Engine Parity

Just wondering if anyone else is thinking about FB while reading posts about engine parity between the old FF Kent vs restricted Honda Fit. Thier comments and fears about an engine being a couple of HP different, or having different torque curves, are interesting in contrast to the the diversity in FB (and DSR, maybe others). We can only dream of a field within 10-15 HP of each other, much less 2-3 HP.

Imagine if someone suggested their class would have engines that increase a few HP every year or two! :-).

Russsssss,

Are you dipping the spoon back into the pot? ;) Things are just settling down.

I understand what you are saying Russ. The fact that the engines change regularly makes it difficult to keep parity among different manufacturers but also provides lots of engines for us. I dont really know the answer on how to deal with it as I am not knowledable enough to know a restrictors effect. Will it limit horspower too much? Will it be more expensive in the long run due to development?

One thing is the horsepower, but another is the future of some of the engines tunability. I read a post like that of Hasty:

"Admittedly the Kawasaki is a viable (perhaps even preferable) alternative to the Suzuki GSXR. If I had to predict the future I would suggest that ALL the future 1000cc SuperBike engines are going to get a lot harder to convert. Not that the Factories are deliberately making things more difficult for us, frankly, they probably aren't even aware of us. The difficulties of making these engines more powerful every year in conjunction with rules and regulations that get more restrictive every year has forced them into making the controlling electronics more difficult to defeat."

DSR engines are obviously not the way to go ($), but if there is a way to limit HP at a reasonably high level but allow the use of a broad range of engines and some durability upgrades it would be great.

Like I said, I dont know the answer....

I see about three real options:

1. don't try to create parity, just keep the rule that you may not substantially modify the engine as it came in the bike. Each year comes and goes and some years there is a breakthrough have to have engine if you want the max HP. Real risk is that a truly exotic engine ends up being that lump and it is not readlily or affordably availble

2. Restrict new engines to some gold standard. Perhaps an 07/08 GSXR. Tough to do, lots of administration nightmares. But it might make all the 1 liter bike engines in the future into viable candidates and therefor drive down the cost. It also makes an engine that you have working and installed stay cutting edge for a longer period of time. Who has the stamina? It will be a thankless job, because it won't please everyone

3. Allow time released engine mods to allow older lumps to make more power as time goes on. Perhaps allow that once an engine model is 4 years old it is no longer restricted to stock , but can be prepared to DSR engine specs. This option is probably easiest to write and can achieve some type of parity BUT it is likely to cost just about as much as 1. in that adding mods and rebuilding the engines might actually cost more than chasing the latest best engine

OOps. Just came up with another option. Weight penalty for anyone running an engine less than 4 years old. Yuck

I like option #2 because it protects my current investment and I will not continually fall further and further behind.

My ideal situation is to stock up on parts (in my case, 06-07 Kawasaki) and be able to use them for years. Just think how much cheaper (and nicer) it will be to stay with your current power plant (and engine mounts, Power Commander, header, spares, etc.). I dread thinking about more fab work, buying new stuff, unloading all my spares.

I know upgrading to a new engine isn't a big deal for some people, but from my point of view, that cost increase equals a lot of entry fees. In other words, I'd have to choose between upgrading or attending races.

Whenever I think about this, I can't think of anything good about continual steady power increases in the class, only negative impacts.

I understand that adding weight is anathema to many here, but if the class heads towards a parity basis, ballast is a cheap and effective competition adjustment. As are IIRs.

Option 3 was seriously discussed at the CRB when the FB rules were being built. IIRC, that option would have permitted pre-2004 engines to run unrestricted. Those engines are very cheap to buy, and fully built cost about the same as a legally blueprinted later engine when it's all said and done.

Or, give a weight break to older engines, say 25-50 lbs. The cars typically weigh under 800 lbs without driver anyway, so why not let lower powered cars run lighter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RussMcB

I like option #2 because it protects my current investment and I will not continually fall further and further behind.

---

Sorry Rus, but this is exactly why FF is in the postion it is with the old engine.
One possible solution would be to only allow newer engines every x number of years.
John

From my outside-looking-in viewpoint, I think FF is doing it right. People who want to run their old engines can, and anyone wanting a newer engine can, and they'll all be competitive. I think the differences between the Kent & Fit are going to be so minor they wont be worth complaining about. FB on the other hand, is going to have an ever increasing power difference. I'm down 10 HP this year, 20 HP two years later, etc. Imagine that situation in FF, or FC, or any class.

Regarding weight, the only selfish problem I have with that is I'm 40 lb. overweight, so any weight decrease would not do me any good. And I doubt anyone will want weight increases, or we'll hear a bunch of "my chassis wasn't designed for that extra weight" complaints.

For the record, I don't think my HP is preventing me from winning in FB. I know driving skill, well designed chassis and tuning, and limited budget are other big reasons. I do appreciate having a super fun car for under $20,000. My repeated concerns about escalating engine power are for the class' future success as much as it is about my own competitiveness.

Look at what's happened to Yam R1 this year w/ the crossplane crankshaft. HP is down, or at least not increasing the typical 2 or 4 hp each newer design (2 yrs or so), but torque is up.
Rideability is where the Jap Man's are heading.
They (Yam) or rather Spies are having a great go of it in WSB, so maybe Suzuki jumps on board and we see less hp next design?

The 07 08 GSXR1000 is evidently the standard to which all others are judged.
I like the idea of having a 3 or 4 yr window of exclusion.

I'd really like to get our cars on a chassis dyno and see where they are at.
RMcB - I'm not sure how much your jackshaft drive arrangement is costing you in RWHP, but it ain't helpin' matters.

YHS, GC

F600 is heading down the IIR path, so we get to be the guinea pigs on whether or not it is effective. Hopefully we will have some data in the coming months as we should have my '09 GSXR, a '05 CBR, and a 07 GSXR up and running soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glenn cooper

I'd really like to get our cars on a chassis dyno and see where they are at.

---

Join me this Friday at the dyno in Marietta. Cost about $100, maybe less. See your email for more details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glenn cooper

RMcB - I'm not sure how much your jackshaft drive arrangement is costing you in RWHP, but it ain't helpin' matters.

---

You're right. It's not helping. I've thought about attaching an electric motor to it, KERS-like. JK :-).

I'm pretty sure the power loss is negligible, or at least I believe Mike Devins when he said so. It has roller bearings and spins without resistance (before the oil seals are installed). I can't really picture any noticable drag being introduced. I don't know of an easy way to confirm that.

Mike said they considered it for DSR, but decided they didn't want the extra weight.

Russ,

The jack shaft rolling resistance is only a small part of the problem. It's the rotational mass that will slow acceleration, coupled to everytime you step on the Go pedal. Think of it as a heavy fly wheel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northwind

Russ,

The jack shaft rolling resistance is only a small part of the problem. It's the rotational mass that will slow acceleration, coupled to everytime you step on the Go pedal. Think of it as a heavy fly wheel.

---

OK, but I don't think there is much mass involved. Certainly nothing like a 15" flywheel or heavy wheels/tires. The two intermediate sprockets are pretty small. In fact, the jack shaft allows me to run a much smaller rear sprocket, so that offsets the rotational mass a little bit,

I can see why people would intuitively think a jackshaft adds drag and robs power, but when you really think it out, I don't think it's anything like people think. But like I mentioned earlier, I don't know an easy way to prove that.

it's probably not much, but as stated, it's not to the plus side and I imagine the Kaw is down to the Suzi in HP. Maybe I can get it all together for a shot at Dyno Lab.
I had my FD RX7 Turbo done there so I know where it is.

GC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glenn cooper

it's probably not much, but as stated, it's not to the plus side and I imagine the Kaw is down to the Suzi in HP.

---

Digging up an old memory here, but I do think I recall Richard/Rilltech mentioning to me once that they put a sealed West/Kawasaki on their dyno and that it was way, way off what the 08 zook's usually do.



Adding something useful to the discussion, I think that limiting to engines, say, no less than 2 years old would be useful. (i.e for 2010 season, newest engine would be 2008 model).

That doesn't change the potential for the "must have the latest engine" need, but it does mean that you can get "the latest engine" for $1,500 instead of $3,000. For example, compare the 05-06 GSX-R prices to 07-08's on eBay right now. Big difference.

I think that two, rather than Coop's idea of 3-4 is a slightly better idea, since then the used motors that come up on eBay (or wherever) are likely to be newer, and have fewer miles. For those that want to plunk in a stock, unopened motor, which is the most inexpensive and easy route, that means they can still readily find suitable, newish motors. If you make the rule such that the newest engine must be 4 years or more old, then fresh 4-year old motors are more scarce, increasing the likelihood that you'd have to rebuild a motor, which means expense for those that wouldn't otherwise do it.

Further, as Coop points out, there's an interesting trend in that the newest engines don't yet seem to be continuing the +5hp trend. He mentions the Yammie, and George Dean mentioned to me he didn't see that the '09 Zook had made any additional power yet. We'll know more as he and Rilltech and KWS get them on dynos to see.

I would be against limiting engine updates too strongly in FB, as if you pick some arbitrary level and fix it, you run the risk of becoming outdated and uninteresting like FF and FC.

As with everything, there must be a balance. Too limited, you end up with FF. Too open, and you end up with DSR. I that for FB, ideal would be a balance of progress versus cost, somewhat like a simple must-be-2-years-old motor would enforce. If you can't afford to buy a $1,500 engine every two years, plus, say, another $1,000 for conversion costs, AND expect to have a front-running effort...dunno, that doesn't seem realistic to me. And if you don't update, guess what, you're 2-5hp down of the new generation, and there's not a lot of guys that are driving so well that 2-5hp is the thing they need most....


-Jake

I don't doubt that Rilltech and others know a LOT more than I do about motorcycle engines, but every (unbiased?) motorcycle comparison I've seen since '04/'05 shows the ZX-10R and GSXR1000 very close, usually with the ZX-10R slightly better.

These two examples were the first I found via Google (IOW, I did not go searching for graphs to support my argument):