F1000 Rules Proposal

Engine failure happen in EVERY class. Especially when you are trying to develop something new. Kawi's and BMW's will fail, especially in the beginning. I f you want to take that route, go for it. Just don't cry about costs later.

For closure, I would ask everyone to consider the positives of this class and picture where you want it to be in the future. Don't use all your time picturing it where you don't want it to go.

If any changes were to be made, IMHO for simplicity, I vote for a 12K rev limit. This would equalize motors within a few hp.

Love the class, love the people. Here to stay as long as I can.

So I am curious, The BMW guys ' have' to be restricted because its an advantage and they only put them in because they knew it was. I don't recall this attitude from anyone when the class started and guys were running 05 suzukis and Yamahas then suddenly it was mandatory to run 07/08 zuks to win. then it was case of " hey this is a competitive class convert or get out" Of course that was being said mostly by guys who were new to the class telling the guys already running to just man up. Now the shoe is on the other foot and some want restrictors.

Oh and whoever said the BMW was basically FA motor costs hasn't a clue what FA motors costs. It might buy you a used down on power motor off of apexspeed but that motor isn't a Runoffs winner or lap record setter at a competitive track. I know FA builders who ask for and get well over $50k for a top of the line FA Toyota 4ag 1600.

Put Tonis in the winning FA guy and he is well under the 2 minute mark at RA so I in no way see FB as ' too fast'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

Wow.

---

You missed out. You could have dominated Tim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LLoshak

Sorry fellas to those who have done the work... But you only did it because you knew exactly this: 14K and 20hp is a big advantage.

---

Well I want to run a 1978 KZ1000J engine, sorry to all the fellas that did all the work on the GSXR's and ZX10's----you only did it because you knew it was an advantage over my 90HP monster. Makes almost as much sense.

Those who chose to pursue an uncommon, but LEGAL engine shouldn't be penalized because others chose an easier route any more than you should be penalized for the areas of your pacakage you chose to spend your development efforts on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LLoshak

* cars in FB field with MSC power none failed.

---

Moon does great work but JR's MSC failed at the Runoffs (as well as 10 other places). Not saying it was Moons fault or JR's but figured I'd correct the statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LLoshak

Love the class, love the people. Here to stay as long as I can.

---

Cool. I heard rumors that you might not be coming back next year. I also heard that the JDR guys were seeking other drivers. Will you be running JDR or another chassis?

Lawrence - no fight with finding a way to restrict the BMW or any other over-dog. The reality is that at some point in the future we will need to find an alternate to the GSXR and an open ECU may need to be part of the answer.

I am in the process of converting my old DSR to BMW power for next years P1 battle. We will see but I believe that we will be seeing mid 190's on a stock motor. I will keep you posted.

JR can chime in and explain his failures, all season, multiple issues with things on car just attributed to probably the worst luck I've ever seen. All of his engine failures were an effect of various causes.

Not sure what next year will bring, we'll see. But definitely want to return but nothing is concrete yet. Would love to drive the JDR again.

I'm not 100% convinced that formula classes will be combined purely based off comparative speeds. If that was the case, F500 and FF would have been combined a long time ago.

That being said, these are the national formula classes and their top qualifying time and the car count at the runoffs this year:

FA - 2:02.822 (21)
FB - 2:04.786 (23)
FC - 2:11.394 (12)
FE - 2:13.403 (12)
FM - 2:16.042 (16)
FF - 2:21.221 (24)
F5 - 2:21.517 (28)
FV - 2:41.293 (48)

I don't see FB being the first class on the chopping block if the SCCA is looking to consolidate formula classes. Just doesn't make sense to me. FE and FM are probably the most in danger. FC is a victim of the F2000 series which has become the place to race your continental without having to deal with SCCA bull****.



Things that I find in this thread that are disingenuous:

1) That there is no room to slow down FB without staying out of FC territory. That's BS.
2) That FB and FA are not becoming dangerously close in terms of speed. FB gets faster and faster every year, and aero development gets better and better every year. From what I hear, it was quite the sight to see FBs ripping through turn 1 at the runoffs this year. Impressive for a car with no tunnels.
3) That people seem to unequivocally state that it's a problem FOR THE CLASS that tube frame cars are going that fast.

As for point #3 - I have heard lots of arguments from lots of intelligent and knowledgeable people about how it's not a problem for tube frame cars to reach FB speeds. The reality is that perception is often more important than reality. People see carbon tub cars as the standard for cars going that fast, and when they see a tube frame car going that fast, it raises alarm bells. Not saying that's fair, but that's the score and it needs to be considered.



Not sure I have a point behind all that rambling, but those are my thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dennis Valet

1) That there is no room to slow down FB without staying out of FC territory. That's BS.
2) That FB and FA are not becoming dangerously close in terms of speed. FB gets faster and

---

There's no room to slow down FB without getting involved in the FC's that are 7 seconds back, but you're not too close to FA that is 2 seconds ahead? :confused:

Yes John, JDR is looking for drivers...... drivers who are interested in buying a car!

Last year, Lawrence was interested in the class, but not ready to pull the trigger on buying one at that time (for reasons I will not go into). Therefore we worked out a plan that worked for both of us.....which is no one else's business. Surfice it to say, he spent some money.

We would certainly like to see him in a JDR again next year. He thought he might have to take a year off from racing (again for reasons that are not anyone's business)....but now maybe not. We are talking about how to make it happen. I have not advertised the runoffs winning car, because I wanted to give Lawrence first dibs on it......after all, it does have his color scheme on it.

To do what we did at the runoffs this year requires a very good car, a very good driver, and knowledgeable people tweaking on the package. We had all three, and it all came together at the right time. We are confident that any FB driver who gets into a JDR will soon go faster than he ever went in his other ride. If not, I will buy it back. The car is that good.

I wish we were in a position to loan or give a car to a couple of fast guys (as at least one other mfg does)....but it just isn't possible. We are open to a lease.....or rental.....or a payment plan. Sorry no trade ins! Damn, I'm starting to sound like a used car salesman!

Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnPaul

Cool. I heard rumors that you might not be coming back next year. I also heard that the JDR guys were seeking other drivers. Will you be running JDR or another chassis?

---

This year the FA times are a bit off the best ever.....while FB was the fastest ever.

FA's are often below 2:01....near 2 flat has happened with the right driver when eveything clicks. Therefore we should take the best any of them have done vs the best an FB has done (just below a 2:05). That turns out to be about a 5 second gap.

As it turns out, FC's have been in the 10's.......which is also about a 5 second gap to the fastest FB.

That puts FB square in the middle......where is where it should be. Yes, it should stay there.....even if it takes some restrictions to do it.


As far as tube frame cars go......FB is not as fast as DSR....and they are tube frame (granted with a couple stressed panels).....and not as robust as most of the FB's. FB top speeds (without a tow) are not much faster than when the class first started....even though lap times have improved by 1 to 1.5 seconds.....so I don't see the safety argument.

Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dennis Valet

I'm not 100% convinced that formula classes will be combined purely based off comparative speeds. If that was the case, F500 and FF would have been combined a long time ago.

That being said, these are the national formula classes and their top qualifying time and the car count at the runoffs this year:

FA - 2:02.822 (21)
FB - 2:04.786 (23)
FC - 2:11.394 (12)
FE - 2:13.403 (12)
FM - 2:16.042 (16)
FF - 2:21.221 (24)
F5 - 2:21.517 (28)
FV - 2:41.293 (48)

I don't see FB being the first class on the chopping block if the SCCA is looking to consolidate formula classes. Just doesn't make sense to me. FE and FM are probably the most in danger. FC is a victim of the F2000 series which has become the place to race your continental without having to deal with SCCA bull****.



Things that I find in this thread that are disingenuous:

1) That there is no room to slow down FB without staying out of FC territory. That's BS.
2) That FB and FA are not becoming dangerously close in terms of speed. FB gets faster and faster every year, and aero development gets better and better every year. From what I hear, it was quite the sight to see FBs ripping through turn 1 at the runoffs this year. Impressive for a car with no tunnels.
3) That people seem to unequivocally state that it's a problem FOR THE CLASS that tube frame cars are going that fast.

As for point #3 - I have heard lots of arguments from lots of intelligent and knowledgeable people about how it's not a problem for tube frame cars to reach FB speeds. The reality is that perception is often more important than reality. People see carbon tub cars as the standard for cars going that fast, and when they see a tube frame car going that fast, it raises alarm bells. Not saying that's fair, but that's the score and it needs to be considered.



Not sure I have a point behind all that rambling, but those are my thoughts.

---

The safety perception has existed almost since the inception of the class. Obviously not by people in the class, otherwise they probably wouldn't do it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.

I'm not saying it's fair, but that's the perception I've noticed. I know I have that perception, and that's even with people much smarter than me telling me that it's completely safe. As for DSR, lots of people who aren't too familiar with the class are not aware that it's not a carbon tub based chassis. Like I said, perception is often different from reality.

If someone initially perceives that a class is dangerous, they probably won't make the effort to make the inquiry into discovery that it's actually quite safe.


I'm not saying it's right, but it's unwise for the class as a whole to pretend that the perception doesn't exist to a certain extent.

http://www.zippersperformance.com/pr...v-limiter.html

Make it mandatory. And then random inspection in dash with an agreed upon tolerance.

Done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LLoshak

http://www.zippersperformance.com/pr...v-limiter.html

Make it mandatory. And then random inspection in dash with an agreed upon tolerance.

Done.

---

Lawrence,

Do you know how the rev limiter actually functions without causing engine damage? Having destroyed an FA motor from operating on the Motec actuated limiter, I believe that is a real possibility...Glenn C may chime in on the same problem on a GSXR engine.

Last question.....I don't think any limiter short of a Geartronics type system can prevent a mechanical over rev on a mis-timed downshift.

What am I missing ?
Bill

Fairly certain this won't work on EFI

There are some people on the latest rules subcommittee working on a rev limiter that has been used on m/c engines... under $300 last I heard.

On edit... I am not for this... nor for restrictors.

Just talked to the company that makes this unit. It will not work on later EFI engines.

They do have a newer unit (DRL 500) which will.....but it is user adjustable. It does record all data and can be downloaded with a lap top....but that means all the tech guys wiould have to have a lap top avail to check it.

The other problem with rev limiters is the widely different power curves. Dropping the revs to a single rpm for all engines will not get them close at all. It would slow them down.

The committee is looking at all the optons.....so we'll see what happens.

Jerry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LLoshak

http://www.zippersperformance.com/pr...v-limiter.html

Make it mandatory. And then random inspection in dash with an agreed upon tolerance.

Done.

---

1st, is their any class currently in scca.. that currently has a rev limiter box.. that scca tech has proven success and is actually able to police in ALL regions easily and fairly?

2nd, is their any class in scca using a ECU, after market or stock with different engines in the class that is proven capable and currently policeable by scca in ALL regions easily ?

One problem is with our fuel systems being different in all cars, altitudes, and primarily different exhaust systems in each car. so many ecus for Bike engines need map changes from engine builders... so it is not something where you can just swap an ecu with tech.

FM uses a rev limiter and its the most commonly teched item. there is no wiggle room. you pass or you fail. car is of course a carb'd rotary.

Considering the growth in participation and the depth of the competition in the class, I would like to cast my vote to leave the class as is.
If the participation numbers drop, or we suddenly see the top tier drivers leaving for another class; then the "formula" needs to be tweaked. :greenflag:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicholas Belling

1st, is their any class currently in scca.. that currently has a rev limiter box.. that scca tech has proven success and is actually able to police in ALL regions easily and fairly?

2nd, is their any class in scca using a ECU, after market or stock with different engines in the class that is proven capable and currently policeable by scca in ALL regions easily ?.

---

Yes.

FC. has a spec ECU. The same company makes the ECU for SCCA Enterprise. And that ECU has a rev limiter.

That same company makes ECU for bike engines.

Steve,

I imagine it has a closed Target AFR system.. or is tuned via fuel pressure ultimately be the end user.

I see for this to work properly we would have to convert the entire current field and prospective new F1000 drivers over to a spec new ECU. that could be managed by SCCA tech easily. swapping ecu's wouldnt work between competitors and tech without loaded say a locked map for the appropriate engine.

who is going to be capable technologically wise to enforce this.. let alone where is the funding going to come from for every region to police.

do you see this actually being able to happen with 86 current and many new unknown F1000 cars being prepped for the season coming.

I wish their was an easy solution. but at the moment it just doesnt seem so clear.. especially when talking to Engine builders currently in the FB community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicholas Belling

Steve,

I imagine it has a closed Target AFR system.. or is tuned via fuel pressure ultimately be the end user.

I see for this to work properly we would have to convert the entire current field and prospective new F1000 drivers over to a spec new ECU. that could be managed by SCCA tech easily. swapping ecu's wouldnt work between competitors and tech without loaded say a locked map for the appropriate engine.

who is going to be capable technologically wise to enforce this.. let alone where is the funding going to come from for every region to police.

do you see this actually being able to happen with 86 current and many new unknown F1000 cars being prepped for the season coming.

I wish their was an easy solution. but at the moment it just doesnt seem so clear.. especially when talking to Engine builders currently in the FB community.

---

Certainly the club simply does not have the capability to police anything like the above. Perhaps a low cost aftermarket common ECU could eventually be used IF and only IF. Aftermarket ECU are a must have for next gen motors.

Jay,

what is the date rumoring around when the Board meets to make their decisions on the rules for next year. it is this month ?

I vote and think we should rally competitors ( active FB scca members ) to write the CRB http://www.crbscca.com/ and have the rules left alone as they are and use the 2014 year as a true litmus test against these new lethal engines that still have yet to even win a race and prove themselves.

so far the current rules - eventhough tweaked slightly have let the class grow.. and as we all know FB as a class is growing very fast.

as well we all know that a fastrack and board can introduce fairly fast action against say a super competive engine if such shows itself. so the majority of competitors with the suzuki should feel safe knowing the system has a safety net as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicholas Belling

Jay,

what is the date rumoring around when the Board meets to make their decisions on the rules for next year. it is this month ? .

---

I do not know the date. Can't be too far down the road though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicholas Belling

I vote and think we should rally competitors ( active FB scca members ) to write the CRB http://www.crbscca.com/ and have the rules left alone as they are and use the 2014 year as a true litmus test against these new lethal engines that still have yet to even win a race and prove themselves.

---

So, wait until someone puts in a ton of $$ and developed a dominate package, then outlaw them?? We have all heard the pharse, "Once the genie is out of the bottle you are not getting that sucker back in". This is the issue with engine potential. Once people have (if that happens) dominant engines in place, are you really going to tell them "too bad, you put in too much time and effort into your program and have went an unacceptable amount of speed faster than us"? Also, if you wait until people get fed up and leave as your litmus test, you've already lost. You are not getting them back and you waited too long to make your move...DSR/CSR comes to mind. You just lost the war.

The whole point to me, as an outsider at this point, is not to "change" the rules to take the magic FROM the class, but to PRESERVE the magic that is there, and preserve it against the potential threats to that magic which people are voicing. (Bold for emphasis, not internet muscles)

Rules are best when they are proactive, not reactive.

Jay,

from your re-collection the board has instigated weight increases inside various classes for specific cars having a clear advantage during the course of a year.

Normally from what I have been told is they usually ballast more than expected weight.. then do competition adjustments as necessary to bring them more inline.

in essence this peanlizes competitors initially who develop strong new packages of some sort.. but helps bring their performance closer in alignment after further adjustments.

Nicholas,

You mention this discussion as a solution. My question is, where's the problem? I've mentioned it before, and once again have yet to see anybody kicking any group's ass with any next generation engine. Until that happens, we should leave it alone.

Phil Creighton mentions that there are no discussions or recommendations to change anything next year(post 537). People keep giving them ideas, maybe they'll rethink that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LLoshak

It is worth mentioning again... The engine I just won the runoffs with was the engine that was put in the car for Watkins Glen. Then ran at the Cat national, the regional at RA for testing and the entire runoffs. Revving to 13K sometimes more. This was a motor purchased from Ebay for 2300 and sent to Moon Super Cycle for his basic FB build and dyno tune.

---

I think this post is a pretty accurate summation of what is crazy about this whole thing. It is worth mentioning that an engine was bought, rebuilt, and then completed 4 whole events.

The crazy thing is that I agree. It is worth mentioning that an engine did 4 events without problems. That was ok when engines were readily available for not much money. That is no longer the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AEA_Team_Lotus

or we suddenly see the top tier drivers leaving for another class;

---

The most successful driver in FB, arguably, left for another class. Of the 3 different runoffs winners in the class, it appears that only one will be active in the class next season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicholas Belling

what is the date rumoring around when the Board meets to make their decisions on the rules for next year. it is this month ?

---

There are no FB rule changes in front of the BOD. Restrictors, should they be put in place, will not be a rule change. Restrictors will only require a publication in fastrack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

So, wait until someone puts in a ton of $$ and developed a dominate package, then outlaw them?? We have all heard the pharse, "Once the genie is out of the bottle you are not getting that sucker back in". This is the issue with engine potential. Once people have (if that happens) dominant engines in place, are you really going to tell them "too bad, you put in too much time and effort into your program and have went an unacceptable amount of speed faster than us"? Also, if you wait until people get fed up and leave as your litmus test, you've already lost. You are not getting them back and you waited too long to make your move...DSR/CSR comes to mind. You just lost the war.

The whole point to me, as an outsider at this point, is not to "change" the rules to take the magic FROM the class, but to PRESERVE the magic that is there, and preserve it against the potential threats to that magic which people are voicing. (Bold for emphasis, not internet muscles)

Rules are best when they are proactive, not reactive.

---

I agree with everything that you said, but anyone who puts in a dominant engine would have no right to be surprised when they are restricted. I believe that it has been common knowledge that SCCA rulesmakers were not interested in seeing 200rwhp FB's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicholas Belling

Jay,

from your re-collection the board has instigated weight increases inside various classes for specific cars having a clear advantage during the course of a year.

Normally from what I have been told is they usually ballast more than expected weight.. then do competition adjustments as necessary to bring them more inline.

in essence this peanlizes competitors initially who develop strong new packages of some sort.. but helps bring their performance closer in alignment after further adjustments.

---

The only history of weight increases for cars built to the same formula was the failed experiment at an engine table in FA. There is way too much disparity in car types in FB to hope to equalize them with weight based on track performance. If there is going to be an attempt at equalization, the dyno is the only place to make it work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

I agree with everything that you said, but anyone who puts in a dominant engine would have no right to be surprised when they are restricted. I believe that it has been common knowledge that SCCA rulesmakers were not interested in seeing 200rwhp FB's.

---

Thank you. I guess I didn't expand my opinion. Very true that no one has a right to be surprised if/when the get the restrictor hammer. BUT...that does not mean they won't be very unhappy and a whole lot more issues will present themselves. What if it is 10 people with the engine get handicapped because of one guy? Then, how much do you restrict them? What if they are in different cars, and some are slow and some are dominant?

The point I think I am not making well, is that these issues can be avoided by proactive rules adjustments, rather than letting something happen and creating even more issues. Like you said, it is a formula. That formula needs to be solidified further. Otherwise, a restrictor after the fact is really not dissimilar from getting the lead trophy. I think it is easier to build a car to a formula as it is, than to guess at where it will be in the future should you/I/someone build a package that is "too fast".

If everyone knows they will be restricted if they are deemed to have a dominant engine, why even bother with anything other than a 08 Suzuki? How much faster is "too fast"?

For me, I would rather build/buy a car knowing what the rules are, than what they could be if I do something too well (making horsepower).

In my head this all sounded much more coherent....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

What if it is 10 people with the engine get handicapped because of one guy? Then, how much do you restrict them? What if they are in different cars, and some are slow and some are dominant?

---

That is why it has to be done on the dyno. Looking at on-track results will give way too many variables.

Given the realities of the class, weight adjustments will affect different cars in different ways.

Quote:

---

If everyone knows they will be restricted if they are deemed to have a dominant engine, why even bother with anything other than a 08 Suzuki?

---

I would do it to try to find a more reliable package.

The answer is simple Reid, build your engine / car program off of apexspeed ( never understand when people publish what they are doing here especially if they aren't a manufacturer) , keep your mouth shut at track and drive just fast enough to qualify for the Runoffs, use a different engine builder then the 2 popular choices ( there are more then 2 builders of bike motors in the country), then show up and throttle everyone at the Runoffs.

During Runoffs week everyone will be screaming bloody murder and apexspeed will explode but so what, the point of racing is to win legally, not share the fruits of your labor with the rest of the world.

will you likely get screwed the next season, yup, but............

First let me say that I don't believe anything is coming as a rules change in December and there was nothing in last weekends meeting re F1000.

The CRB is intending to spec line every F600 engine in the merger between F5 and F6. This will enable them to deal with new engines and HP as they arise before they get fitted to cars. It also enables them to restrict (weight or restrictor) a particular engine.
This is intended to try and prevent an engine of the year being dominant in a very low buck class. I can't see why the same principle can't be applied to F1000 in the future - wouldn't need to peg anything back, just keep the status quo.

Remember - The intent of the stock engine rule was to try and bring parity and take the engine somewhat out of the equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevinFirlein

The answer is simple Reid, build your engine / car program off of apexspeed ( never understand when people publish what they are doing here especially if they aren't a manufacturer)

---

It doesn't make sense when you are a manufacturer either. But, everyone has had to learn that the hard way over the last two years. Don't talk to people at the track about your cars either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

The whole point to me, as an outsider at this point, is not to "change" the rules to take the magic FROM the class, but to PRESERVE the magic that is there, and preserve it against the potential threats to that magic which people are voicing. (Bold for emphasis, not internet muscles)

Rules are best when they are proactive, not reactive.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

Very true that no one has a right to be surprised if/when the get the restrictor hammer.

---

Jeremy Hill didn't have a right to be surprised either, that doesn't make it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

If everyone knows they will be restricted if they are deemed to have a dominant engine, why even bother with anything other than a 08 Suzuki?

---

The '08 Suzuki certainly would be the safe political move...and you know you aren't giving up too much performance to anybody that can't be reigned in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevinFirlein

The answer is simple Reid, build your engine / car program off of apexspeed ( never understand when people publish what they are doing here especially if they aren't a manufacturer) , keep your mouth shut at track and drive just fast enough to qualify for the Runoffs, use a different engine builder then the 2 popular choices ( there are more then 2 builders of bike motors in the country), then show up and throttle everyone at the Runoffs.

During Runoffs week everyone will be screaming bloody murder and apexspeed will explode but so what, the point of racing is to win legally, not share the fruits of your labor with the rest of the world.

will you likely get screwed the next season, yup, but............

---

Very correct, as that is what I would do. My point, is not that I am building a car or looking out for my own selfish gains or protectionism when I express my thoughts, but only to make/keep the "magic" the class has. Clearly, I have no dog in the fight aside from dreams of racing one of these.

unfortunately it is my belief protectionism disguised as something else is whats going on here. ( as well as normal post racing season normal stuff that always goes on).

Certain manufacturers have cars that aren't built just to SCCA rules and they end up heavy so " in the name of safety " we need to slow the cars down by adding weight. The needed weight in the name of safety magically brings the heavy cars right up to snuff weight wise as now they even have to ad some.

Also we need to make sure we don't get combined into to FA so weight is needed because at one event on 1 track there was only a 2 or so second gap. Of course the FB drivers were both multi national champions and the FA driver has previously struggled to win in a SRF at regionals. Put a top of the line pilot in that FA with that rocket motor and watch the gap grow enormously.

Yes restrictors have been in the rules from the start but weren't used when other engines were obsoleted so why bring them up now. As far as space frames not handling the speed the FE car passes at least part of the F3 crash test specs if not all of them. I'd have no problem driving a Citation or JDR with a BMW in it.

Just a note a BMW ran for a year bullet proof here in the NeDiv in the back of a DSR so it can be done. I know he was allowed to use an aftermarket ECU and technically FB isn't but engine reliability in a car has already been sorted. I say technically because as long as the FB rules allow piggy back devices you are begging for someone to run an aftermarket ecu. It might get DQ'd at track but I bet I could get it reinstated on appeal. Would be a fun technical debate, lots of rules that everyone was 'sure' about got to the CoA and everyone found out they were wrong. at least till next years GCR and the loop hole got closed :)

I don't mean to muddy the waters here as an FB newbie, but my concern is not making newer engines reasonably available to the class. The idea of having to "break into" the ECU seems ludicrous. The class should be able to use an aftermarket ECU which is policeable for items like traction control and would let any 1000cc engine work. This way you wouldn't have to sink tons of money into ECU cracking and could focus on ...racing! Whether its a Suzuki, Honda, BMW, whatever shouldn't matter. If you want to level the playing field engine-wise, use an open ECU and a rev limiter. Then car builders could focus on the real engineering challenges - making slippery, well-handling cars that meet the rules. And we wouldn't end up with a shortage of engines at some point in the future and could just get a new crate engine of our choice when we needed.

Sprocket,

If only it was that easy. What if you have two engines*:

Engine A makes its peak 180 HP at 10,000 rpm, and peak torque (100 fp) at 8,000 rpm.

Engine B makes its peak 180 HP at 11,000 rpm, and peak torque (100 fp) at 10,000 rpm.

Then one rpm limit for the class will not work.

It gets even more complicated when you consider the two engines have different sized power bands. (A = 2,000 rpm, B = 1,000 rpm)

Then to add to the complication, read the MC magazines and try to digest how "power factor" is calculated.

Just saying. It isn't easy to balance two different makes of engines.

* These are made up make-believe engines and in no way meant to reflect any innocent parties, or actual engines.