Dyno #'s on a well built GSXR?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland

One other thing to consider, the way things are now the life expectancy of an engine in F1000 is half a year at best.

---

In the Citation we have taken an engine in the 2,000 mile range. The only reason that engine came out at that time was because the crappy surface at Sebring tore up 4th gear. That was a zero mile engine straight out of a bike, no prep work or blueprinting or massaging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thomas Copeland

On the other hand we also ran 2007 GSXR engines this year and we had nothng but trouble.

---

What kind of oil temps and pressures were you getting? I think these engines will go thousands of miles between rebuilds as long as people keep the oil temps down and the oil pressure up.


Also, restricting the motors in the future may turn out to be a good idea. Brandon and Niki are already near the pointy end of the Atlantic grid and these cars are going to get a lot faster.

The CRB has always maintained that they can add restrictors any time they want to. If they decide to go down that path, I really hope that they appoint George Dean the benevolent dictator of FB and pay him to determine our restrictor sizes. I trust him.

so what is the consensus of what that HP limit should be? I really have no opinion either way since I'm brand new. But I'd like to hear everyones opinion. Maybe we can get an idea of what the masses think before the CRB takes in their own hands and dictates what it should be (possibly from people that could care less).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnPaul

so what is the consensus of what that HP limit should be? I really have no opinion either way since I'm brand new. But I'd like to hear everyones opinion. Maybe we can get an idea of what the masses think before the CRB takes in their own hands and dictates what it should be (possibly from people that could care less).

---

If I were king I'd find out the best legal engine out there now and set the limit 5 HP above that.

Don't ask me exactly how I'd go about that. I'm the king so I don't need to be bothered with details. My court would take care of it or I'd chop off their heads. :-).

the new MOTOGP2 uses a bad ass Honda spec engine and spec tires. The grid is super competitive, Robertino Pietri a florida rider who I've ridden with qualified in 30th this weekend(great huh?) and he was only 1.5 seconds off pole. The top 10 were within .5 seconds of each other. The action is crazy.
I'd think that if there was a limit on HP it would have to be at least 200-210 Hp to be more than enough for the alien drivers. I think any less would make people lose interest in the class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnPaul

I'd think that if there was a limit on HP it would have to be at least 200-210 Hp to be more than enough for the alien drivers. I think any less would make people lose interest in the class.

---

No one has legal horsepower close to that right now. If you give the fast guys that kind of horsepower, these cars are going to get even more outrageous than they already are.

I completely agree with Wren in all regards of post#41.

Anybody that thinks these cars need to have 200hp has not driven one yet. JP when you get yours running I don't think you will be dissapointed at the current hp levels. I honestly think restrictors would not be a bad idea for this class, but some one like George needs to be the one to design the restrictors. He has the wisdom needed for a project like this.

Northwind, I've driven it and I like the power, I'm not saying it needs anymore for me at this point but I'm sure the "aliens" may disagree.
wren,
I understand that but it seems like it's going in that direction and it'll allow the class to grow more and be more than enough power to satisfy any level of driver.

Hi Mike,

I don't have comparative data to share. That wasn't what I was as trying to imply...I don't I think I say that I did. Nor was I trying to get into a detailed technical discussion or about best solutions, best engines, reliability, etc....(it's probably too early and there are too few experts for that anyway)....I was thinking much more broadly and only going by my own experiences to date.

I'm sure there are some that have been more successful than others at keeping their engines alive. But I'm not aware of what they are doing or whether that would even work for us. Wet sump, dry sump which design is better? Not everyone seems to be in agreement. I only know what we have been up to so my knowledge is somewhat limited to just that.

That doesn't mean I don't know what else is going on, only I'm not in a position to make informed comparsions. Just that I keep hearing about this guy blew his engine up, that guy blew his up...and I know our situation with the earlier Suzuki's...

With everything seemly undetermined still it just doesn't seem that there is enough consistent reliability across the board so it might be a bit premature to start talking about limiting our engine options at this point (and limiting HP output is one way that can happen).

That seems to be what I'm reading into some of this thread....

Whether we want to tame some high output engine with restrictor plates or something later on is something else entirely. Hopefully this explains it better where I was going with this. Just that I'd like to see things stay open for a while longer.

John Paul,

I think you bring up a good point that we should be proactive and start polling current drivers for max hp levels for the future. I think we are nearing the end of the quiet period for the rules right now. What is it, one year left to go before we adjust rules if need be? Anybody? MikeB, Russ,?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnPaul

so what is the consensus of what that HP limit should be?

---

I'd say 350, but not one HP more.






:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike B

I'd say 350, but not one HP more.






:D

---

I like you Mike! that's what I'm saying, let it go until people are just too scared or the car isn't driveable and while we're at it, lets get rid of helmets.

I was actually thinking closer to 1000 HP. Maybe also with JATO's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northwind

<snip> ... Russ,?

---

I'll abstain from casting a vote because I'm no longer in FB :-(.

Oh. Maybe you were talking to Dr. Destructo. My bad.

F1000 is an exciting formula. I'll always be a fan.

At the moment there has been no F1000 owner who has come to the track with a killer motor that hands down beats everyone and gives an unfair advantage. So far talent has repeatidly shown where the cars are gridding. not motors in my opinion.

Leaving the motor rules open is good for growth and options to builders and owners needing to seek and buy engines. restricting newer motors to try to make them have equality is not going to happen.. Bike engines were not designed well with there electronics so tuned in to there initial design parameters to run with restricters.. and who is going to pay for all the dyno time.. and remember on the dyno and on the track can produce 100% different results. ask West race cars or george dean. I think the potential of hp numbers are not going to exponentially grow.. they will get into the 180s but its not going to be some crazy every year 10hp gains..

We dont want to detur people from the class but attract people to the class in the best viable way..

I think the key is the class adopts stock motors as a rule of thumb based on it being a production motor sold in the north american market and meets the GP rules.. this way exotics cannot come into the equation. But then the Board can control things as they see fit.

The scca at anytime can fit any car like they do at the runoffs with a Data acuisition system and easily log a cars acceleration, calculated horsepower, g's through accel, brake, corners, top speeds etc.. I think if anything they implement that on a car that seems to be not in the spirit of competitiveness and gather data and instead of doing motor restrictions work to calculate weight penalties that can bring a car down to more even levels. and scca can install these units into cars within 15 minutes. they are virtually standalone self contained units.

It is our job as competitors to voice and share our opinions pro actively.. and not just through a forum..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northwind

John Paul,

I think you bring up a good point that we should be proactive and start polling current drivers for max hp levels for the future. I think we are nearing the end of the quiet period for the rules right now. What is it, one year left to go before we adjust rules if need be? Anybody? MikeB, Russ,?

---

I may be mistaken, but the 5 year grace period was only for the class to remain a national class before it had to rely on participation levels, like existing classes. Nothing about rules changes. That can happen anytime, just like any other class.
Personally, I'm against a restriction and I'm strongly against allowing the CRB to determine what it is.

Oh yeah, F1000 met the 2.5 rule this year, one year early.

Good points Nicholas. But the question is when do we get pro-active? If there is no real threats on the horizon then this isn't the time is it?

I'm more inclined to agreed with Mike. Last thing I would like to see is CRB jackboots all over FB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicholas Belling

At the moment there has been no F1000 owner who has come to the track with a killer motor that hands down beats everyone and gives an unfair advantage. So far talent has repeatidly shown where the cars are gridding. not motors in my opinion.

---

I couldn't agree more. Let's face it, a DSR motor is still not enough for some.

Quote:

---

I think if anything they implement that on a car that seems to be not in the spirit of competitiveness and gather data and instead of doing motor restrictions work to calculate weight penalties that can bring a car down to more even levels. and scca can install these units into cars within 15 minutes. they are virtually standalone self contained units.

---

20 pounds for the runoffs winner? I could get behind that.

Quote:

---

Oh yeah, F1000 met the 2.5 rule this year, one year early.

---

That really deserves it's own thread. An amazing accomplishment since there was about 1 car when the class started.

Obviously the top motors are making somewhere in the 180 range max. There are rumors of someone doing a BMW engine & the factory is claiming 196 I think.

I suspect that the max we will ever see on "street legal stock engines" is around 200 hp. There is definately a limit on RPMs & that is where the power is. No one is going to build a stock engine with pneumatic valve springs so that they can turn 16K rpm.

Is 180, 190 or 200 HP the limit we should place on the engines? I think that relaibility is much more important than say a 200 hp limit. Lots to think about.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

So I still don't really know the reasons for restrictions. To keep costs down? Ok but what happens when a front runner show up with a BMW?, which 100% will happen sooner than anyone thinks. Does the advantage of having the extra 20+ HP (that is if the added HP translates to faster times and more wins) start a uproar and get someone that followed the rules to the 'T" just spend a bunch of money thrown out of the class or have some type of weight penalty or engine restrictors?
When that happens I think the train would have left on the restrictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnPaul

So I still don't really know the reasons for restrictions. To keep costs down? Ok but what happens when a front runner show up with a BMW?, which 100% will happen sooner than anyone thinks. Does the advantage of having the extra 20+ HP (that is if the added HP translates to faster times and more wins) start a uproar and get someone that followed the rules to the 'T" just spend a bunch of money thrown out of the class or have some type of weight penalty or engine restrictors?
When that happens I think the train would have left on the restrictions.

---

Its not going to be 20 hp more from a bmw. those are at the crank numbers.. at the wheel it is less. regardless of the HP and even if it was. the CRB can regulate this upon member feedback and seeing it when it actually happens. And a course of correction would and will happen as necessary. and as time goes on on more higher hp engines arrive those limits are always open for adjustments.

I think we simply cannot predict how things will unfold untill people start showing up with new packages.. Everyone is so concerned about HP and motors that will kill the class.. Its not going to happen. But it is great to discuss. the MEMBERS who have an active interest (meaning us all who are reading this and are owners and constructors) and the CRB will obviously have to work out paths to resolve unfair competitive advantages if a motor package makes it so.. which would of course then be in the spirit of the rules and intentions to resolve.

BTW. if you read into bmw and there engines just through googling.. They have had some of the highest failure rates in there new 1000 motor on the racing circuit. They pushed the limits on there design and hence it showed on track..( with many failures ) it may not even be a viable package untill lots of track testing occurs.. and whoever does come out with this so called threatened motor package will undoubtly go through endless growing pains and issues and iteration changes to there setup I am sure before reliability is proven. we experienced it when developing & testing the 09/10 suzuki engine system. we now finally have all the bugs out.. and its a reliable package. and yes we are already working on the 2011 suzuki engine and a dry sump package. But again no super huge scary HP gains.. we are just looking for viable motors that can sustain reliability in the conditions we run these motors in.

Nicholas, I have no opinion either way, I'm a new guy and don't even know what I think is right and wrong at this point but as someone looking in some things are just common sense (or senseless) I'm just coming up with "what if's" I agree with most of what you are saying. From talking to some friends in MC racing world the BMW's biggest problem is with the electronics, I'm not exactly sure what those problems are but it has something to do with when they try to eliminate all the "extra" junk they can't get it to work properly and that's where alot of the engine failures are coming from. The fix is that you can't mess with the harness (this is what I was told). Also, after you throw on an exhaust, PC etc, they are over 200HP (again, that is what I'm being told from people that would know).
Ok, I also agree with your opinion that the driver is the main ingredient in winning but.... when you put two equally talented drivers on the track and one has a even a few extra HP's the advantage can be big.
Lastly, the more I think about the engine rules the more I feel it wasn't well thought out. The point of a stock liter engine, I guess is to level the playing field but as you can see each manufactors #'s are different and HP steadily goes up every year and that is BS for someone that just spent a bunch of cash on an engine that ends up not being competitive. I'd say that the rules should allow for any liter engine to be modified to at produce as much as the current highest HP engine produces. How you ask? I don't know.
I really enjoy these forums.

It is actually fairly easy to restrict engines to an approximate (+ or - 5hp) with inlet air restrictor. This has been proven many times with many different types of engines from F3 to FC to GT lites.

That said the CRB will not hesitate to put restrictors in place if they think there is a power race. Look at the FB rules, it states that the CRB can make performance adjustments at their discretion.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

Now we're getting some input and ideas. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnPaul

So I still don't really know the reasons for restrictions. To keep costs down?

---

No, I don't think so. I don't think there is any way to prevent someone from spending as much as they want on whatever aspect of their racing.

If there was to be a HP cap, you'd still have rich guys spending lots of money on engine development, but their dollars wont buy as much of an advantage. That's good because it lets people spending less be closer to the big spenders.

Of course, the big spenders will just buy more new tires, or expensive shocks, or rent private test days, etc...., but they wont have significantly more HP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

There are rumors of someone doing a BMW engine & the factory is claiming 196 I think.

---

Dang Jay....are you spying on me again? The 2011 Edge coming soon

GH

A few points:

1) The HP may not be the biggest factor at this point in time. It is likely that there will ALWAYS be other factors that add up to be more important than the lump behind you. However, at some point "all else" will be fairly equal at the pointy end, then there will be no way you are going to get around a large HP advantage. So we may choose to ignore the HP issues now, but it's likely going to be a problem sooner than many think.

2) It isn't about keep Racer X from spending $$$ to win, it is about not requiring Racer Y to spend $$$ to be competitive.

3) I don't think that "competition adjustments" leads to a fun racing environment---always somebody bitchin about not having enough or somebody else having too much and all the related politics. Nevermind the potential constantly moving target.

I suggested a long time ago when these rules were being proposed that some consideration as to the model year of the eligible engines should be the rule. I'd suggest that option be explored again. Yes, there will be an engine to have every few years with new eligibility, but if it is timed relative to when engines would be replaced anyways the costs aren't as great. No bickering about "competition adjustments" and we can all plan for the changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnPaul

So I still don't really know the reasons for restrictions. To keep costs down? Ok but what happens when a front runner show up with a BMW?, which 100% will happen sooner than anyone thinks. Does the advantage of having the extra 20+ HP (that is if the added HP translates to faster times and more wins) start a uproar and get someone that followed the rules to the 'T" just spend a bunch of money thrown out of the class or have some type of weight penalty or engine restrictors?
When that happens I think the train would have left on the restrictions.

---

I think theie will be two reasons behind restrictors, should they ever happen. First is to keep the class from going too fast for a tube frame. Some people would already say that we are there. My personal opinion is that another 20 horsepower over what we have now is not going to do anything good for this class. I don't know how much top speed that will amount to, as we all seem to have some pretty draggy cars making a bunch of downforce, but the cars are already really, really fast.

Second would be to keep out the engine of the year thing. Being able to use several different engine manufacturers is cool and I would like to see that continue. But if people are having to spend a fortune every year to put in a new motor to maintain the status quo, it is going to reflect poorly on the class. Every new engine is going to take a new oil pan and dry sump system, header, working out the electronics, changes to the magic Firman West wondershifters, and new engine mounts. That's 4-8 weeks of really hard work for people who have day jobs and probably $5k doing the work yourself. That's a tough sell to anyone looking in at a class when they can go get an FC and run an engine 7,000 miles and be guaranteed that they will be competitive for the foreseeable future.

National racing numbers are pretty much a zero sum game. There aren't hundreds of people out there waiting to go FB racing. If you look through the field, you will see that most of the competitors have been poached from other classes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quickshoe

3) I don't think that "competition adjustments" leads to a fun racing environment---always somebody bitchin about not having enough or somebody else having too much and all the related politics. Nevermind the potential constantly moving target.

---

I don't think anyone is actually proposing to do competition adjustments between cars, but adjustments between engines could work. Not that it wouldn't be really hard to do, since there is going to be differences between chassis. But, the only way that I see it working is to appoint George Dean as the czar of IIR for FB and let SCCA pay him to do it. He is the only one I would trust.

Wren brings up a good point. I did a LOT of work to fit a first gen ('04-'05) ZX-10R, and then a second gen ('06-07) ZX-10R into a chassis, The two engines didn't seem very different, but it required a lot of changes. I gained a few HP but had to change dry sump, header, modified harness, Power Commander and a lot more. It required welding, sweat, money, aggravation, time, etc., and for what benefit? So I could maintain the status quo and not drop further back? I think a HP cap would mean people could use their engine investments longer without as much penalty competitive-wise. Wouldn't it be better if your '08 GSXR (or whatever you have now) will still be competitve in 3-4 years? Even if a manufacturer comes out with something way better?

I think (this is going to go over like a lead balloon :-), engine mods should be free but everyone needs to run the same IIR. That way a highly modified '02 could run with a new stock '11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wren

I don't think anyone is actually proposing to do competition adjustments between cars, but adjustments between engines could work.

---

I didn't mean to imply between cars, but rather between "camps" (i.e. Fit vs. Kent) try that with Yam vs. Hon vs. Kaw vs. Suz vs. BMW vs. Duc vs. MV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RussMcB

Wren brings up a good point. I did a LOT of work to fit a first gen ('04-'05) ZX-10R, and then a second gen ('06-07) ZX-10R into a chassis, The two engines didn't seem very different, but it required a lot of changes. I gained a few HP but had to change dry sump, header, modified harness, Power Commander and a lot more. It required welding, sweat, money, aggravation, time, etc., and for what benefit? So I could maintain the status quo and not drop further back? I think a HP cap would mean people could use their engine investments longer without as much penalty competitive-wise. Wouldn't it be better if your '08 GSXR (or whatever you have now) will still be competitve in 3-4 years? Even if a manufacturer comes out with something way better?

I think (this is going to go over like a lead balloon :-), engine mods should be free but everyone needs to run the same IIR. That way a highly modified '02 could run with a new stock '11.

---

Valid concerns. I'm suggesting that a changing of IIR size may also result in time, sweat, and tears to get the best out of the entire package. Certainly not as much money and labor, but certainly could require dyno and programing time, perhaps a different airbox and exhaust system, maybe some tweaking of the aero and gearing as well. Maybe still not as much work as a complete engine swap and the related changes but I could see the IIR change being more frequent.

Question in my mind is: would you rather more little changes or fewer big changes?

Regarding the lead balloon---IIR's with open engine mods is going to make the motors stupid expensive and more highly stressed...and then what happens in 2012? The '12 is stock and the '11 gets to go open rules with an IIR? Not sure that's a workable solution.

I'd propose that for 2011-2015 any 2011 or older model year may be used. From 2016-2020 any 2016 or older may be used. That gives you 5 years to not have your motor obsoleted.

Coming from the DSR ranks, I can attest to the amount of money some guys are spending on engines. JP, the engine budget of a front running DSR can easily exceed $50G....that will take the wind out of your sails!

One simple way to limit the HP and budget demands would be to set a rev limit. All engines can run, but set the limit to, say 11,500. That way, all engines can run freely (you can adjust cam timing to adjust the power band), but not as near to their max limits. No more stretched rod bolts, no more rod failures. Cooler engines as well.

Simple things that do not cost a lot, like cam timing, fuel mapping, etc could be done at a reasonable rate, the latest engines (which always carry a higher rev limit) can still run, but their advantage would be cut down.

So, you would get:

Parity in performance as older engines would still be closer in power output
Reductions in annual expenses (no need to upgrade every year)
Increased reliability

Help me understand where the downside of such a proposal would be?

And the comments about driving are accurate; Jeremy Hill has won something like 13 of 14 races he has run this year....and with Ebay motors and an RF95 he converted himself.
He represents what the class should be about. Driving well, setting up a car to its razor edge, making the motors reliable and getting on with the job!

FWIW, my opinion.

Tom Owen

[FONT=Verdana][FONT=Verdana]So, just to be sure everyone is on the same page. When you guys are talking about restricting the engines are you talking about restricting all engines as a whole, or just individual makes and models?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]I have been following this class from the beginning and was always under the impression that the inlet restriction would be universal. Such as everyone has to run with a (whatever)mm diameter SIR or restrictor plate under the throttle bodies/carbs. Honestly, I don't see how you could "even out" all the various bike engines without everything ending in tears. Just look at FF and FC.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Anyway, this king of FB rules game looks fun. The only part of the engine rules I would change would be the addition of a SIR and removal of any wording requiring stock electronics. The SIR would be set at 190 HP (crank). My reasons for the electronics would be to keep a very confused factory ECM from dealing with the restriction, and it would be easy to enforce. Let’s be honest here. Can the SCCA officials really enforce that only the fuel maps have been changed in the stock ECM?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]If we really want to help keep costs and speed down why don't we just speck a tire? How about something largeish for high aero drag and hard for longer life? It also eliminates the possibility of a tire war.[/FONT]

Cheers,

-Kyle
[/FONT]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brownslane

One simple way to limit the HP and budget demands would be to set a rev limit. All engines can run, but set the limit to, say 11,500.

...

Help me understand where the downside of such a proposal would be?

...

---

How would one enforce this rev limit? That is the only downside I can think of. A SIR does pretty much the same thing. Instead of stopping the engine from reving over the specified speed it just keeps it from making any power there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RussMcB

I think (this is going to go over like a lead balloon :-), engine mods should be free but everyone needs to run the same IIR. That way a highly modified '02 could run with a new stock '11.

---

You proposal is both fair and easy to enforce in tech. Also, once developed, and assuming the restriction spec dosen't change a package will stay competive until parts can no longer be found. The only downside is when you can change compression and cams things get real expensive real fast.

If the CRB does implement restrictions it will be across the board. A SIR or IIRs will work equally as well & simply hold the HP to an airflow limited maximum. Very simple & effective. Also easy to police.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

great discussion, lots of great input and suggestions. I'm getting stuck on some of the acronyms like SIR and IIR's although I'm pretty sure the R stands for restrictor/restrictions (maybe not). Some help please. I know the commons ones: CPR, AOL and my favorite FTW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnPaul

great discussion, lots of great input and suggestions. I'm getting stuck on some of the acronyms like SIR and IIR's although I'm pretty sure the R stands for restrictor/restrictions (maybe not). Some help please. I know the commons ones: CPR, AOL and my favorite FTW.

---

SIR=Single Inlet Restrictor
IIR=Individual Inlet Restrictor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

If the CRB does implement restrictions it will be across the board. A SIR or IIRs will work equally as well & simply hold the HP to an airflow limited maximum. Very simple & effective. Also easy to police.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

---

Guess I can't wrap my head around this concept. I know you are quite knowledgeable about this sort of thing. Please attempt to enlighten me. Seriously.

Just because two motors take in a certain amount of air doesn't mean they are limited to the same HP if one makes better use of that air through better combustion chamber design, higher compression, less frictional losses, less energy lost as heat, etc.

Is this just a matter of all current 1L sportbikes are reasonably close in these areas that IIR's work to keep them close enough?

A stock 1979 CB1000F with 28mm restrictors isn't going to make anywhere the same HP as a stock 2010 GSXR 1100 with the same 28mm restrictors. Is it reasonable to expect the 2006 GSXR to utilize the same restrictor size as the 2015 XGVR 1000? I don't think so. However, I don't think restrictors of different sizes for different motors will ever work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quickshoe

Guess I can't wrap my head around this concept. I know you are quite knowledgeable about this sort of thing. Please attempt to enlighten me. Seriously.

Just because two motors take in a certain amount of air doesn't mean they are limited to the same HP if one makes better use of that air through better combustion chamber design, higher compression, less frictional losses, less energy lost as heat, etc..

---

A universal class wide inlet restriction will do nothing to keep one engine from being more powerful than another. It just puts an absolute cap on total horsepower available to the class. A better designed engine will still make more power than a lesser one. The thing is an IIR/SIR will end the question of how far will the HP war go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quickshoe

Is this just a matter of all current 1L sportbikes are reasonably close in these areas that IIR's work to keep them close enough?

A stock 1979 CB1000F with 28mm restrictors isn't going to make anywhere the same HP as a stock 2010 GSXR 1100 with the same 28mm restrictors. Is it reasonable to expect the 2006 GSXR to utilize the same restrictor size as the 2015 XGVR 1000? I don't think so. However, I don't think restrictors of different sizes for different motors will ever work.

---

Try not think of IRs as a means of providing perfectly balanced and equal engine packages, but as a way of keeping everybody from wondering when the 220HP monster production engine comes out. Depending on how the power restriction is set it will also keep year to year power creep in check, but there will still be differences between engines.

Just a reminder, not everything is going to be rosey in the land of restricted engines. The stock ECM is going to be a hateful POS when it comes to dealing with IR system, and you will need custom tuning. Not necessarly a fully calibrated map for for every single engine, but every package will need development work. You won't be able to throw a new exhaust on an "fresh" junkyard engine and go racing because the factory mapping will no longer be close enough for "Meh, it runs".

Cheers,

-Kyle

A while back my friends at Ducati Seattle did a back to back to back test on three motorcycles A BMW S1000R, a 09 GSXR 1000 and a 09 R1, These were all motorcycles that had approxemently 200 miles box stock with cat converters and exhaust systems, Their dyno is a Super Flow Cycle Dyn identical to mine using ram air etc, Here are the results
Attachment 21116

George

BEEMER POWER - WOW

Thanks ... Jay Novak