Strange Days get STRANGER

[nulrich]

It seems like people are worked up over a small potential difference in horsepower. Like the Zetec/Pinto disparity, the Fit engine will probably end up a few horsepower down on a cost-no-object Kent engine, and roughly equal with the vast majority of Kent engines. Big deal.

On the other hand, the most modern FF chassis were designed 15 years ago. What happens when someone builds a new car incorporating everything that's been learned about aerodynamics, suspension, and so on since then? Are the same people going to argue we should ban it because it's so much faster?

It's almost 2010....

Nathan

[TimW]

On the other hand, the most modern FF chassis were designed 15 years ago. What happens when someone builds a new car incorporating everything that's been learned about aerodynamics, suspension, and so on since then? Are the same people going to argue we should ban it because it's so much faster?

I would argue that the formula has become so well understood that there is a plateau effect. Any gains the Piper may have because of its recency in design are minimal and are within the level of what good drivers can overcome. Arguably a modern VD is a worse car than a 1995 Citation or a 1990 DB6.

However, weight distribution on the new engine in existing chassis could be an issue; a new chassis designed around the new engine could be better than an older conversion or but likely only potentially marginally better than an older kent car.

Part of the excitement of FB is that the design problems are wide open to explore the optimal solutions of the formula.

What a modern design should really do is improve the driver safety as that has improved dramatically in the past 15 years (head surrounds, attenuators, etc).

Tim

[DanW]

.......What a modern design should really do is improve the driver safety as that has improved dramatically in the past 15 years (head surrounds, attenuators, etc).

Tim

I recall a phone conversation with Steve Lathrop last spring where he mentioned the performance improvements in FF would most likely come from improved ergonomics for the driver.

[nulrich]

I would argue that the formula has become so well understood that there is a plateau effect. Any gains the Piper may have because of its recency in design are minimal and are within the level of what good drivers can overcome. Arguably a modern VD is a worse car than a 1995 Citation or a 1990 DB6.

That's kind of my point. A "modern" VD (by which I guess you mean '99 or later) isn't especially modern in terms of design. I'm not that familiar with FF, but from where I sit it appears that a 20 year old DB6 has arguably the best aerodynamic design. It was designed without the benefit of CFD and before Swift commissioned their wind tunnel. Although British FF has diverged fairly dramatically from SCCA rules, they have found very significant gains in aerodynamic performance over the last 20 years. I would guess that at least a 10% (and more likely 20 to 30%) improvement in L/D is possible with a proper aero development effort. That would make the horsepower difference between the Fit and the Kent insignificant. Given all the recent interest with the introduction of the Fit engine, I'm guessing someone will step up and design a new chassis as well.

Part of the excitement of FB is that the design problems are wide open to explore the optimal solutions of the formula.

Actually, I have a different take on it. FB is close enough to several other classes (F3, etc) that the design approach is easy: make the undertray work efficiently, reduce cooling drag, use good wing profiles, etc. FF, on the other hand, at least as it exists in this country, is a fresh and fertile ground for a designer's imagination, and a fairly radical approach might yield big dividends. For example, I think the undertray and "diffuser" (which can't be a diffuser ) might have the potential to produce a lot more downforce than current designs. Or sidepods could be used in a different configuration. And so on.

What a modern design should really do is improve the driver safety as that has improved dramatically in the past 15 years (head surrounds, attenuators, etc).

Don't get me started! One of my pet peeves. We've been pretty lucky in this country, I think, but there have been some horrific accidents in Europe in 80s and 90s vintage formula cars.

Nathan

[Larry]

I assume L/D is "lift over drag." Please educate me--where does lift enter the equation? I thought the efforts were to reduce drag, not to produce lift (or downforce). L/D calculations are certainly relevant in aviation, as they provide max endurance, but not max range and certainly not max speed. I'm at a loss to understand why they would have relevance in road racing, especially when we don't have to worry about induced drag vs parasitic drag.

