Smaller restrictors

Technical discussion, questions, answers and information regarding the F600
Ted Simmons
Posts: 724
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: United States, Maryland, Silver Spring

Smaller restrictors

Postby Ted Simmons » Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:21 pm

As dictated from the SCCA high command without discussion or details of how the need for smaller restrictors was determined. Are the smaller restrictor necessary - maybe. Couldn't prove it by my lap times but other MC engined cars are very fast but than again so are some Rotax powered cars. I'd just like a little more information than just an edict from Topeka seemingly based on one letter from a member. Maybe I missed the discussion on why the restrictor is necessary.

CLUB RACING BOARD
DATE: July 20, 2014
NUMBER: TB 14-08
FROM: Club Racing Board
TO: Competitors, Stewards, and Scrutineers
SUBJECT: Errors and Omissions, Competition Adjustments, Clarifications, and Classifications
All changes are effective 8/1/2014 unless otherwise noted.

Formula/Sports Racing
F5
1. #14301 (Jack Walbran) Request for Competition Adjustment for 4-cycle Engines
In F500, Honda CBR600RR, Suzuki GSXR600 and Yamaha R6, change the restrictor as follows:
32 reduced to 30mm Flat Plate Intake Restrictor

WCM McMahan
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:54 am
Location: United States, Georgia, covington

Postby WCM McMahan » Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:55 pm

If I sand bagged like the other f500 driver, no one would have ever known the MC motors were competitve. Because I drove the piss out of the car at the sprints and the other top guy there decided to sandbag, it showed skewed results. This was adjustment is being based off of ONE race and it was being compared with a car that I consider to be a shoe box with four wheels hanging off of it when compared to the car I was driving And the new Blade.The same car that I drive that is being driven by another f5 driver has a 593 in it and is clearly faster in a straight line than the shoe box. I dont see ANY adjustments being made to that car after two seasons and that chassis which has a 593 in it has set on pole two years in a row at the runoffs. As a matter of FACT, the car that set on pole last year improved his time by 5.260 seconds after installing a 593. The other car that installed a 593 and set in the third postion improved his time by 2.60 seconds. If thats not a indicator , I dont know what is.I accept the suggestion of smaller restrictors as its part of the game. However, If restrictors are being given to the MC motors after only ONE race of comparison, why are the 593s being allowed to run TWO SEASONS in which they CLEARLY DOMINATED WITHOUT ONE ADJUSTMENT??????????????????????? Since the 593 came out its dominated, ............politics............... it goes on the list of "things that make you say WTF?" I challenge ANY current F500 driver that has a two stroke in their car to swap rides with me at any track at any time and see what the difference in time is when you swap cars. You will see its not the mc motor.
Last edited by WCM McMahan on Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jim Murphy
Posts: 2657
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:13 pm
Location: United States, Georgia, Winder

Postby Jim Murphy » Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:14 pm

I see the word "request" in this statement so it would be worthwhile to email the CRB and ask for clarification because no input was asked for as is normally done.

Jim

Ted Simmons
Posts: 724
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: United States, Maryland, Silver Spring

Postby Ted Simmons » Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:40 pm

All changes are effective 8/1/2014 unless otherwise noted.
NOTE: This preliminary version of the Club Racing Technical Bulletin is provided at this time as a service to the membership. These items may be corrected and will not be official until published on the Fastrack page of the scca.com website on or about July 20.


The NOTE above indicates unless corrected (whatever that means) it will become official on 8/1/2014. So the smaller restrictors will be required on August 1st and the "official" announcement of the smaller restrictors is on July 20th. That's 10 days to get new restrictors made or purchased from someone, dyno the restricted airflow for a new air/fuel map and installed on the car. Does 10 days seem about right for that to happen? I think my plans to go to Summit Point just got changed as I don't see this happening in the allotted time period.

I'm still undecided on the need for a smaller restrictor, not opposed to it but just would like more information on how these decisions are being made. Maybe there's good data to support the change. I have not seen it and just comparing lap times does seem to be a sound methodology for make this change. Most changes of this magnitude would be up for discussion and the evidence laid out for all to see so we could understand the decisions being made by someone - maybe the Formula Sports Racer Advisory Committee? Not sure who is providing the information to the Board or whoever is making this change.
Last edited by Ted Simmons on Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Chuck McAbee
Posts: 1206
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:02 pm
Location: United States, Maryland, Sykesville

Postby Chuck McAbee » Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:53 pm

From the approval of the consolidation from the Nov. 2013 FasTrack

15. Engines - 600cc motorcycle engines A. Mass produced Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki or Yamaha water-cooled, 4 cylinder, 4-cycle motorcycle engines up to 600cc are allowed. b. It is the purpose of this section to control the power level of current and future 4 cycle F600 engines to be approximately the same to yield approximately the same on track performance as the 2 strokes. Thus all engines must use individual inlet restrictors (IIRs) that comply with Appendix F, Flat Plate Intake Restrictor, except the third and fourth bullet items. The IIRs holes shall each be 32.0 mm in diameter be as listed in table 1. The IIRs shall be placed between each cylinder throttle body and its corresponding inlet port. The CRB may at any time require adjustments to items including but not limited to restrictors, minimum weights and final drive ratios require adjustments to the restrictors at any time by publication in Fastrack.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!

WCM McMahan
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:54 am
Location: United States, Georgia, covington

Postby WCM McMahan » Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:02 pm

Chuck McAbee wrote:From the approval of the consolidation from the Nov. 2013 FasTrack

15. Engines - 600cc motorcycle engines A. Mass produced Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki or Yamaha water-cooled, 4 cylinder, 4-cycle motorcycle engines up to 600cc are allowed. b. It is the purpose of this section to control the power level of current and future 4 cycle F600 engines to be approximately the same to yield approximately the same on track performance as the 2 strokes. Thus all engines must use individual inlet restrictors (IIRs) that comply with Appendix F, Flat Plate Intake Restrictor, except the third and fourth bullet items. The IIRs holes shall each be 32.0 mm in diameter be as listed in table 1. The IIRs shall be placed between each cylinder throttle body and its corresponding inlet port. The CRB may at any time require adjustments to items including but not limited to restrictors, minimum weights and final drive ratios require adjustments to the restrictors at any time by publication in Fastrack.


Thanks for pointing this rule out , it saved me from having to copy and paste
it. When we are already 'yielding the approximate on track performance as the two strokes" why is anything being suggested?

Ted Simmons
Posts: 724
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: United States, Maryland, Silver Spring

Postby Ted Simmons » Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:12 pm

The CRB may at any time require adjustments to items including but not limited to restrictors, minimum weights and final drive ratios require adjustments to the restrictors at any time by publication in Fastrack.

Not questioning the conditions under which the MC engine was accepted into F500, rather wondering what data was used to make the decision for smaller restrictors? Did the Formula/Sports Racer Advisory Board collect data and then make a recommendation to the CRB? I doubt seriously if the CRB made this decision on their own without input from someone knowledgeable about the perceived advantage of the MC engine – maybe they did.
Seems like a knee-jerk reaction to a potential problem that may or may not exist. Just questioning how the CRB arrived at their decision. It may be fully justified but it's not evident to me based on my experience with a MC engine competing against Rotax engines so far this year and late last year.

Jay Novak
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: United States, Michigan, Dearborn

Postby Jay Novak » Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:37 pm

Gents, it is not actually official until the minutes are posted. these are the prelims. Now I know that this is going to happen and we must do the best that we can with the situation.

We will be making the required new restrictors as soon as the actual minutes and tech bulletins are posted.

I talked to Dave and we can get them in the mail within 2 days of the posting or sooner if needed.

The price will be $60 per set of 4. The holes will be very accurate and are bored on a CnC mill.

Call Dave Piontek at Piontek Engineering at 810-991-1148
... Jay Novak
SCCA member for 48 years
A special thanks to all SCCA workers

Jay Novak
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: United States, Michigan, Dearborn

Postby Jay Novak » Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:46 pm

Ted Simmons wrote:
The CRB may at any time require adjustments to items including but not limited to restrictors, minimum weights and final drive ratios require adjustments to the restrictors at any time by publication in Fastrack.

Not questioning the conditions under which the MC engine was accepted into F500, rather wondering what data was used to make the decision for smaller restrictors? Did the Formula/Sports Racer Advisory Board collect data and then make a recommendation to the CRB? I doubt seriously if the CRB made this decision on their own without input from someone knowledgeable about the perceived advantage of the MC engine – maybe they did.
Seems like a knee-jerk reaction to a potential problem that may or may not exist. Just questioning how the CRB arrived at their decision. It may be fully justified but it's not evident to me based on my experience with a MC engine competing against Rotax engines so far this year and late last year.


The National Office collected the data for the CRB. I have personally reviewed the data but to my knowledge it was never discussed on an FSRAC conference call. I will not say any more about this.

The decision has been made and those of us in the F600 community must work within the system. I do suggest that you send letters to the CRB requesting that more data be obtained ASAP.
... Jay Novak
SCCA member for 48 years
A special thanks to all SCCA workers

Ted Simmons
Posts: 724
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: United States, Maryland, Silver Spring

new restrictors

Postby Ted Simmons » Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:56 pm

Jay,
I appreciate the fast response you and Dave are providing. However, just having the restrictors is the only first step in integrating them into the whole package. I don't run an aftermarket/add-on/piggyback ECU modifier. I'm dependent upon someone running a dyno check to obtain the proper air/fuel map and then re-flashing my ECU. I don't see how that's possible given the Competition Adjustment implementation is just 10 days later.

While the Board searches for answers on how to increase participation this seems counter productive to me. I know it means I will not be at the Summit Point Major due to this adjustment - just not enough time to get it done.

Jim Murphy
Posts: 2657
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:13 pm
Location: United States, Georgia, Winder

Postby Jim Murphy » Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:11 pm

This talk is all good but you MUST write to the CRB website and tell them - this is where it counts. I have sent my concerns.

Jim

Dan McMahan
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:37 am
Location: United States, Georgia, Covington

Re: new restrictors

Postby Dan McMahan » Thu Jul 10, 2014 6:44 pm

[quote="Ted Simmons"]Jay,
I'm dependent upon someone running a dyno check to obtain the proper air/fuel map and then re-flashing my ECU. I don't see how that's possible given the Competition Adjustment implementation is just 10 days later.


Even though we use Power Commanders, we still have to dyno the engine to get the proper fuel map. It does allow us to keep the different maps so they can be reloaded.

Jay Novak
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: United States, Michigan, Dearborn

Postby Jay Novak » Thu Jul 10, 2014 10:19 pm

if you have a lambda sensor you can adjust the fuel pressure to give you between a 12.7 to 13.0 air fuel ratio at full throttle, This will get you within about 1 or 2 hp of a really good map. we have checked this on a dyno and it works. Not perfect but it works.
... Jay Novak
SCCA member for 48 years
A special thanks to all SCCA workers

Leon Mitchell
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 1:29 am

Postby Leon Mitchell » Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:12 pm

Sand bagging
At the June sprints there was no sand bagging. There was some pipe issues, Jack, Michael. I will say this - Michael Mueller like you Clint does not have it in him to sand bag, he is a stand up guy, from a respectable family and is a true and fair racer! As you know Clint, and have often said, the two strokes are temperamental at times. They do require more tuning than the M/C cars. I will remind everyone that the M/C cars were to be brought up to the level of the 2 strokes, the 30mm restricter was used as the original baseline. I will say in my opinion the two different power plants are close. I am for both, I like both. But there does seem to be a slight advantage with the M/C cars on the larger tracks. Yes being fair a car that I sponsor and help with -Herb Noble- jointly! I help with suspension and handling, motor and clutching done by - Brad Huelling- ran very well at the sprints and was definitely the top of the speed class in 2 strokes, and was able to run with the M/C cars. But once the M/C cars start running more and going to the bigger tracks you will see a definite advantage in top end, I think the small restrictor adjustment will even things up, and if the restrictor drastically affects the cars from being competitive I will be the first to ask for it to be changed. I just would like to see everyone take a deep breath and stop the name calling, and accusations, we have a great group of people here that are very passionate about the sport we are in, and combined as we are now would be allot stronger together. The cars are, for the money the best value out there regardless of the power-plant, and they have advanced so much in the last 8 or so years and people have noticed, lets not loose what we strive to gain!!
Leon Mitchell is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message

Jim Murphy
Posts: 2657
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:13 pm
Location: United States, Georgia, Winder

Postby Jim Murphy » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:03 pm

Amen, Leon, Amen. Let us all calm down and work thru this.

Jim

Jay Novak
Posts: 1423
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: United States, Michigan, Dearborn

Gingerman Major 1

Postby Jay Novak » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:50 pm

here is how close it really is.

https://www.race-monitor.com/Results/Session/5066064

2 National Champs ... going at it.

how close does it need to be?
... Jay Novak
SCCA member for 48 years
A special thanks to all SCCA workers

WCM McMahan
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:54 am
Location: United States, Georgia, covington

Postby WCM McMahan » Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:42 pm

my short lived time out on the track with james and brian today was great! I can personally say that James was pushing the car for everything he had while i was running with him. I cant speak for after my spin, but up to that point his car and Brians were on the edge. The cars were dead equal just about everywhere with the exception of the very tip end of the top end mph. I cant say if it was something as simple as the gear selection between the two powerplants or if it was the difference in power. The two stroke would pull the MC motor off of the corner by about 1 1/2 car lenghts and the MC motor would pull the two stroke by about 2 car lengths on top end. It was very close overall and it was a blast to run with guys that were pushing the limits of the car on every corner. I thanked James after the race for running his car to what I felt was the limits and I also told him that i had made a commitment to another team early on that if I ever got a chance to see a strong two stroke run full all out and was beating them in a staright line that i would be the first one to write in for a competition adjustment. After running James today and talking with him after the race about his performance, i told him that I would be writing that letter. I will say that i dont think the restrictors should go down to a 30mm but rather a 31mm. The cars were very close and i dont think it would take much at all to even them out dead on. The 31mm restrictor in my opinion would be the choice. I look forward to tomorrow.

Dan McMahan
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:37 am
Location: United States, Georgia, Covington

Gingerman race 2

Postby Dan McMahan » Sun Jul 13, 2014 3:49 pm

Brian Novak, Cal Stewart, TomEdwards
Clint dropped out lap 10, Weida out lap 17
4 fast cars Clint, Weida, Brian , and Cal were only .424 apart on fast laps.

WCM McMahan
Posts: 520
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:54 am
Location: United States, Georgia, covington

Postby WCM McMahan » Sun Jul 13, 2014 8:48 pm

I think today showed what the class is made of. All of us was pushing hard and James even turned a personal best. Maybe competition is a drivers best friend sometimes.


Return to “F600 - Tech”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests