2018 Runoffs Protest
Those that care about this or maybe heard about my protest at the 2018 Sonoma Runoffs should read the latest December Fast Track.
Read pages 24 & 25. The SOM found JRO in violation but the Appeals Court ruled in favor of his appeal. More than anything I wanted to force the CRB to clear up the engine rules. Hopefully they will for 2019 but of course the season begins in January for some.
This all goes back to is it legal to back date an engine. Most feel it isn't.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
Review and clarify prior to the start of the 2019 season. Tick tock
I'd like to know what the heck is meant by something is unrestricted as long as it's stock. . .
Findings
FINDINGS
In accordance withGCR 1.2.3. (Interpreting and Applying the GCR), class rules (Formula 1000 (FB))take precedence over General Technical Rules. GCR 9.1.1.G.4.E. states,“Carburetion and fuel injection are unrestricted, with the exception that thestock throttle bodies for a fuel injected engine must be used.” GCR9.1.1.G.4.C. states, “The stock or factory racing ECU shall be used.”
These FB class rulesclearly state the fuel induction system is unrestricted and, therefore, exemptsthe throttle body and the ECU delivered with the throttle body from the enginedefinition found in Appendix F. (General Technical Specifications). GCR9.1.1.G.4.C. does not specify the ECU must be year-matched to the engine, onlythat it shall not be a stand-alone aftermarket part.
David Arken, CRBmember and FSRAC Liaison, provided written and verbal testimony stating theMember Advisory was intended to reference only the cylinder head, engine block,and internal parts of these components, commonly referenced as a long block. Hefurther stated, “Had the rule been intended to require the ECU to year-matchthe engine, that requirement would have been specifically noted. In addition,since the TB’s are unrestricted and must remain stock, this makes it necessaryto match the ECU to the TB’s.”
Per GCR 1.2.2.B.(Revising the GCR – Immediate Implementation), for a clarification requiringimmediate implementation, the Board of Directors (BOD) will issue a memorandumstating the interpretation and its effective date. These memoranda will beposted on the SCCA website. The COA notes this Member Advisory for FB andPrototype 2 (P2) had not been issued by the BOD before the start of the 2018National Championship Runoffs. Therefore, SOM reliance on the Member Advisoryas the basis for the ruling was not in accordance with the GCR.
The COA notes theserules and the Member Advisory can lead to varying interpretations. The COArespectfully requests the CRB and FSRAC review and clarify the engine rules forF1000 (FB) before the start of the 2019 competition season.
Just to illustrate the confusion, I was on the rules committee, and I walked away from it believing that ECUs could not be re-programmed. "Stock" meant stock ECU with stock ECU programming... at least to me. Didn't quite turn out that way!
That's just one of the issues with regards to subjective wording and citing intent. The rules' writers knew what they meant, but too often that's not the only way a rule can be read.Originally Posted by RobLav
If the ECU doesn't have to be year matched to the engine, why does it even need to be make/model matched?
"The stock throttle bodies for a fuel injected engine must be used". A hayabusa and a ZX14R are fuel injected, those throttle bodies acceptable in their stock form?
I'm guessing that they meant: "Fuel injected engines must use the stock throttle bodies for that year, make and model engine", but that's not what the rule says at all.
As to the ECU rule, much could/should have been learned from other classes that went down this road more than a decade ago. "The stock or factory racing ECU shall be used". I can use it to power-on, and provide one critical sensor input to a MoTec. The MoTec will not run that engine without the factory ECU in place and therefore, is not "stand-alone". The stock or factory racing ECU is being used as more than a simple voltage supply, therefore it is being used as a ECU.
The IT guys thought it best to mandate that whatever you did to the ECU it still had to fit within the stock ECU housing. Intent to disallow piggy back modules. All that did was have a couple of well-funded, world-challenge level teams manufacturer their own MoTec-like ECU in a stock housing.
September Fast Track
So this is what I read in September Fast Track pertaining to P2 and FB. Looks pretty clear to me and I know lots of others that saw it this way also. This was my main supporting document in the protest, there were others that I found in the GCR also.