Thanks,
Larry Oliver

[TimW]

I assume L/D is "lift over drag." Please educate me--where does lift enter the equation? I thought the efforts were to reduce drag, not to produce lift (or downforce). L/D calculations are certainly relevant in aviation, as they provide max endurance, but not max range and certainly not max speed. I'm at a loss to understand why they would have relevance in road racing, especially when we don't have to worry about induced drag vs parasitic drag.

Thanks,
Larry Oliver

Everything creates lift. Aerodynamic forces almost everytime have both components in play. Aerodynamic aids just produce lift as their primary purpose. All of motorsports is an exercise in drag reduction.

[nulrich]

I assume L/D is "lift over drag." Please educate me--where does lift enter the equation? I thought the efforts were to reduce drag, not to produce lift (or downforce). L/D calculations are certainly relevant in aviation, as they provide max endurance, but not max range and certainly not max speed. I'm at a loss to understand why they would have relevance in road racing, especially when we don't have to worry about induced drag vs parasitic drag.

Sorry about that! Yes, L/D is a way of expressing the efficiency of a car in producing downforce (actually we usually talk about -L/D since talking about positive numbers is more natural). For example, the current Van Diemen FC chassis has a max -L/D of about 1.85 based on our wind tunnel testing. That means it produces 1.85 lbs of downforce for every 1 lb of drag. And a current F1 car has a -L/D of about 3.0 in a medium downforce configuration.

(Unlike an aircraft, where you change angle of attack as speed increases, L/D is pretty close to constant on a formula car, so we don't talk about "max L/D speed.")

The actual L/D is pretty meaningless without reference to the amount of drag produced, though, especially in a car with limited power like a FF. You can almost always get more downforce at some drag penalty, and the basic car has a finite amount of drag (analogous to the zero lift drag of an aircraft), so you can usually bump up -L/D just by adding downforce. That does not necessarily make a car faster!

I have no idea of what kind of downforce a current FF chassis produces (it's easy to figure out how much drag they produce, of course). However, I can see several legal ways to increase downforce without increasing drag, or at least possible things to try (aero often surprises you ). There has been a fundamental change in the understanding of formula car aerodynamics over about the last ten years, driven by the advent of CFD and work done in F1, and I suspect applying those principles to an FF design would yield large dividends. If someone undertakes a proper aero development on an FF chassis, it wouldn't surprise me to see a huge improvement in performance.

That said, I'd be very curious to see some performance numbers for British National Series Formula Ford chassis. I suspect they are producing a fair bit of downforce, despite not having wings, but they also have a lot more (Duratec) power!

Nathan

[Stan Clayton]

Tim and Nathan...STFU and GBTW!!!

[na94]

It's interesting that the minute differences in engine output are what seems to be fueling the fire. Had anybody heard anything about the differences between the mass properties of the Kent vs the Fit?

If the output curves of the engines were a lbft or a hp or two apart, what would make the difference for me would be the CG delta caused by installing the Fit motor, since being able to carry more speed around corners should mean significantly faster lap times.

Is there any hard data out there?

[dc]

The real funny thing is, there is already a HUGE disparity among engines and power output on FF grids across the country, and no one seems to be complaining about that. And they are ALL Kents.

[TimW]

It's interesting that the minute differences in engine output are what seems to be fueling the fire. Had anybody heard anything about the differences between the mass properties of the Kent vs the Fit?

If the output curves of the engines were a lbft or a hp or two apart, what would make the difference for me would be the CG delta caused by installing the Fit motor, since being able to carry more speed around corners should mean significantly faster lap times.

Is there any hard data out there?

There are no final weights yet as I understand it. But equally as difficult to define what a very good kent is is what does a kent weigh. Ask 5 owners and you get 5 different answers. Which clutch? Which head? Which header? Fuel pump on block or in tank? Which oil pump? Which valve cover? Which oil pan? Which starter? There is easily a spread of 20lbs between kents. The fit is really not but yet another variable in that regard since it as a prototype landed pretty close the mean of the kents of my sample set.

