested looking into every possible option into keeping the FB class alive and healthy
Thank you
Nick and Alex Mayer #77