So the only way you can get a GEN5 Kawi to run is to back date it with a GEN4 throttle body and ECU. Per the rules the newer GEN5 is also subject to submitting dyno sheets if the SCCA asks for them. It used to say it was required but earlier this year that wording changed.
If it was intended to say only applies to Short Blocks or Long Blocks then why not just say that. Says nothing about intake, carbs, throttle bodies ecu. So by definition to the GCR then it is everything that makes up an engine and all the ancillary components to make it run. Very poorly written.
The SOM agreed with my protest there was no waffling on that.
CLUB RACING BOARD MINUTES | August 7, 2018
The Club Racing Board met by teleconference on August 7, 2018. Participating were Jim Wheeler, Chairman; Todd Butler, David Arken, John LaRue, Kevin Fandozzi, Peter Keane, Sam Henry, Tim Myers, and Pam Richardson, secretary. Also participating were: Bob Dowie, Bruce Lindstrand, and Marcus Meredith, BoD liaisons; Eric Prill, Chief Operations Officer, Rick Harris, Club Racing Technical Manager. The following decisions were made:
Member Advisory
P2 and FB
1. #25047 (Club Racing Board ) Stock Engines
Competitors in P2 and FB are reminded that a stock engine consists of parts that were originally delivered as an OEM unit. A stock engine is NOT an engine made up of stock parts from various engines and different platforms to create an engine that never existed as an OEM unit.
All the engine part numbers must have been included in, or superseded in the original OEM engine. For example, an engine with a short block from one engine platform, cylinder head from a different platform and cams from a third is not a stock engine
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
I read it the same way you do Gary, until it gets to the part about ancillary components to make it run. Specifically as it relates to the throttle bodies and ECU.
Yes, it's poorly written.
Why in the heck do we have a "Member Advisory" providing a definition and an example if it's not enforceable since it wasn't a technical bulletin?
Just love me some SCCA.
stock throttle body
The rule says "THE stock throttle body" ......not "A stock throttle body"."
That clearly means the one the engine came with. "THE" can only refer to one thing......it is singular.
No other meaning is logical.
There is no need to revisit or rewrite that rule......but it is important to make sure everyone (including scca officials) fully understand it.
The same thing applies to the ECU rule..
Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars
SCCA member since 1967
Quote the complete wording and it becomes unclear.
GCR 9.1.1.G.4.E. states,“Carburetion and fuel injection are unrestricted, with the exception that the stock throttle bodies for a fuel injected engine must be used.”
To me it's clearly unclear. Yes, "THE stock throttle bodies" I agree, but then is says "for A fuel injected engine"
If the line said: “Carburetion and fuel injection are unrestricted, with the exception that a fuel injected engine must use it's stock throttle body(ies).” There would be no question.
Was this rule intended to year match? or just eliminate aftermarket throttle bodies?
My question is, when a rule is unclear, as members and competitors, don't we have a duty to ask for clarification before acting on ambiguity? Do we really need to debate "A's" and "THE's" to understand the spirit or intent of these rules?
dealing with newer engines
At one point, SCCA decided to require inlet restrictors on engines used in FB. Those sizes were listed in an engine table in the gcr. In addition, a sentence was added requiring dyno results for engines newer that 2014 be submitted to determine legality and restrictor sizes.
SCCA decided not to implement the restrictor rule, and the restrictor sizes were removed from the engine table, and replaced with "N/A".
HOWEVER.....the sentence requiring dyno results for newer engines was not removed.
Since restrictors are not required on older engines, there is nothing official to compare the newer engines to. Therefore, sending in dyno results for newer engines would be useless.
Therefore, the wording was changed to "May be required". This keeps the clubs options open......but recognizes that all engines would have to be tested on the same dyno, by the same operator, to be of any comparative value.....and recognizes the difficulty in doing that.
To address the possible higher power levels of newer engines (and in response to a class competitors letter to the crb), SCCA has already added 25 lbs to any cars using engines newer than 2008.
That seems to have worked fairly well, and could be done again.....but only if a CLEAR need is established.
Anyone wishing to discuss the engine or class rules can call me at the number below.
Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars
SCCA member since 1967
636-399-7060
I see where you are coming from......but "The stock throttle body" can not mean from any engine.....it is a stretch to read it otherwise.
Your wording using "its" might be better......but the intent is clear.
Unfortunately, we often have to debate the meaning of "THE", "A", and often the effect punctuation has on the meaning of a phrase.
Rules writing is not an easy task.
Personally, I think "carburetion and fuel injection are unrestricted" should be removed. Several restrictions follow that phrase.
Jerry Hodges
The intent is clear only to the rule writers. The rest of us have to rely on the words chosen to determine what's permitted and what's not.
Too often rule writers are too close to the trees to see the forest.
I'd again suggest, that if the intent is what I guess the intent is to be, the rule should state:
"Fuel injected engines must utilize the stock throttle body assembly for the year, make and model engine entered. The throttle bodies shall not be modified in any manner".
I am open to hear how the Smokey Yunicks among us could interpret that for their benefit.
P2 and FB
1. #25047 (Club Racing Board ) Stock Engines
Competitors in P2 and FB are reminded that a stock engine consists of parts that were originally delivered as an OEM unit. A stock engine is NOT an engine made up of stock parts from various engines and different platforms to create an engine that never existed as an OEM unit.
All the engine part numbers must have been included in, or superseded in the original OEM engine. For example, an engine with a short block from one engine platform, cylinder head from a different platform and cams from a third is not a stock engine
Sadly, this stock engine definition applies to P2 also. When this advisory was first mentioned, letters were written to the CRB but to no avail. A few years ago, I dropped a valve in my 05/06 GSXR which trashed the head, pistons, and the cylinder wall. The result was an 05\06 EBAY head and cylinder block plus the pistons/rods/bearings/valves. Crank and full bottom were reusable. Engine performance was not changed. Currently, the 07/08 GSXRs are in short supply so the value of rebuilding one becomes significantly higher at a time when SCCA is trying to keep P2 an affordable class. One could rebuild a stock GSXR using parts that are all found in the OEM parts list keeping the stock engine performance but be found guilty under this advisory. We are all going to have to keep these 08 GSXRs alive. Going to a Busa is a $12-15K expenditure for me even doing the work myself.
Maybe even more sadly, a stock 1000 engine in P2 has become non-competitive as compared to the built 1000, Busa, etc. Thus I really cannot see the necessity or rationale behind banning rebuilt engines.
While the authors might have thought they were exact in their wording and got their meaning across, I think the discussions in this thread and others have shown that various interpretations are possible. Having lived in a professional world where precise wording and punctuation was necessary to remove all options for possible miscommunication, I understand the complexities that arise.
There is no doubt that therexare often multiple interpretations of statements in the GCR and this is understandable. Thus the intent of the original writers may not be known thus I am very curious if the protest appeals group contacted members of the original FB ad hoc committee?
Last edited by Jnovak; 12.03.18 at 9:10 PM.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
I am curious how the appeals court could have reversed the orginal protest decision when in the August 2018 CRB minutes the following statement was printed. This wss posted before the Runoffs. I must be mis-interpeting the statement below.
P2 and FB
1. #25047 (Club Racing Board ) Stock Engines
Competitors in P2 and FB are reminded that a stock engine consists of parts that were originally delivered as an OEM unit. A stock engine is NOT an engine made up of stock parts from various engines and different platforms to create an engine that never existed as an OEM unit.
All the engine part numbers must have been included in, or superseded in the original OEM engine. For example, an engine with a short block from one engine platform, cylinder head from a different platform and cams from a third is not a stock engine
Plesse help me understand
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
I can't speak for the other members but they didn't contact me. I'd be surprised if they even knew who was on the committee.
Mike Beauchamp
RF95 Prototype 2
Get your FIA rain lights here:
www.gyrodynamics.net/product/cartek-fia-rain-light/
In the appeal they stated that the text you are quoting above is from a "member advisory" and not a "technical bulletin" and therefore is unenforceable.
Which is why I asked on this thread, back on the 30th, why in the hell give a definition and an example if you don't plan on enforcing it?
Original intent of wording
So my odyssey of filing this protest at the Runoffs brought me front and center with the higher ups in the SCCA. What I did learn was that most if not all of them thought the FB's were going too fast....shock surprise.
Since I wasn't really directly involved in the original rules makeup but I was around then and right in the throws of designing and building my own FB, then went on to build 5 more I felt I had a good read on what Mike, Jeremy and others were thinking back then.
I seriously doubt that there will be any SCCA contact with the original FB class founders unless they chime in and let them know how we (they) feel about the direction the class may be headed.
What I can tell all is that the GEN5 Kawi is a beast, I mean BEAST. My sources tell me it's making 205HP on the dyno with the back dated injection / ecu.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
Nope. We act on the ambiguity. Take our chances that we will win if protested. If not, we appeal and win there.
If they wanted the rule to mean something different they will change the rule. If they didn't, they'll leave it alone.
No. It's crystal clear. If they say "the" they mean "the", if they say "A" they mean "A". Maybe somebody needs to show the rules writers a VENN diagram.
If I said the man, I'm talking about a specific man. If I say "a man" I could be talking about a specific man or any of the billion men on earth.
Exactly
Daryl
Too bad you weren't in the room with me when I discussed this with the appeals court....you would have laughed your ass off. They gave me such a lame answer to this that I left the room stunned.
I went back over to the Drivers Advisory and told them what I'd been told. All 3 of them had the same reaction and they were all past long term former BOD members. One of them was so taken back by it he went down to the appeals court and spoke with them about this. I can't tell you on this forum what was really echoed to me by the Drivers Advisory, it would make some on this forum a bit mad.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
i was also on the FB add hoc committee and was not contacted.about this issue.
I think that they must have lawyers reading the rules and that the intent of the rule means nothing. This should be fixed and could be done but?
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Obi Wan Kenobi
I forgot the most important link to all of this.
Terry Hanushek was like my Obi Wan Kenobi through this entire process. Without his help...well I would have been lost. Talk about a pro this man handles himself just like old Ben.
Thanks so much for the help Terry.
Gary Hickman
Edge Engineering Inc
FB #76
Gary, thanks for taking up this issue. This is pushing the boundaries of what should be acceptable.
Firman F1000
Are we talking about the more recent ad hoc committee or the original committee that drafted the rules back in '06?
Mike Beauchamp
RF95 Prototype 2
Get your FIA rain lights here:
www.gyrodynamics.net/product/cartek-fia-rain-light/
Was it really 2006!?
[QUOTE=Mike B;572905]Are we talking about the more recent ad hoc committee or the original committee that drafted the rules back in '06?[/QUOTE
Not sure. Too many committees. It was when we were doing dyno data with george dean on intake restrictors . I suspect that this was the later committee. I still have the dyno data so i will find it and check the dates
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Yes, 2006. I feel old. At the time, my understanding was a strict interpretation. Concern was that FB would turn into DSR and motor of the month (expensive). Stock throttle body is THE one that goes to the appropriate engine. Stock ECU was just that... STOCK... which included no re-programming. The piggy-back unit was supposed to be the only add-on. No race ECU allowed. But all that was my interpretation at the time. I understood that these rules were strict... because of the arguments for and against the restrictors at the time... since no restrictor, then these rules were strict.
If they had stuck with the strict interpretation, then they wouldn't be complaining that FBs are too fast. No BMW, no Gen 5 Kawi, no re-flash.
What's the current thinking on what constitutes a "race ECU" and what is a "piggy-back" unit? How is that line defined? I'm guessing the official stance is "we'll know it when we see it". Which will fail on appeal, sending the rules' writers back to the drawing board.
Daryl,
Race ECU has a different part number. At least they did with the Gen 5 Kawi and 06 Yamaha. Also at the time, the piggyback rule had some specific wording. IMHO, it all went wrong starting with an ECU re-flash, which I first saw on Suzukis in 2008. Looking back now, I would support restrictors for anything beyond the power of 07 or so Suzuki or 08 Yamaha. But I'm long gone from racing formula cars.
I was thinking more about when does a piggy-back unit become a "race ECU" or more specifically, when does a "race ECU" become a piggy-back unit? The original intent may have been to exclude factory ECU's that weren't available on the US road legal bikes as delivered, while allowing the use of a dyna-tek or similar.
Me too, but I enjoy keeping up on the happenings.
Mike, it must have been the later (FB F1000) ad hoc committee that i was on because the dyno data spreadsheets are dated 2013.
The committee used up a ton of dyno time from George Dean so i want to thank George again for his huge assistance!!!
Perhaps the restrictor issue should be revisited? They really worked and can cap the power of the engines to any defined level and they also limit the effective RPM thus helping engine life.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Yes, IF the restrictor sizes aren't the same for all engines and IF there is both the ability and desire to effectively police engine internals. Absent those 3 things they are just a facade.
a common restrictor size is no problem imo. The multiple engines that we dynoed with multiple restrictor sizes were very close but were not perfect when restrictor sizes were all the same size I think that the variation was quite reasonable and I state this as a former many years of experience as a dynomometer Technican for a msjor commercial engine manufacturer. The biggest problems with the various motors we tested was NOT peak hp but was the width of the power band for 1 of the motors.
I do not know how they are doing inspections for FB engine teardowns at the Runoffs now! However when my son Brian won the FB National Championship in 2011 our engine was torn down to the nubbins. This required a complete go through of the motor over the winter but was a small price to pay for a Runoffs win! The best part is that we won wiith our spare motor which was down about 3 hp from the motor we started with.
I am very curious what the post race inspection involved. Anyone know?
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
That's one of my concerns about a "one size fits all". Not only the width of the power band but the gearbox ratios are usually engineered to be compatible with the stock power band. When the width and/or shape of that power band changes significantly you'll find your gear ratios are causing too large of an rpm drop with the restrictor-plate power band, effectively clipping the power more than necessary.
I don't have the many years of dyno technician experience you do, but I have operated one a few times. Granted it was an old Go Power water brake dyno with a Buick V6 mounted. SuperFlow was only the flow bench.
yes
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Oh please, not this again. Jay, you are no longer in the class....let it rest. The restrictor thing is dead....I hope...since that misguided effort is one of the major reasons for the decline of the class in general.
Ciao,
Joel
Piper DF-5 F1000
joel i do not think that you have ever seen the dyno data. Restrictors were not my idea but i did provided the analysis work for the ad hoc committee. However the FB ad hoc committee overwhelmingly supported the proposal for the use of intake restrictors and it went to the CRB and the CRB simply said no at that time.
It is simply ludicrous to blame the small FB fields on restrictors that have never once been used in any FB car ever in a race. That never happened.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Ludicrous...really? Racing at anywhere near a high level requires planning. Two years in a row, the rules were changed to require the use of restrictors. IIRC, the rule changes were announced in December to become effective in January. this gave the people running the January races a few weeks to incorporate a device that could harm some very expensive engines. Many competitors had to mount a letter writing effort (two years in a row) to have the rules reversed. I think many other FB competitors just threw in the towel due to the unorganized process. Obviously, the ad hoc committee did not represent the FB racing community at large. I don't find it a coincidence that FB participation numbers took a real nose dive during that period of time.
Ciao,
Joel
Piper DF-5 F1000
Jay, there are those of us that appreciate the effort spent on exploring restrictor plates in FB. I guess I'm one of them. Thankless task I guess.
But to be honest I would have never gotten back into FB if there had been restrictor plates. And I have no interest in seeing them adapted for use. Ever. I think it's bogus enough that I have to carry that stupid useless frigging mounting plate on my car to collect useless frigging data they can't do anything with.
I have heard a lot from some of the early adopters, bless them.....and I hate to bash the founding fathers of this class or whatever they are calling themselves these days, but the more I hear from them the more I think they've lost sight of where this class is going, if it is indeed going anywhere. The intention may not have been to send us in the direction we are going, but we are going there anyway. The less meddling from them the better. That include AdHoc'ers, CRB'ers. BOD'ers, or whatever.... Good intentions or not, they only make the situation worst. Time to cut the apron strings. Let us do our thing. I guess that about sums it up. Time to order some drinks.
Firman F1000
That may be what you wanted, Rob, but that was never in the rules. Here is what the first approved F-1000 rules had to say on the matter (from the January 2007 GCR):
The stock ECU shall be used. The ECU fuel map may be changed. Devices that modify inputs to the ECU (e.g., Power Commander) may be used. Stand-alone after market ECUs are not permitted.
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote