FB - 2015 Runoffs

R.Pare what are you talking about know one has said anything about anyone cheating so don't even start that crap
JR and Moon are two highly respected and deserving people
As far as a Qualifying motor if a driver as 3 or 4 motors in the trailer and he has to push that motor to 14000 to find that 10th of a second to put himself on the poll if he's hungry enough why not it's the Runoffs. I get it I'm good with it but some are not.
So in fairness to all I say " Qualify it, Paint it, Race it" . If there is an engine issue take it to tech have the repair witnessed and resealed. If the engine issue requires engine replacement you start in the back of the field

Nick77

The comment was not meant to imply that anything illegal was raced with but rather to control runaway costs, I fully agree with john larue about this one time car count given the special nature of the event, we just need to control it or it will die a slow death, I really miss some competitors who pioneered this class and are no longer in it by their own admission that it has become a spending circus and even we are contemplating other classes with some measure of cost control, le'ts keep it respectfull and un assuming with a rational focus on what is good for our class and not for any given brand or manufacturer/engine builder because we either succeed together or we will fail together.

Nick, you are right, this would be better for all and no doubts for anyone.

I might as well throw in my $.02.

I agree with Gary - nobody that I know of thought there was anything funny going on with engines. We had two spare engines in the trailer too, but those were in case of emergency which thankfully never materialized.

I like the idea of racing on the engine you qualified on and if you have to change it between qualifying and the race to the back of the grid you go. Great idea.

I also would be a fan of limiting the amount of tires we can use on a weekend because that would certainly level the playing field while controlling costs.

Speaking of costs, too bad we didn't get any tow fund this year - that would have been helpful <sigh>.

" fair thing to do would be to race on the engine we qualify with to make sure not one competitor is running on a "special" motor that may not last a race lenght ."

According to the engine rules, there is no way that I know of to produce a "special motor" except through breaking the rules.

Try again on your claims.

I have personally zero doubts about the legality of the cars at the runoffs, and to see someone post something like that is highly irresponsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R. Pare

" fair thing to do would be to race on the engine we qualify with to make sure not one competitor is running on a "special" motor that may not last a race lenght ."

According to the engine rules, there is no way that I know of to produce a "special motor" except through breaking the rules.

Try again on your claims.

I have personally zero doubts about the legality of the cars at the runoffs, and to see someone post something like that is highly irresponsible.

---

No one is saying anyone cheated. As I understand it, the speculation is that the Kawasaki front runners were using over 14,000 rpm's, which could give an advantage in qualifying but cause the motor to fail before the end of the race. Hence the run what motor you qualify on discussion. A rev limiter could also be an option.

Moreover, I imagine talented engine builders such as Greg Moon may have some ideas on how to build a legal special qualifying motor.

I tend to agree with Jose and Nick about running the same motor in the race or starting from the back. I'm not as sold that a spec tire will actually reduce costs.

Charles

We are still limited to just a few engines. If we want to make this easier why don't we open up the ECU rule? Look at the specs for the new 2016 Kawi: "The 2016 Kawasaki ZX-10R has traction control (S-KTRC), abs (KIBS), launch control (KLCM), brake control, corner management, and power modes." Why should we have to reverse engineer and defeat all these things when we could just use an aftermarket ECU and plug in a BMW, Aprilla, or Kawi? That would cut down on costs. How about being able to buy a crate engine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sprocketmensch

We are still limited to just a few engines. If we want to make this easier why don't we open up the ECU rule? Look at the specs for the new 2016 Kawi: "The 2016 Kawasaki ZX-10R has traction control (S-KTRC), abs (KIBS), launch control (KLCM), brake control, corner management, and power modes." Why should we have to reverse engineer and defeat all these things when we could just use an aftermarket ECU and plug in a BMW, Aprilla, or Kawi? That would cut down on costs. How about being able to buy a crate engine?

---

If the class really wants to lower costs, why not exercise the CRB option to impose an inlet restrictor? Say, 1 or 2 mm smaller than that permitted the stock-engined liter m/c P2 cars? Engine reliability and longevity are vastly superior when engines are run within their design RPM limits. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Clayton

If the class really wants to lower costs, why not exercise the CRB option to impose an inlet restrictor? Say, 1 or 2 mm smaller than that permitted the stock-engined liter m/c P2 cars? Engine reliability and longevity are vastly superior when engines are run within their design RPM limits. :p

---

This is a very viable solution and has been extensively tested in P2.

I would recommend a size that knocks a tiny bit off the top of the Suzuki and use that size on all engines.

This may be a question for our ruling body, what would be the actions that would need to be taken in order to create and submit a proposal by the Drivers on what we would like to see as our class rules for the future focussed mainly on sustainability of our class through cost control and class growth that would result in car sales.

Jose,

Simply utilize the SCCA letter process to submit your request(s). If the group can come to a consensus that would certainly help the cause.

John

Here's the direct link for submitting a letter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jose gerardo

This may be a question for our ruling body, what would be the actions that would need to be taken in order to create and submit a proposal by the Drivers on what we would like to see as our class rules for the future focussed mainly on sustainability of our class through cost control and class growth that would result in car sales.

---

There was a lot of effort by the ad hoc committee to work out a system to control power and improve durability of FB engines. The problems of controlling the various variables where we have a variety of engines is way more complex than many appreciate.

Bottom line, someone is going to have to spend a lot of dyno time (that means money) to get the results everyone wants. Without such an effort and money, the results will not be what is desired.

So who is willing to step up to the plate?

IMO the restrictor implementation should be just like it is done in P2. This is simple and effective and there is already plenty of data to help make the decision on the size.

A common restrictor should be sized such that it just barely restricts the common GSXR 1000 motor by about 1 or 2 hp at peak power. Then use this size for all motors. It will make all the motors pretty close. Very easy for tech as the restrictors are at the top of the throttle body and can be easily checked.

If things are not equal enough they can be easily changed.

I Like the following:

1. Spec tire...must run the qualifying tire in the race.
2. Engine marking...must run same engine as qualifying.
3. One common restrictor.
4. One common aftermarket ECU and engine wiring harness. A group buy could be arranged that could lower cost and provide ongoing support and an initial map.

This would allow new engines to enter the mix. Combine this with the aftermarket ECU / Harness and I think you lower cost in the long run. As new engines come on line, you can re-use your ECU and harness and you have a base tune to start with.

The ad hoc committee did a ton of dyno work to arrive at restrictor sizes for the various engines......different sizes for each got us very close power curves.

HOWEVER, A SINGLE SIZE FOR ALL WOULD BE MUCH EASIER TO IMPLEMENT.
It would not get the engine output as close.....but a lot closer than we will see when the newer engines start coming into the class. The newer engines have over 200 stock hp. currently we are looking at 175 to 185 depending on whose dyno is being used (gsxr)

THERE IS NOT NEED TO REDO THE DYNO WORK. The committee has all the data needed to make a size selection.....and as Jay said the p2 data (and track results) are there to look at as well.

As Joel said the new engines come with a ton of electronics we don't need or can't legally use.....so it may be a challenge converting them to a car.....so I am almost ready to support aftermarket ecu....but I am worried about cost esculation. Some FA systems are very, very expensive. We don't want to go there.

Honda will sell us crate engines......so why don't we all just run Hondas?!! Heck, they might even be interested in a sponsoring a pro series if it were all Hondas.

AT THIS POINT I SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING (but always ready to listen to other opinions);
QUALIFY AND RACE ON SAME ENGINE.
at least a few guys did runoffs practice, qual, and race on same engine). Engine that won the 2013 runoffs had several weekends on it...plus all runoffs practice, qual, and race.
QUALIFY AND RACE ON SAME TIRES
SINGLE SIZE RESTRICTOR FOR ALL ENGINES

Jerry Hodges

I personally tested last years proposed restrictor, I thought it was too much. Trust me you guys wouldn't like it.

I'm liking all the other suggestions though.

By the way, Yamaha will sell crate engines also. But without an open ECU forget it. And the Yamaha is a perfect candidate for a wet sump pan, I've looked at it closely.

There's a reason the Honda isn't being used, it's a dog.

Perhaps the Honda should be the standard for performance. If it is available as a crate engine the only other issue would be cleaning up the ECU language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John LaRue

Perhaps the Honda should be the standard for performance. If it is available as a crate engine the only other issue would be cleaning up the ECU language.

---

One step at a time here boys. I like the RUN THE TIRE YOU Q ON and RACE THE ENGINE YOU Q ON or go to the back. All the other stuff is off the table for me.

The Honda is down over 10HP from the Suzuki and simply shouldn't be used as a bench mark. The Suzuki is the bench mark.

I didn't get into this class to go slower.

Something else I'd like to bring up. Lets allow the Suzuki to run stock size after market S.S. valves. The stock Suzuki Ti valves are horrible. They are friction welded and they fail, when they do count on replacing your engine. The A/M S.S. valves cost 1/5th of the Suzuki valves and have zero performance advantage. You can ask any of the engine builders. This will allow the Suzuki's to last several seasons. Right now the Suzuki Ti valves are over $100 each and there's 16 of them. If you aren't changing them every rebuild you are running on a time bomb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John LaRue

Perhaps the Honda should be the standard for performance. If it is available as a crate engine the only other issue would be cleaning up the ECU language.

---

Honda makes and sells a racing ECU & harness that apparently work very well.

The only problem with SS valves is that with stock springs the rev limit is lower. Not necessarily a bad deal.

Excellent feedback, Kudos to all of you, I will send my request in the next few days, can we have a show of hands as to who is willing to participate on this request?.

the Dyno work is done as far as I know for the Kawi and Suzuki and any new engine entry I believe would have to have the Engine approved by the Board after the Dyno work has been performed and a comparable performance curve can be established with the current engines,
this can be done in conjunction with one of the engine manufacturer's and validated by another.

So far this is what I have to add to my proposal:

1-Spec tire or limiting the amount of tires we use on a given weekend,must run the qualifying tire in the race[, ( works great on F2000, tires need to be taken care of during quali so driver must pick between many laps to accomplish a fast quali time or race pace ).

2-Engine marking...must run same engine as qualifying or start at the back or 10 place penalty from quali position when car count exceeds 10 cars or five when less than five car count, or something like that. (absolutely, piece of cake to police ).

3-One common restrictor. ( this one we need to think of , different engines and power curves, maybe stick to last year's Dyno testing by Engine Manufacturers).

4-One common aftermarket ECU and engine wiring harness. A group buy could be arranged that could lower cost and provide ongoing support and an initial map. ( Not sure on this one, I am not that smart, but if enough people request it I will run with the pack).

5-Crate Engines / Engine Manufacturer sponsorship. ( this would be the best option as they can be handled by common means like the Ford Zetec engine on FC/F2000 and this would ensure equality when new and then we paint them on race weekends).

If I forgot one , PLEASE add it to my list and post it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Clayton

Honda makes and sells a racing ECU & harness that apparently work very well.

---

That sounds good but until someone proves to me it's going to be a on par with the Suzuki then it's off the table for me.

The Kawasaki has proven itself now. As long as you aren't spinning them to 14,500 you are good to go.

If Honda wants to develop something for this class I could be hired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jose gerardo

1-Spec tire or limiting the amount of tires we use on a given weekend,must run the qualifying tire in the race[, ( works great on F2000, tires need to be taken care of during quali so driver must pick between many laps to accomplish a fast quali time or race pace ).

---

This has been tried in other classes in the past. Everyone ends up hating it and it costs money. It has been discussed ad nauseam in the FF spec tire threads. It hurts the budget guys who don't test.

Now if someone can't make the test day, they have to go out for the first session (Q1) on their best set of tires and waste a heat cycle on learning their way around the track or working on set up.

This rule is also always suspended for the runoffs so it doesn't fix what you are concerned about.

It also encourages people to run fewer laps. Fewer laps=less fun.

FB is maybe the biggest development open wheel class in SCCA, that's the wrong place for a spec tire.

Quote:

---

2-Engine marking...must run same engine as qualifying or start at the back or 10 place penalty from quali position when car count exceeds 10 cars or five when less than five car count, or something like that. (absolutely, piece of cake to police ).

---

This is such a non-issue that it isn't worth worrying about. I can't imagine how it saves money. People swapping their engines before the race are doing it because they don't understand these engines. Swapping your Kent or Pinto is worth it, swapping your bike motor is pointless unless you have hurt it.

I could see this resulting in more blown motors, but that's about it. FB still has a reputation for going through motors, anything that makes it go through more is going to turn people off to the class.

Focus on making the engines more reliable and you can actually solve the problem you are worried about.

Quote:

---

One step at a time here boys. I like the RUN THE TIRE YOU Q ON and RACE THE ENGINE YOU Q ON or go to the back. All the other stuff is off the table for me.

The Honda is down over 10HP from the Suzuki and simply shouldn't be used as a bench mark. The Suzuki is the bench mark.

I didn't get into this class to go slower.

---

Speed costs money; you either want rules put into place to help capture costs or you don't. IMHO 10 HP in the scheme of things is pretty inconsequential if everyone is on the same playing field and it enhances service life an appreciable sum. As Stan notes, there appears to be a readily available solution to the ECU for the Honda. If it's about the speed then let it rip...

Quote:

---

This will allow the Suzuki's to last several seasons

---

Perhaps I am missing something here, but is anyone running an engine several seasons? If these engines will give that type of service life then I don't understand what the concern is...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John LaRue

Speed costs money; you either want rules put into place to help capture costs or you don't. IMHO 10 HP in the scheme of things is pretty inconsequential if everyone is on the same playing field and it enhances service life an appreciable sum. As Stan notes, there appears to be a readily available solution to the ECU for the Honda. If it's about the speed then let it rip...

Perhaps I am missing something here, but is anyone running an engine several seasons? If these engines will give that type of service life then I don't understand what the concern is...

---

This is why if you aren't directly involved in running one of these cars you may not understand the idiosyncrasy of running them. Something as simple as allowing A/M valves will help. If you've been running a Suzuki for more than 2 season you've likely dropped a valve and destroyed an engine. The postmortem is usually tough to tell what went first but to the trained eye you can tell.

We use the GSX-R1000 and get anywhere from 18-20 hours of run time between rebuilds - anything longer is rolling the dice.

I also self police and shift below 12,300 RPM. This coupled with properly timed rebuilds has greatly increased the reliability of the engines.

So that means we generally do an engine swap once during a season, usually just prior to the runoffs as by then we're about due for the rebuild.

As always, YMMV. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaltaman

We use the GSX-R1000 and get anywhere from 18-20 hours of run time between rebuilds - anything longer is rolling the dice.

I also self police and shift below 12,300 RPM. This coupled with properly timed rebuilds has greatly increased the reliability of the engines.

So that means we generally do an engine swap once during a season, usually just prior to the runoffs as by then we're about due for the rebuild.

As always, YMMV. ;)

---

I'm right there with John. My engine builder tells me I can spin it faster, but I don't. Ask John what it costs to replace valves, aint cheap.

Here is my .02. Leave everything alone. Concentrate on driving better. Test more. You're not beating JR because he is working harder. He's driving a car that was considered (and still by me) the biggest car on the track. He had a Kawasaki and had the slowest top speed when he set pole......
Guys, don't fix something that isn't broke. The ECU thing is the only thing that sounds right. The spec tire thing is dumb it doesn't save any money. The crappiest tires still cost a grand. Everyone is using the same tires anyway: hoosier 25 or 35. Limiting the it to one set (like Wren said) means less track time, is that what you want? You only need 2 sets on a typical weekend anyway. A good driver is going to beat a crappy driver on a qualifying set anyway.....
As far as engines. I'm not exactly sure but I think that the Suzuki had the top speed spots over the big bad kawasaki and the "top" speed track (and we certainly know it has no bottom end compared to a Suzuki) so what are you doing by restricting the kawi????? Making it useless and taking it off the table??? Back to scavenging 10 year old gsxr??
No engine changes?? Come on guys, really?? You worried about guys over revving motors in qualifying as if that was an unfair advantage?? You want people not to run their hardest....that not racing in my world. And its not fair at all. I just blew a motor on a hardship lap. That meant I had to start at the back??
Again, I'm not trying to put down other people's efforts and hard work but I've been running with JR for a few years now and that SOB never ever stops. Day and night. He makes me tired just watching and listening. I learned alot from him. He is a machine and he drives the wheels off the car every single lap (test,qualify,race).
Bottom line is that driver development is way more important than all these rule changes that everyone is trying say will equalize the playing field.
I'm not in the class (right now) but I just dont want to see it get screwed up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John LaRue

Perhaps I am missing something here, but is anyone running an engine several seasons? .

---

Yes.

NO SPEC TIRE....for all the reasons Wren stated...plus, not all cars use the same size tire.....plus there is at least one other company interested in supplying tires.....at a better price. They have done some testing....and it looks good from what I can tell.

LIMITED NUMBER OF TIRES PER WEEKEND. still thinking that one over.
QUAL AND RACE ON THE SAME SET seems a better solution.

HONDA.....With the factory racing ecu and different length inlet trumpets, the Honda is pretty close to the gsxr. At least that is what one engine builder tells me.

YES ON SS VALVES. They will greatly enhance engine life....and reduce rebuild cost. P2 has a good set of rules regarding valves, valve springs and rod bolts (for stock engines). I do not like the way they did restrictors. allowing them to be profiled defeats the purpose. If we do restrictors they need to be flat plat.

NO TO SPEC ECU AND HARNESS. I would rather stay with the stock or factory racing ecu.....where it can be easily made to work....like the gsxr and kaw. Others may need
an aftermarket one....but lets not make everyone do it.

Jerry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnPaul

Here is my .02. Leave everything alone. Concentrate on driving better. Test more. You'really not beating JR because he is working harder. He's driving a car that was considered (and still by me) the biggest POS on the track. He had a Kawasaki and had the slowest top speed when he set pole......
Guys, don't fix something that isn't broke. The ECU thing is the only thing that sounds right. The spec tire thing is dumb it doesn't save any money. The crappiest tires still cost a grand. Everyone is usinf the same tires anyway: hoosier 25 or 35. Limiting the it to one set (like Wren said) means less track time, is that what you want? You only need 2 sets on a typical weekend anyway. A good driver is going to beat a crappy driver on a qualifying set anyway.....
As far as engines. I'm not exactly sure but I think that the Suzuki had the top speed spots over the big bad kawasaki and the "top" speed track (and we certainly know it has no bottom end compared to a Suzuki) so what are you doing by restricting the kawi????? Making it useless and taking it off the table??? Back to scavenging 10 year old gsxr??
No engine changes?? Come on guys, really?? You worried about guys over revving motors in qualifying as if that was an unfair advantage?? You want people not to run their hardest....that not racing in my world. And its not fair at all. I just blew a motor on a hardship lap. That meant I had to start at the back??
Again, I'm not trying to put down other people's efforts and hard work but I've been running with JR for a few years now and that SOB never ever stops. Day and night. He makes me tired just watching and listening. I learned alot from him. He is a machine and he drives the wheels off the car every single lap (test,qualify,race)
I'm not in the class (right now) but I just dont want to see it get screwed up

---

Why is it that JP can say everything that I want to say but for some reason I don't. From now on I'm letting JP say it.

Lets not mess with it please.

Funny story about JRO.

Last years Runoffs. We're up in the media room getting interviewed. The guy doing the interview says "JR seems like it's either Checker or the Wrecker with you". Took JRO about 10 seconds to digest that.

It was all I could do to keep from laughing my ass off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghickman

Why is it that JP can say everything that I want to say but for some reason I don't. From now on I'm letting JP say it.

Lets not mess with it please.

---

Because under that gruff, Long Island tough guy exterior, beats the heart of a poet and statesman.


