you're right, my bad; should have been far more specific.
how do FF National participation numbers compare to SCCA National OPEN WHEEL participation numbers since TG decided to run his "better, faster, cheaper" IRL experiment and split the premiere American open wheel racing series?? or the same comparison since Bernie made F1 toooooo expensive for Long Beach??
A few things: Stan shame on you. You presented class participation numbers in support of a single causal factor as if it is the ONLY causal factor. Intellectual dishonesty and you owe me a beer.
Dang it...I can't git nuthin' past that guy! You're good for one beer...
Joking aside, the message to take away from the graphic above is that in spite of an an extraordinary run of rules stability (more than 35 years!), Formula Ford participation has declined from 2000+ back in the late 70's to just over 400 today, so rules stability in and of itself itself is no panacea. There comes a time when change is needed, and judging from the hundreds of mainly supportive comments in this thread, that time has come.
you're right, my bad; should have been far more specific.
how do FF National participation numbers compare to SCCA National OPEN WHEEL participation numbers since TG decided to run his "better, faster, cheaper" IRL experiment and split the premiere American open wheel racing series?? or the same comparison since Bernie made F1 toooooo expensive for Long Beach??
.... rules stability in and of itself itself is no panacea. There comes a time when change is needed, and judging from the hundreds of mainly supportive comments in this thread, that time has come.
One thing to consider is that if this new engine is voted down, this opportunity will not come around again any time soon. Will it result in increased car counts, maybe yes, maybe no, but there comes a point when a chance is worth taking.
Could we continue to use the Kent for another ten years? Sure, but only at the present level of participation or lower. Look what Doug has gone through trying to get an an engine for his DB-1 roller. You will never see increased car counts again with the Kent, and while FF appears healthy on the SCCA participation charts, in reality the car counts for most races is small.
I agree with Stan, there comes a time when change is needed.
I agree this is a positive move. I am a new return to FF but I live and work in another industry of custom equipment. Unless you move to new platforms you die! Let's move on and be grateful Honda as willing to invest as top notch engineering time ain't cheap. It may be more $$ in the short term but that's the nature of equipment. You gotta invest in the next technology to stay around!
it's my sense the discussion/debate of engine rules and other rules would procede far more graciously with with more facts & data and less self serving fluff.
where is the value in reporting an unnamed competitor purchased a National engine from an unnamed National engine builder for $X,XXX ??
without a competitor's name there's no one to contact privately about what was requested.
without an invoice the reader has NO idea what was purchased and for how much.
without a dyno sheet with test conditions there is no basis on which to judge the value of the purchase.
where is the value in a post from a member with a "nom de plume" that reports an unnamed competitor purchased a RunOffs engine from an unnamed National engine
builder for $X,XXX and now it's going soft??
without a competitor's name there's no one to contact privately about what was requested.
without an invoice the reader has NO idea what was purchased and for how much.
without a dyno sheet with test conditions there is no basis on which to judge the value of the purchase.
NO definiton is provided for "soft" and NO insight is provided into how much the engine has been used and how it has been cared for.
just like all engine builders are not created equal, all parts lists are not created equal;
there are reasons some engines make more power than others!! aluminum head, when ported, by whom, whose intake manifold & Weber, pistons, ring pack, rods, crank, flywheel & 5 1/2" clutch, oil pump, water pump, fuel pump, exhaust, ..........
I have explicitly communicated to my engine builder on multipal occasions my interest in ANYTHING that makes power for a minimum of four hours that doesn't require machining; a set of gaskets and some owner labor is potentially very inexpensive horsepower! what were the engine builders in the two reports above told by the competitors involved??
I struggle feeling sorry for competitors who run their flywheel into the track and then whine about the fragile crank/block in 1600 Kents.
I struggle feeling sorry for competitors that take their crankshaft to the local Chevy speed shop to beprepared and then whine when it grenades their 1600 Kent.
I struggle feeling sorry for competitors who miss shifts without a rev limmiter or who persist in operating their FF engines at or above 7000rpm and then whine about the service life/cost of 1600 Kents.
I struggle feeling sorry for competitors who have never changed the jetting in their Weber adjusted the ignition timing, or adjusted their valve lash and whine about the service cost of 1600 Kents.
I struggle feeling sorry for competitors who do hot have replaceable stainless steel filters in both their fuel and oil supply lines and whine about service life/cost of 1600 Kents.
I struggle feeling sorry for competitors who dry start their engines with cold oil, operate their engines with less than 20psi of oil pressure hot, operate their engines with water temperature above 180F, and whine about the service interval of 1600 Kents.
1600 Kents from one of the reputeable National engine builders are REAL racing engines and need to be treated accordingly. they need constant and endless TLC AND appreciate the very best synthetic racing oil, quality fuel, and cool cooling water!
in more than thiry years around 1600 Kents I've never seen one fail a crank sensor, a mass flow senosr, a high pressure fuel pump, or an ECU...................
As a competitor running a FF in Solo over the last 15 years, I have less of an issue with the service hours / maintenance of the Kent. When I purchased my current FF in Oct of '06, it had 5 Waterford weekends on an Ivey rebuild which included updated pistons and 15.5 flywheel. By my calculations, that is no more than 10 hours of total run time. Since that time, I have run the car 3 Solo season which have added roughly 6 hours of run time (2 hr/yr = 1 hr/yr at speed + 1 hr/yr paddock and warm-up). Now sitting at approximately 16 hours run time, I can foresee running my Kent in Solo at least another 5 years before sending it off for a ~$6000 rebuild. That is, I cannot see spending $12,000 to convert the DB-1 I currently own for Solo based on the above numbers. All that said, I am still in favor of the HPD 1.5.
I think that the alternative HPD 1.5 engine for FF is positive step forward toward the long term viability of the class. That is, I foresee the adoption of the HPD 1.5 benefiting the class in two ways; 1) Increasing the supply of available Kent engines for those who do not wish and/or cannot switch to the HPD 1.5, and 2) Keep and/or return those to FF who are leaving/left due to Kent engine costs.
At some point in the future (once I come to grips with the inevitability of crash damage), I would like to regionally club race a FF (starting mostly likely with my Kent engine DB-1) and would like to have someone race against! I believe the adopting the HPD 1.5 as an alternative engine for FF will insure that is the case.
My letter to CRB:
Quote:
From: Pruett, Christopher (CK)
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 9:23 PM
To: 'crb@scca.com'
Subject: Aug FastTrack : FF(it) HPD 1.5
To whom it may concern,
After reviewing the preliminary FF(it) HPD 1.5 proposal as listed on page 6 of the 2009 Aug FastTrack, I think it would be in the best overall interest of the class to proceed. That is, I think that the alternative HPD 1.5 engine for FF is positive step forward toward the long term viability of the class.
I am all for the Honda program, and will express that to CRB formally, shortly. Whatever Honda's motives, I appreciate a mfg finially looking in our direction.
Questions:
Won't the access to easily aviliable current engines also potentially prompt builders to design chassis specificially to accomidate them from the get go (Probably based on exiting platforms)?
Won't that increase car counts and potentially make Kent powered cars (either conversion canidates or to race as kent) more availiable to more frugle racers?
Does the New FIT powered car have the potential to be less expensive then one Equipped with a Kent? Even at the same price point, it should be much more economicial long term.
___
AMBROSE BULDO Abuldo at AOL.com CURRENT: Intrepid Siverstone KPV3 Kart GONE: Citation '87/93 FC , FF 1600, VD RF-85 - "The Mistress" , 1981 FIAT Spider Turbo
Won't the access to easily available current engines also potentially prompt builders to design chassis specifically to accommodate them from the get go (Probably based on exiting platforms)?
I'm all for the new FIT project. However, the CRB burned me pretty much forever on non sealed engines in "spec" classes with their handling of SM. Where they took 50 car groups and brought them right down to 15 car groups with a few strokes of the plane, boring hone and inventive valve guides. My engine cost went from $2,500 to my front porch to $8,500. So, I'm voting with my pocket book and saying sealed this time.
Man, 16+ pages, enough to make your head spin... I hope nobody forgets to send a email to the CRB?
I was working on the Pro Mazda this past weekend at Joliet and was unable to make the 40th ( Lola is not done yet either...) the press release said only 200 miles testing so far, anybody know if the Honda guys planning on doing more testing this fall? (200 miles is not much) I would like to see the thing get beat up first, to see if anything fails before it gets approved IMHO -Dave
Last edited by Dave Hopple; July 31st, 2009 at 9:11 AM.
..the press release said only 200 miles testing so far, anybody know if the Honda guys planning on doing more testing this fall? (200 miles is not much) I would like to see the thing get beat up first, to see if anything fails before it gets approved IMHO -Dave
According to the tall Honda engineer I spoke with during the 40th, the extensive dyno durability testing that was conducted to validate the street engine configuration was sufficient to validate this engine for a racing application.
As a former engine durability engineer, this does not surprise me. It is common practice for automotive engine manufacturers to run many dyno durability tests at high rpm's near WOT for hundreds of hours non-stop.
An engine on a dyno, however, has a different vibration profile than one in a race vehicle, but a few laps with accelerometers mounted in the right locations (eg: electronic widgets) will reveal any concerns along these lines.
A dyno durability engine also has a controlled oil inlet temperature. Hopefully, the dyno testing was done at or near the oil temps that will be seen at the track. Oil coolers or higher viscocity oil recommendations can obviously help in this regard. (I don't know if there will be a prevision for oil cooling, as I believe Honda didn't want any external oil lines on the final product. Perhaps creative rerouting from the oil filter location?)
Cool/thick oil does no good if the pan is poorly designed for sloshing during braking/cornering, however this cannot be validated easily on a dyno.
If there was a mechanical or thermal issue with key engine components in a race application (bearings, rods, crank, piston, valvetrain), Honda should have found it during durability testing of the street engine.
The fact that they're using an inlet restrictor combined with a custom fuel/spark calibration tells me they can run at optimum air:fuel ratio and spark timing, which is far more desireable from a durability standpoint than running pig rich (oil dilution), lean (hot combustion, detonation), or at retarded timing (hot exhaust temps).
Give me that Honda swift and I will run it on Nordschleife for a week solid. Then I will come back and tell you what did and didn't break. No I am not even a little bit qualified for that type of job but I want it. Honda I will send you my contact info.
Cool/thick oil does no good if the pan is poorly designed for sloshing during braking/cornering, however this cannot be validated easily on a dyno.
I believe the engine is a dry sump configuration, (stock pump scavage and external pressure pump. So you shouldn't have any supply or windage issues with the motor.
I believe the engine is a dry sump configuration, (stock pump scavage and external pressure pump. So you shouldn't have any supply or windage issues with the motor.
Yup dry sump. The engines at the 40th had machined billet oil pans. If approved they are going to make a casting.
According to the tall Honda engineer I spoke with during the 40th, the extensive dyno durability testing that was conducted to validate the street engine configuration was sufficient to validate this engine for a racing application.
As a former engine durability engineer, this does not surprise me. It is common practice for automotive engine manufacturers to run many dyno durability tests at high rpm's near WOT for hundreds of hours non-stop.
An engine on a dyno, however, has a different vibration profile than one in a race vehicle, but a few laps with accelerometers mounted in the right locations (eg: electronic widgets) will reveal any concerns along these lines.
A dyno durability engine also has a controlled oil inlet temperature. Hopefully, the dyno testing was done at or near the oil temps that will be seen at the track. Oil coolers or higher viscocity oil recommendations can obviously help in this regard. (I don't know if there will be a prevision for oil cooling, as I believe Honda didn't want any external oil lines on the final product. Perhaps creative rerouting from the oil filter location?)
Cool/thick oil does no good if the pan is poorly designed for sloshing during braking/cornering, however this cannot be validated easily on a dyno.
If there was a mechanical or thermal issue with key engine components in a race application (bearings, rods, crank, piston, valvetrain), Honda should have found it during durability testing of the street engine.
The fact that they're using an inlet restrictor combined with a custom fuel/spark calibration tells me they can run at optimum air:fuel ratio and spark timing, which is far more desireable from a durability standpoint than running pig rich (oil dilution), lean (hot combustion, detonation), or at retarded timing (hot exhaust temps).
Jon, thanks for the info, more track testing was what inquiring about.
I think a couple hundred track hours of a SCCA median out of shape 40year oldguy, who now needs reading glasses, misses too many shifts and uses the engine to slow the car down too much could be sufficient!
I was also wondering if I run Sato or Mutoh as my teamate next year, would I get free "works" engines....?
I also had the chance to run the car at RA. I felt the power was very comparable to an average competitive Kent motor. I also felt the power curve felt stronger at the low end and seemed to drop off at higher RPM. Throttle response was good and driving around in the paddock at low RMP's was a breeze with the fuel injection.
For those of us that have been driving Kent cars for a while the throttle control was the biggest difference. No throttle springs. The car had very light throttle pressure. I'd like to see some modifications in this area just to give it more of the old school feel.
I was very impressed with the Honda team at the track. They were very professional and great to work with. They seem very dedicated to the sucess of this project. The impression I got from them is they were not persuing a sealed motor plan. They want the engine builders involved.
Honda Fit Prototype Driving Impressions at Road America
I drove the Honda prototype DB1 Friday morning in the FF/CFF practice session.
Despite the fact that I did not fit well in the car (I had trouble working the clutch, since my foot hit a chassis tube before the clutch was fully disengaged), the car was pleasant to drive. The clutch engaged smoothly, and the engine, once warmed up a bit, made it easy to drive the car in the paddock, even slowly up the hill from the north paddock to the false grid.
On the track, the car was easy to drive. Shifting was smooth, the engine was smooth and responsive, and pulled easily to the 6600 RPM shift point. Since I have not driven a FF1600 in over 20 years, and was not near many other cars on the track, I could not form an impression of the engine’s performance relative to the Kent powerplant. For that, see John LaRue’s and John Robinson’s evaluations earlier in this thread.
In my opinion, this engine option would be a great addition to FF. The approximately $12000 conversion cost is a bargain, considering that the engine should last much longer than a Kent, and required maintenance along the way should be minimal. As others have said, having a “plug-and-play” engine option would entice many more entry-level participants to join the FF ranks, and car counts will increase.
I cannot see any downside to this.
___
Dave Weitzenhof
Last edited by DaveW; August 1st, 2009 at 9:45 AM.
Over the weekend I thought of a technical issue with the Honda proposal that I have not seen addressed: the weight of the flywheel and clutch assembly.
The general rule in FF is that a stock or approved alternate flywheel must be used, and it can be machined to a minimum weight of 15.5 lbs. Any single-disc, non-cf clutch may be used, with no minimum weight specified. Based on current small racing clutches, that implies a combined weight of about 20 lbs or a bit more.
I don't know how much a Fit clutch and flywheel weighs, but looking at the SM rules for that class' 1600cc engine, the stock, unmodified flywheel must weigh 18.5 lbs, with a 11.6 lbs minimum weight for the required stock or approved alternate clutch assembly. If the Fit assembly weighs anything like the Mazda (and it looks similar in the photos), then we may wish to address this issue up front, rather than waiting for it to become a sore point like it did in FC, where a mere 4 or 5 lbs difference led to a protracted argument and ultimately a rule change.
I suggest the current FF rule extend to the Honda proposal. In other words, stock Fit flywheel at 15.5 lbs minimum, with any FF-compliant clutch permitted.
I'm in the opposite camp as Stan on the clutch and flywheel - keep it purely stock for now.
My bet is that the stock clutch will last as long as the engine. Clutch materials are a far cry from those we suffered through when the Pinto was new, so unless you really abuse the poor thing, it should actually last longer than any of the APs - never mind that you can get replacements at the local Honda dealer (and I would expect for a lot less than an AP).
That said, only time will tell which one of us is right, so why make an expensive change until we actually know if there really is a problem or not?
Last edited by R. Pare; August 2nd, 2009 at 3:37 PM.
What does the stock Fit flywheel and clutch assembly weigh?
What did the one on the dyno'd motor weigh?
What do we do if it is already less than the FF Kent assembly, in other words how much lighter are we going to allow it to be for future machining?
I was told that it was the stock clutch and flywheel assembly. If that is the case and the inertial runs were similar in rpm/sec, then the HP curve comparisons still stand. IE. The stock Honda motor package is slightly less HP than the Kent package. So I am not sure anything has to be addressed beyond the proposed package.
The HPD guys assured me that the clutch will hold up, no problem, too. A definite "not sure about that one" for auto-x, too.
I have a Tilton "sort of rally version" on my autocross FF. It lasts for YEARS including drag race type Pro Solo starts. The key is to slip the tires, not the clutch. Keep in mind that with autocross gears and typical autocross site conditions even relatively hot tires are fairly easy to get to do the "slipping". Usually the problem is keeping from having too much tire spin.
A real stock clutch given the light weight of a FF should have an easy life in autocrossing.
I have a Tilton "sort of rally version" on my autocross FF. It lasts for YEARS including drag race type Pro Solo starts. The key is to slip the tires, not the clutch. Keep in mind that with autocross gears and typical autocross site conditions even relatively hot tires are fairly easy to get to do the "slipping". Usually the problem is keeping from having too much tire spin.
A real stock clutch given the light weight of a FF should have an easy life in autocrossing.
Dick
CM 85
Dick, do you have a link to product specs for your clutch?
As for tire vs clutch slipping, I find it's only a problem on a hot day with a fresh set of sticker tires for a few runs.
Those that argue that the cost of the Honda engine conversions would be mitigated by fewer rebuilds are very misguided. In Sports Renault and Spec Racer Ford, engine rebuilds, or more certainly, complete engine changes were being made constantly by the front running competitors. To imply that allowing the Honda engine in will cut costs is absolutely ludicrous, unless, of course, you're just happy to make the grid.
Allowing the Honda engine in will take the class down, period.
Good luck on catching those that will remap ECUs or, like in the Firehawk Series, get the Japanese version of the ECU.
Pandora's box is about to be opened if common sense doesn't prevail.
Those that argue that the cost of the Honda engine converions would be mitigated by fewer rebuilds are very misguided. In Sports Renault and Spec Racer Ford, engine rebuilds, or more certainly, complete engine changes were being made constantly by the front running competitors. To imply that allowing the Honda engine in will cut costs is absolutely ludicrous, unless, of course, you're just happy to make the grid.
Allowing the Honda engine in will take the class down, period.
Good luck on catching those that will remap ECUs or, like in the Firehawk Series, get the Japanese version of the ECU.
Pandora's box is about to be opened if common sense doesn't prevail.
So why is this not happening in FC/Zetec?
Also, why has someone said above (or pages before, as the case may be) that hot fuel won't be an issue because the ECU will compensate and run the same regardless of fuel, but everyone was bitching at the sprints & cat national that a particular FC team started the hot fuel escalation with their zetecs and everyone had to follow suit to keep up? So, which is it?
-Dave