[Tom Valet]

The real funny thing is, there is already a HUGE disparity among engines and power output on FF grids across the country, and no one seems to be complaining about that. And they are ALL Kents.

There is nothing funny about it Doug. This here is serious business. There is after all a $6 dollar plastic trophy at stake.

The main thing that everyone should be focused on, in my opinion, is ensuring that the final testing is done so as to ensure that the Honda engine being tested represents an optimally built and tuned engine. Since it is being compared to a "very good national engine" that represents 40 years of development and will for sure have been built to its optimal performance, the Honda should also represent the very best of what is capable of being produced.

The last thing we need is a comparison test of a national kent against a bone stock Fit engine that is capable of being massaged to produce more horsepower down the road.

Would it be possible to learn before the testing whether a Honda engine has been professionally built, with all the permitted balancing and machining etc permitted by the rules and compared to a stock fit engine?

Would it be possible to learn before the testing which Honda engine will be used for the comparison, a stock fit engine or a pro built engine?

Would it be possible to learn what the graph that I misinterpreted yesterday represents, a stock fit engine or a pro built engine?

Thanks to anyone who can provide answers to these questions.

Tom

[Dave Gomberg]

...

Would it be possible to learn before the testing whether a Honda engine has been professionally built, with all the permitted balancing and machining etc permitted by the rules and compared to a stock fit engine?

Would it be possible to learn before the testing which Honda engine will be used for the comparison, a stock fit engine or a pro built engine?

This will be a "mule" that has lots of dyno time (thus, broken in) and has all the stock Honda pieces except for the production racing bits produced by HPD (the same as they will be selling to everyone). It is not a "built" engine. I've already addressed the potential difference between a balanced/blueprinted engine and a stock engine.

Would it be possible to learn what the graph that I misinterpreted yesterday represents, a stock fit engine or a pro built engine?

Same engine that will be used for the remaining testing.

Dave

[stonebridge20]

The real funny thing is, there is already a HUGE disparity among engines and power output on FF grids across the country, and no one seems to be complaining about that. And they are ALL Kents.

Doug, The "huge disparity" between Kent engines is about 5% between home built and full tilt top shelf Runoffs winner. Between top and bottom level single spec race engines, that's pretty damn close!

Now if you want to think about something funny. I find it interesting how Honda at 5 weeks ago had no production parts for the Fit engine and now a short 5 weeks later has all the tooling and casting done with finish machined parts, bolted up to the engine for a photo shoot. THAT is some kind of world record!

[TimW]

Now if you want to think about something funny. I find it interesting how Honda at 5 weeks ago had no production parts for the Fit engine and now a short 5 weeks later has all the tooling and casting done with finish machined parts, bolted up to the engine for a photo shoot. THAT is some kind of world record!

There is a HUGE amount of underutilized manufacturing capacity available right now, especially from motorsports vendors. It is quick, but it also has to do with the economy that those who are actually spending for services now are getting attention of the vendors. Do also remember most everything likely was all penned (well, digitized) by the time the approval was made.

[Ananth K]

Now if you want to think about something funny. I find it interesting how Honda at 5 weeks ago had no production parts for the Fit engine and now a short 5 weeks later has all the tooling and casting done with finish machined parts, bolted up to the engine for a photo shoot. THAT is some kind of world record!

That is not true. The engines shown at the 40th and other shows did have an RP (rapid prototype) manifold and sump. This means they already had all the CAD data available even before SCCA approval and 5 weeks is not an unreasonable time frame for getting production ready dies for casting. Assuming the parts shown in the latest pics are die-cast and not investment cast which would be even quicker than that.

[nulrich]

That is not true. The engines shown at the 40th and other shows did have an RP (rapid prototype) manifold and sump. This means they already had all the CAD data available even before SCCA approval and 5 weeks is not an unreasonable time frame for getting production ready dies for casting. Assuming the parts shown in the latest pics are die-cast and not investment cast which would be even quicker than that.

They look sand cast to me. Making patterns and casting parts only takes a few days...I've done it in less than 24 hours on a "hot" project, so 5 weeks is an eternity. Definitely not difficult for a agile company like HPD with lots of resources.

Nathan

[stonebridge20]

That is not true. The engines shown at the 40th and other shows did have an RP (rapid prototype) manifold and sump. This means they already had all the CAD data available even before SCCA approval and 5 weeks is not an unreasonable time frame for getting production ready dies for casting. Assuming the parts shown in the latest pics are die-cast and not investment cast which would be even quicker than that.

Ananth, Thanks for the education. My casting experiance is limited to 30 years ago when I made an ashtray in high school shop class. All I really remember is the sand smelled something like a cross between tulips and cat piss.

Did you order your Honda yet?

[Ananth K]

You're welcome, Mike.

My ordering a Honda or even participating in FF depends on a couple of other people. When I do it it will hopefully be in a scratch-built chassis.

For now, F5 or should I say F600 is going to suffice.

[SOseth]

Doug, The "huge disparity" between Kent engines is about 5% between home built and full tilt top shelf Runoffs winner. Between top and bottom level single spec race engines, that's pretty damn close!

Mike;

Where do you get your 5% number?

SteveO

[nulrich]

Ananth, Thanks for the education. My casting experiance is limited to 30 years ago when I made an ashtray in high school shop class. All I really remember is the sand smelled something like a cross between tulips and cat piss.

It hasn't changed much! Some foundries are straight out of the 19th century, dirt floors and all. The big difference is you can machine a pattern directly from a CAD solid model (or make the pattern using a rapid prototyping process). No more pattern makers with 30 years of experience turning your drawings into wooden works of art...a shame in a way.

Nathan

[stonebridge20]

Mike;

Where do you get your 5% number?

SteveO

Steve, By looking at a ton of dyno sheets for 25 years. You know as well as I do that the "big" number is for show and everything under it is for go!

[SOseth]

Mike;

I would be happy to argue over several beers whether 5% is an acceptable number.

As you know I am not in engine rebuilding business but have been privy to information because of my relationship with QS. From what I have seen I would think the Kent disparity is more in the range of 8 to 10%.

SteveO

[stonebridge20]

Mike;

I would be happy to argue over several beers whether 5% is an acceptable number.

SteveO

Steve, several beers and you would win the argument. Besides, I'm not a fighter in real life, I just play one on the internet.

[SOseth]

Steve, several beers and you would win the argument. Besides, I'm not a fighter in real life, I just play one on the internet.

I meant to insert that the beers would be dutch. Now I'll offer to buy, and a good Belgian as well.

[Tom Valet]

As for building a blue printed and balanced engine: no that hasn't been done. But, the HPD engine guys have done a very close analysis (they have more than a little experience with high performance engines). Beyond the one horsepower that a new stock engine will gain when it is completely broken in, they believe there is 1-2 horsepower more that could be achieved, but they don't think all of that can be done undetectably.

Dave

This will be a "mule" that has lots of dyno time (thus, broken in) and has all the stock Honda pieces except for the production racing bits produced by HPD (the same as they will be selling to everyone). It is not a "built" engine. I've already addressed the potential difference between a balanced/blueprinted engine and a stock engine.


Same engine that will be used for the remaining testing.

Dave

Thanks Dave,

Do you think it would be a good idea for someone, either Honda or better yet a professional engine builder, to build an engine to its ultimate potential and compare it to the "mule" just to ensure that there are really no meaningful gains to be gotten? It is one thing for the Honda guys to "believe" that there is no difference, but it should be verified before the final specs are set.

If this is not done, not only does it reduce people's confidence in the whole process, it also leaves a huge potential nightmare sitting out there waiting to blow up when someone finally does build one and it turns out that we were wrong and it has a significant advantage.

I know you have said that performance adjustments can be made in the future, but getting rules changed takes time and frankly it would be better to get it right from the start than to go back later and fix a mistake.

Thanks

Tom

[stonebridge20]

I meant to insert that the beers would be dutch. Now I'll offer to buy, and a good Belgian as well.

Deal, It would be my pleasure to listen to a National champ speak for a while. Drunk or sober, it doesn't matter!

[Dave Gomberg]

Thanks Dave,

Do you think it would be a good idea for someone, either Honda or better yet a professional engine builder, to build an engine to its ultimate potential and compare it to the "mule" just to ensure that there are really no meaningful gains to be gotten? It is one thing for the Honda guys to "believe" that there is no difference, but it should be verified before the final specs are set.

My personal opinion is that it is not necessary. When I wrote "believe", it was a figure of speech. That was their estimate based on a lot of engine building experience. I know that a lot of the fear about this issue is due to the experiences in other classes, such as SM, where there are large gains to be made by balancing/blueprinting and other preparation practices that are not in the spirit of a spec class, but are nonetheless compliant with the SM rules. There are two factors at play here. One is that the manufacturing tolerances in those engines are quite different than those in the Fit. (Remember, the 1.6 liter Mazda engines are now a 20 year old design and were produced with more than 20 year-old technology.) The other is that the SM spec is much less restrictive that the Fit spec. We asked HPD for specs well beyond what are contained in the factory service manual and they supplied them. There is no other engine in the club that is specified so tightly.

...I know you have said that performance adjustments can be made in the future, but getting rules changed takes time and frankly it would be better to get it right from the start than to go back later and fix a mistake.

Changing the size of a restrictor (or in appropriate circumstances, weight) is something the CRB can do without seeking member input or BoD approval. That means if and when we are convinced a change is needed, we can issue a Tech Bulletin on short notice. I don't think we'll need to do this in the case of the Fit.

Dave

[Frank C]

There have been lots of posts back and forth about the specifications which are being developed for the inclusion of the Honda Fit engine in FF and whether they will work equitably for all in the class. I believe that all are expressing opinions based upon what they believe is best for the class and upon their best perceptions of what can be accomplished in equalizing the two powerplants. I am sure that all are speaking in good faith (except maybe some funny and sarcastic guys, which I am at times, but not now). However, I believe that a lot of the arguments are hypotheses about what can be accomplished and remedied through the course of the season. I am not so sure that these hypotheses will hold true. They may, but perhaps they may not. I think that one way to partially account for these uncertainties and the possible effects upon those competing for the championship would be to have two 2010 FF champions - one FF Kent and one FF Fit. This is not a completely satisfying solution, but I think it would address some concerns.
- Frank Chambers
Edit to address John's post below - I was thinking along the lines of one Run Offs race with two 1st Place trophies and championships. I think there is more to it than just horsepower. For example, will the Honda, with EFI, use less fuel than the Kent - does this matter to those getting right at the weight limit? Throttle response, center of gravity, etc.

[John Robinson II]

Frank,
That might not be possible since the rules have been changed to allow ALL national classes. I dont think there will be more then 10 @ the r/o next year.

I am building a new car with the Honda. It is my intention to use a rear wheel dyno on both cars just to see how much of a difference there is. It should be interesting. I will report back probably sometime around June.

John

[KevinFirlein]

most all of this is fear of the unkown. Like Agnif ,Ive dealt with multi engine classes and in many cases they completely suck. not so sure it is quite as much of a problem when ther are only 2 choices, and I dont want to hear about the original motor as a 3rd choice. The problem is further extended because of fear that the Honda will come online late enough that it can steal a Runoff win right out of the box if its too fast. Possibly true. I just cant get to worked up about something that isnt even on track yet. Bottom line to me is that both JRII and Steve Oseth are onboard with Honda. they're both multi time Runoff winners, ie no doubt about their programs. You get this in other classes, If you arent Huffaker, Chima,Peterson, or Davis your results are ignored. Not an issue with here. Both know full well what their cars can do with a top flight Pinto. If Steve goes to Suumit Point and can only run 17's the Honda needs more, If he runs low 14's it may need less. ( I say may because I have no doubt I can run our DB1 in the high 14's at Summit Point) Any map/restrictor change can be made at anytime without need for fastrack notification if its to level the field.

I do think with the aluminum head available pretty much everybody can have a top of the line Pinto. If you think your builder isnt giving you as much as he gives someone else ,you have the wrong builder. So anyone without a top level motor proably made the choice based on not being able to afford for the Aluminum head or some of the newwer parts. No way SCCA can factor that into rules.

As for HP spread our motor will destort the numbers as its dyno sheet only says 98. Of course the same dyno also said a Runoff winning Ivey was also 98 so I wasnt too concerned about it. I have no doubt our Justice engine is as good as any on the track, its just JJ uses Tom Milners dyno and agrees not to mess with the dyno correction settings.

And please dont split the class again. Bad enough we have hundreds of FF's running as CF and not FF making the numbers look worse then they really are. Dont do it again with a seperate sub class for the Honda.

[stonebridge20]

[QUOTE]

most all of this is fear of the unkown. Like Agnif ,Ive dealt with multi engine classes and in many cases they completely suck. not so sure it is quite as much of a problem when ther are only 2 choices, and I dont want to hear about the original motor as a 3rd choice. The problem is further extended because of fear that the Honda will come online late enough that it can steal a Runoff win right out of the box if its too fast. Possibly true. I just cant get to worked up about something that isnt even on track yet. Bottom line to me is that both JRII and Steve Oseth are onboard with Honda. they're both multi time Runoff winners, ie no doubt about their programs. You get this in other classes, If you arent Huffaker, Chima,Peterson, or Davis your results are ignored. Not an issue with here. Both know full well what their cars can do with a top flight Pinto. If Steve goes to Suumit Point and can only run 17's the Honda needs more, If he runs low 14's it may need less. ( I say may because I have no doubt I can run our DB1 in the high 14's at Summit Point) Any map/restrictor change can be made at anytime without need for fastrack notification if its to level the field.

Kevin, all very good points but if I'm in the top 1% of any class and someone hands me a performance advantage, your sure as hell not going to see it until September!

Sorry, but I do still have to think about that top 1% car I engineer.

[ric baribeault]

even if i accept the 5% difference my esteemed colleague from CT quotes, we all know that nearly 6hp in this class is a vast advantage and would more than compensate for occasional piss poor driving.

[stonebridge20]

even if i accept the 5% difference my esteemed colleague from CT quotes, we all know that nearly 6hp in this class is a vast advantage and would more than compensate for occasional piss poor driving.

I'll spot ya 6Hp any day Bro!

[Art Smith]

while I make no bones about feeling Honda engines are a BAD thing for the class previously known as FF and the club, I'm currently far more concerned about the apparrent complete and total lack of objective process in the plan for partiy testing of the two types of engines.

IF someone's objective is an "apples-to-apples" test to determine what's right/real (aka: get it right the first time), does a plan to compare a tired unprepared Honda "mule" using factory recommended fuel/oil/lubricants/...... to a Kent that's been ungraded from a "good" to an unspecified "very good National" standard sound or even appear to be a reasonable, rational, or a worth while thing to do?? I think NOT!

isn't it curious that an organization working on its "green image" just approved use of leaded racing gasoline in a stock engine designed to burn unleaded 93 octane fuel??

it's fascinating that in an engine reputed by its proponents to be built to tighter tolerances than a Swiss watch that the connecting rods have been singled out for authorized "lightening and balancing" in the GCR (reputedly to account for production tolerances??) AND that there is now a rumored (and I'm guessing as yet unwritten) new rule for how the "lightening and balancing" is to be accomplished??

I wonder how long before there's a rumor of a compression ratio testing procedure for the Honda engine and not just a service limit on the height of the head?? it's a real puzzle why surfacing the head is authorized in the GCR and surfacing the deck of the block is not......................

it's my opinion that any Honda engineer worth their money should be embarrassed it's been reported they think only 1-2 HPc can be found over a stock crate engine with the rules as currently written!!!

does Honda have anyone that speaks/writes for their organization or has the SCCA been retained to perform that function? it might be interesting to hear Honda's view of why the apparently skewed testing plan is required AND appropriate for ALL that participate in the new class......................

how many interested and trusting members from the FF community would change their position seeing what's been done with the blank check they supported??

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Daryl DeArman]

it's my opinion that any Honda engineer worth their money should be embarrassed it's been reported they think only 1-2 HPc can be found over a stock crate engine with the rules as currently written!!!

Is it important to note that the Fit will be controlled by an ECU map that will likely cap it at less horsepower than stock? Perhaps the allowances permitted by the rules will likely make only 1-2 HPc difference due to the excellence of the stock parts combined with the ECU restrictions??? (multiple question marks illustrating I'm thinking out loud).

Lastly, regarding the con-rods, if the 100,000th con-rod weighs 2 grams more than the 1st and everything is somewhere in between---would you rather have parts bin blueprinting OR an allowance to remove those 2 grams from a specified manner/location? I think the later is more desirable.

Perhaps the con-rods are the only item with this allowance as the manufacturing methods on the remaining components don't yield such a variance?

[Tom Valet]

This is the last thing I am going to post on this subject, since I dont have the requisite technical knowledge to give any meaningful insight into what these rules mean or what effect they will have on the testing proposed to be done.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, there are way to many ifs, maybes, perhaps, "I believe" and speculative comments about what the effect will be of taking a stock Fit engine and building it to the Nth degree of what is permitted by the rules.

Are we in fact dealing with a Miata situation where huge gains are to be had by pro builders over a stiock engine? Or are we dealing with a Zetec situation, where no gains are to be had from blue-printing? Nobody knows for sure, only guesses have been ventured.

If there are rules in place allowing legal modifications to the Fit, I find it incredible that the comparative testing that is going to be done between the Fit and Kent will not include an engine built doing all of the things that are legally permitted by those rules.

Bottom line is that SCCA has approved modifications that nobody as of yet has actually tried building into a Fit engine, SCCA has no idea precisely what effect those modifications will produce (on top of the "blue-printing" that everyone knows will inevitably be done), SCCA accepts Honda's word that there are no gains to be had from modifying or blue-printing a Fit engine and SCCA doesnt intend to verify any of those claims themselves until after the racing season has begun.

Like a lot of other people, I am a huge fan of the introduction of the Honda into this class, but there have to be other people who see that something is wrong with this picture.

Take care.

Tom

[TimW]

isn't it curious that an organization working on its "green image" just approved use of leaded racing gasoline in a stock engine designed to burn unleaded 93 octane fuel??

Wow, where is factcheck.org when you need them. First, the Fit requires 87 unleaded (http://automobiles.honda.com/fit/specifications.aspx) and second it is being mapped to run service station pump unleaded in race configuration, per HPD. They expect that even Ethanol blends will be OK, but so did the FSCCA guys so YMMV.

But go ahead, believe what you want to believe. I'll stick to asking questions of the people who have the answers instead of spiraling in a panic on a web site.

Tim

[stonebridge20]

Wow, were is factcheck.org when you need them. First, the Fit requires 87 unleaded (http://automobiles.honda.com/fit/specifications.aspx) and second it is being mapped to run service station pump unleaded in race configuration, per HPD. They expect that even Ethanol blends will be OK, but so did the FSCCA guys so YMMV.

But go ahead, believe what you want to believe. I'll stick to asking questions of the people who have the answers instead of spiraling in a panic on a web site.

Tim

Tim, Has the GCR changed to allow unleaded in Ff ?

[TimW]

Tim, Has the GCR changed to allow unleaded in Ff ?

All the fuel rules are changing for 2010; this language was out for member input over the summer but I don't have a moment at work now to find the reference. Dave Gomberg can chime in here if he's listening, but the Honda will run legally in SCCA on pump gas is what I was told when I was doing my due diligence. I'd probably run 93 octane from BP (which is not an ethonal blend) instead of 87 to hedge any bets that it may have a FSCCA type problem on a blend.