;)

Gentlemen,

I want to respectfully request that ONLY current and/or future Drivers and constructors state your ideas, opinions are welcomed but should be considered ÿour ¨opinions, what we need are rational suggestions and ideas to develop a working plan so that our class can continue to grow and generate the excitement that the class is capable of, the issue of Tires applies ONLY to Qualifying tires to race on, we can run ALL the sets we want during test days but come quali time it is the set we quali and race on and we would only allow a tire swap in the event a tire has been squared off 'flat spotted' and then it would only run on the side of the car that receives the less amount of load or wear ,or allow six tires as of quali time like we used to do in f2000 too, this worked great and our tire bill was around $ 1,100.00 per weekend or so.
Jerry H has a few excellent points on SS valves, restrictors , and spec or crate honda motors , Gentlemen the Zetec engine on my old van Diemen was a Five year lifespan engine for a thousand dollars less than a Suzuki, on tires we need to stick to a single tire manufacturer <Hossier> as they were the first ones to have faith in the class and our organizers have done a great job with the contingency, now if we could replicate the 2013 season this would be ideal where we launched our series on both coasts from a common place <Cota> and we closed our championship at the Runoffs .

Guys, please keep it respectfull, objective and with a strategic mindset, only in this manner are we going to be able to move forward.

The stories are better left for those days when we are toasting over a beer after a hard day of racing.

Everyone should read John Paul's post. True words of wisdom.

I understand Thomas, but we need to maintain this within the scope of those who have a vested interest in the class, Drivers and sponsors.

Just would hate to see you shoot yourself (meaning the class) in the foot while doing it. Especially since I might be back someday (you did write future right?). Right now appears nothings broken. People just seem stressed about being outperformed again by other competitors.Funny how that always gets people talking about how they think they can level the playing field. Most of the suggestions I read are completely impractical. Only the ECU suggestion sounds feasible.

Jose, what makes you think I don't have an FB? I've been a part of the FB community 6 years. I know this class as well (or better) than you...

Oh, one more thing I forgot to touch on is the crate engine idea as spec engine. It's a good idea. Access to brand new motors would be great thing for moving FB forward. But it would work only if the engine had a competitive edge like the Honda engines in FF. Reason i say this is because you cant force people to convert right? And your not going to get guys to spend money and time converting their cars for an equal or less competitive motor. But they will if they think they need it to be competitive. There would be a transition period of a few years for sure.

Lol, also I think implementation of these ideas to "equal" the playing field is going to do the exact opposite. It's going to make even more people uncompetitive...think about that. Having better "stuff" helps the slower guys also....it's club racing guys

Hey, the guys who finished ahead of me didn't do anything other than out-drive me, plain and simple.

Thomas you are correct - nothing's broken, per se, but things could be slightly refined.

I think Jerry and Gary are spot-on with the SS valves and the addition of a spec engine is fine but only if it doesn't obsolete the Kawi or Suzuki. I invested in a few spare Suzuki engines and am not in the least bit interested in changing - I need to work on my driving primarily and setup refinement after that.

I understand the argument against the engine swap (good example JP), so just write the rule with a clause stating that for a catastrophic failure (a breach of the casing or seized) you can swap the engine without the grid penalty. Wouldn't that be okay?

Also, I don't think the trap speeds at Daytona really indicate anything because of the tow effect. The only way I reached 158 mph and above was in a tow - that's a fact. For the week, my best laps were by myself, without a tow, and never reaching 154 mph. Did I mention I need to work on my driving?

Finally, about the tires - I don't want a spec tire, but two sets per weekend?! I wish... That is exactly double my budget. Yes, that's my problem, but if we want to continue to attract more drivers we should keep the cost of being competitive down. By limiting the sticker tire allocation to a single set for Qualify/Race1/Race2 you level the playing field without adding any cost - how can that not be a good thing? For the Runoffs, make it two sets, as the qualifying occurs over 4 days, but this is an easy way to eliminate from $7k - $10k from the annual racing budget while making the racing more competitive.

So, to sum it up:

1. Don't obsolete the current engines but certainly allow new ones (if that means restrictors like P2, so be it)
2. Allow the SS valves in place of the factory ones to increase reliability (like P2)
3. Limit the sticker allocation for Qualify/Race1/Race2

I think these small tweaks would give us increased engine reliability, closer racing and reduced costs to be competitive.

Again, just my opinion.