What's next for FB?

[Jnovak]

The rev limiter system that Don mentioned earlier was a simple box. It did not actually limit engine rpm. It would, however, have a light to indicate if the engine had been operated above a set limit for some specific period of time. The box had two displays, 1 for correct operation, and in indication if the engine had exceeded the rpm limit and the time limit.

Actually limiting engine RPM was up to the contestant. Tech only had to look at the lights. If the over rev indicator was on, the contestant could take it up with the SOMs and present the case that it was accidental. Otherwise the contestant was excluded from the race results.

To keep people from cheating the boxes, all the boxes would be put in a basket and each contestant would draw for the one he would use that weekend. The Indy Lights series did this with ECU on the old Buick engines.

The box does exist now.

I would be very interested in this concept if and only if there is a way to check it in tech. What do you do when all cars in impound have the warning light on? That will happen a lot IMO.

[Stan Clayton]

I thought you guys had worked out direct from the manufacturer sources for engines?? If you picked ONE as a 'class supplier' you might be able to control the changes to a greater degree. It's the only way to avoid the monthly "best engine" issue.

Honda have offered their 2015-spec CRB1000RR w/race ECU as a crate motor package, and there may be others. The Honda engines are pricey (~$7000?), but if you could get the assembled FB guys to agree to it, it could certainly work.

Good luck with that, tho...

[S Lathrop]

I would be very interested in this concept if and only if there is a way to check it in tech. What do you do when all cars in impound have the warning light on? That will happen a lot IMO.

I don't think that will be a problem if all the competitors buy into the system as the best deal they are likely to get. If the SOM excludes the entire class, I bet that will be the last time everyone exceeds the limits.

Checking the system might be as simple as an app that can check the unit.

Also even though you would most likely never race with your own rev limit device, you would be the registered owner of the device. So you would be responsible for the proper functioning of your device.

[Saracen]

A rev limiter may be all those things, but requiring one would inevitably also require extensive testing and validation (who's gonna pay for it?), and would constitute a rule change since it's not already provided for, so as a practical matter cannot be implemented before the 2017 season at the earliest, and probably much later in reality.

On the contrary the provision to require inlet restrictors has been in the FB rules (2015 GCR 9.1.1.G.5) since day one, and requires only publishing in Fastrack. Moreover, their use has already been well worked out in FB for the past two years, all the FUD on these pages to the contrary notwithstanding.

"well worked out in FB" should this not read P2, I don't believe a Kawi has been developed with the 37.5 IIR?

[Stan Clayton]

"well worked out in FB" should this not read P2, I don't believe a Kawi has been developed with the 37.5 IIR?

Yes, I meant P2...thanks.

[ghickman]

I agree that is is the simple solution, but how does tech police this?

I know that Don Armany is supposed to have a functional solution but have never seen any data.

Easily implemented and policed.

One supplier of rev limiters.

They are sealed and can't be tampered with.

Rev limit is done at the manufacturer level.

It has to be installed and wired into the car. Won't run without it. Tech looks to see if it is installed. Pretty simple.

They're already doing this very thing on dwarf cars all over the world.

They cost less the $250. What does it cost for a set of restrictors then properly dyno your engine and remap the ecu? Those that think they can bypass this process do so at their own risk.

If anyone wanted to cheat the restrictors they could, simply install different cams. Never seen a valve cover come off yet in 2 past RO's.

SHAPED RESTRICTORS:
If anyone thinks that one shape fits all they are living in a fantasy world. I've already done some of the leg work on this last year. I'm sure most of you saw the picture I posted. If this restrictor goes thru you can bet I'm going to do the UBER development curve on this, good luck to those of you that are stuck buying them from GDRE or XYZ engine builder. You won't get what I've got.

See where I'm going with this....restrictor wars...yep.

[Stan Clayton]

Easily implemented and policed.

One supplier of rev limiters.

They are sealed and can't be tampered with.

Rev limit is done at the manufacturer level.

It has to be installed and wired into the car. Won't run without it. Tech looks to see if it is installed. Pretty simple.

They're already doing this very thing on dwarf cars all over the world.

They cost less the $250. What does it cost for a set of restrictors then properly dyno your engine and remap the ecu? Those that think they can bypass this process do so at their own risk.

If anyone wanted to cheat the restrictors they could, simply install different cams. Never seen a valve cover come off yet in 2 past RO's.

Do you have a specific one in mind, Gary?

[jchracer]

Do you have a specific one in mind, Gary?

Yes, and if we can get agreement that this is the best way to go, is everyone comfortable with a single RPM limit for all cars? If so, What limit? Are we going get into another lobbying war where we try to "equalize" the engines with different RPM limits?

[Stan Clayton]

Which one, Joel? Looking for more info. Thanks, Stan

[ghickman]

Yes, and if we can get agreement that this is the best way to go, is everyone comfortable with a single RPM limit for all cars? If so, What limit? Are we going get into another lobbying war where we try to "equalize" the engines with different RPM limits?

Do you have a specific one in mind, Gary?

Stan
Yes I do, but before we dig down in the weeds on this I want the supplier to come back to me with a report back from their engineer. This isn't a small company, they've been doing this for 50 years.

Joel
This is the reason why it is a FANTASY to think this will happen before March 1 2016. We need to do this right.

We need real engine dyno information on the two current defacto engines. Suzuki / Kawi then come up with an RPM that is fair for both.

Forcing a 37.5mm shaped restrictor on a Kawi ZX10R that has never been dyno'd. Yes folks this "SHAPED RESTRICTOR" has never been done on the ZX10R. The ZX10R has a Gantry injection system, you cant just go tossing sh^t down its intake....you may end up with a fire.

Everyone needs to back off and let the folks in the class get this done, but do it right.

NEW ADHOC COMMITTEE:
As car owner and drivers we may have to re-form the group. This time only car owners and drivers allowed.

[S Lathrop]

NEW ADHOC COMMITTEE:
As car owner and drivers we may have to re-form the group. This time only car owners and drivers allowed.

When engine and chassis manufacturers are excluded from a rules discussion, you frequently get bad rules. As people who make the products you race, you assume that we don't have our customers interests in mind. We don't have a business without happy customers.

Probably the best rewrite of a rules package was the 1986 FF rules rewrite. That was followed a few years later by a FV rewrite, again all the stake holders, including the builders were involved. Those rules packages are mostly still in effect. In the FF rules rewrite, the stake holders and the CRB all met in Denver to thrash out the rules.

The guys in the business have the best grasp on what can and can not be done. This current FB rewrite is a fine example of what happens when the stake holders are not involved. Now the customers are probably best to say what they want to see done. And I don't see that either is being listened to.

The reason the previous committee did not arrive at a restrictor rule was because it was not possible to get a single size that would fit all engines. We also found that a single rev limit was not really possible given the differences in the engines we were trying to control. What you have now is some one or group making a decision without any evidence it will work and at a minimum. every FB participant will have to get their engines to a dyno to get them running right. Maybe if some of the engine and chassis builders would have been consulted this fiasco would not have happened.

I assume you as a manufacture would disqualify yourself?

Any new committee needs to represent all the stake holders. And that includes the guys who make the class possible as well as the guys who run in the class.

I apologize for the rant and I did not intend to be offensive. I have been to this dance many times before and nothing good is likely to happen.

[tromoly]

Hey everyone, long time lurker and eventually I hope to join the class, been following this for a while now. I have a couple questions that I'm not sure have been answered here.

1. How many orifices does the restrictor have, i.e. is there one for each TB (total of 4) or is there one single opening for air to flow through?

2. Where does the restrictor get placed, before or after the TBs?

3. From the engine dyno testing done previously, where in the rev range did the restrictor choke air flow?

Thanks in advance for any/all answers.

[ghickman]

Hey everyone, long time lurker and eventually I hope to join the class, been following this for a while now. I have a couple questions that I'm not sure have been answered here.

1. How many orifices does the restrictor have, i.e. is there one for each TB (total of 4) or is there one single opening for air to flow through?

2. Where does the restrictor get placed, before or after the TBs?

3. From the engine dyno testing done previously, where in the rev range did the restrictor choke air flow?

Thanks in advance for any/all answers.

Welcome to the madness.
1) One for each intake

2) Above the throttle butterfly

3) You'd need to contact GDRE on this. As far as I know there hasn't been any dyno data published for us to see....hummm

UPDATE:
I was just informed that GDRE or someone has done a "SHAPED RESTRICTOR" for the GEN4 Kawasaki. If anyone has a dyno sheet for this I'd like to see it....otherwise it doesn't exist to me.

I find it odd that the other popular engine builder has stayed out of all this restrictor junk, could it be because he wants to keep his sanity?

[Jnovak]

Honda have offered their 2015-spec CRB1000RR w/race ECU as a crate motor package, and there may be others. The Honda engines are pricey (~$7000?), but if you could get the assembled FB guys to agree to it, it could certainly work.

Good luck with that, tho...

HPD is seriously looking into it. It is my understanding that the deal is not ready yet.
This would be fabulous IMO.

[ghickman]

When engine and chassis manufacturers are excluded from a rules discussion, you frequently get bad rules. As people who make the products you race, you assume that we don't have our customers interests in mind. We don't have a business without happy customers.

Probably the best rewrite of a rules package was the 1986 FF rules rewrite. That was followed a few years later by a FV rewrite, again all the stake holders, including the builders were involved. Those rules packages are mostly still in effect. In the FF rules rewrite, the stake holders and the CRB all met in Denver to thrash out the rules.

The guys in the business have the best grasp on what can and can not be done. This current FB rewrite is a fine example of what happens when the stake holders are not involved. Now the customers are probably best to say what they want to see done. And I don't see that either is being listened to.

The reason the previous committee did not arrive at a restrictor rule was because it was not possible to get a single size that would fit all engines. We also found that a single rev limit was not really possible given the differences in the engines we were trying to control. What you have now is some one or group making a decision without any evidence it will work and at a minimum. every FB participant will have to get their engines to a dyno to get them running right. Maybe if some of the engine and chassis builders would have been consulted this fiasco would not have happened.

I assume you as a manufacture would disqualify yourself?

Any new committee needs to represent all the stake holders. And that includes the guys who make the class possible as well as the guys who run in the class.

I apologize for the rant and I did not intend to be offensive. I have been to this dance many times before and nothing good is likely to happen.

Steve
I would be honored to have you on the committee, you've likely forgotten more about formula car construction than I will ever know. I didn't intend to leave out manufacturers, I sometimes miss that since I'm both.

And I agree pretty much with everything you stated.

[Jnovak]

Delete duplicate

[Jnovak]

Stan

Everyone needs to back off and let the folks in the class get this done, but do it right.

NEW ADHOC COMMITTEE:
As car owner and drivers we may have to re-form the group. This time only car owners and drivers allowed.

Gary, you need to apply to the CRB to create an ad hoc committee. I suggest that you contact someone you know on the CRB.

I think you need to include an engine guy and a car builder like Steve.

btw: The vast majority of the members of the FB ad hoc were owners, drivers, or builders. Even though I was not an owner at that time I had built 9 FB conversions for VD chassis and had extensively developed and changed the Piper that my son Brian won the 2011 Runoffs at RA.

I am not applying for the job.

[ghickman]

Gary, you need to apply to the CRB to create an ad hoc committee. I suggest that you contact someone you know on the CRB.

I think you need to include an engine guy and a car builder like Steve.

btw: The vast majority of the members of the FB ad hoc were owners, drivers, or builders. Even though I was not an owner at that time I had built 9 FB conversions for VD chassis and had extensively developed and changed the Piper that my son Brian won the 2011 Runoffs at RA.

I am not applying for the job.

10-4 Jay

I still think you are awesome though.

[JerryH]

1. Gary, We have dyno sheets that show all the engines unrestricted...on the same graph. So we can use them to pick an rpm for a rev limiter. No need to reinvent the wheel. I sent them to you....and others. All the ad hoc members have them.

2. Steve, those dyno results do show the hp to be different at the same rpm. BUT, if we pick the right rpm they are much closer. 12500 to 12800 has no effect on the gsxr. The kaw has about a 5 hp advantage.....but it needs that.... to compensate for having less at 10000. The Honda is a few down....but has an advantage at 10000. With some velocity stack length changes they will all be closer yet.

3. That rpm limit gives us about the same result as 42s on the kaw and none on the gsxr.....but rev limiters have less of a negative connotation....and they are more easily installed.

4. As far as what rpm restrictors start cutting the engines off.....until you get very small, they don't significantly change the rpm the engine needs to turn to make max hp. At least not on these engines.

5. I agree with all the nasty things said about the 37.5s.

6. IF 37.5 dyno results are posted, they must be for both engines.....otherwise there is no point.

7. IF the rev limit manufacture can supply a sealed unit that makes it obvious (or shuts off) when someone tries to break in to reprogram it....then I would support rev limiters.

8. HOWEVER....THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE BY MID SEASON. None of the gsxr guys want to run another full year at the current disadvantage. Any starting date.....jan 1, mar 1, or june 1 has the same effect. People are racing in jan and feb....so it makes no difference as long as 2 months notice is given. No engine work is needed. We have the dyno data (see number 1) ....so it can easily be done by June 1.

9. Bottom line......either rev limiters at 12800.....or 42 restrictors on the kaw....by June 1.....is a compromise the gsxr guys that I know seem to be willing to do. The kaw still has an advantage....just not as big.....so hopefully they can get on board. (FYI...the gsxr guys recently requested 41s on kaw....but after talking to kaw guys agreed to move it up to 42s.)

Jerry

[bill gillespie]

Disclaimer : I am not currently an owner, builder, or driver, BUT:

I completely destroyed my mega dollar short stroke Cosworth FA engine by hitting the rev limiter one too many times.....I was using a Motec M800 with a sophisticated limiting program, but it still destroyed the engine in short order.

It is critical that the rev limiter be coded by the best engine builders you can find, because a racer is going to use the limiter as a shift point....ask me how I know this...

You need a really sophisticated system of spark and fuel management to get a soft limit that will not dynamically retune the engine, resulting in main bearing failure, followed by rod bearing failure, followed by all the other parts swapping position.

I'm sure it can be done, but might be a bit more costly than first glance.

Best to all, Merry Xmas,
Bill

[ghickman]

Disclaimer :
resulting in main bearing failure, followed by rod bearing failure, followed by all the other parts swapping position.

Best to all, Merry Xmas,
Bill

Bill
I've never heard this put this way before....well done. I'm currently LMAO very well done.

Now buy my car and get back on the track

Note to self...rev limiter not intended as shift point. That will be on my check list as I saddle up.

Those of you that saw the replay of the Daytona Runoffs probably know I had to lift coming down the front straight during the race...I was hammering the rev limiter and trust me soft aint so soft at 13,200.

[Jnovak]

Disclaimer : I am not currently an owner, builder, or driver, BUT:

I completely destroyed my mega dollar short stroke Cosworth FA engine by hitting the rev limiter one too many times.....I was using a Motec M800 with a sophisticated limiting program, but it still destroyed the engine in short order.

It is critical that the rev limiter be coded by the best engine builders you can find, because a racer is going to use the limiter as a shift point....ask me how I know this...

You need a really sophisticated system of spark and fuel management to get a soft limit that will not dynamically retune the engine, resulting in main bearing failure, followed by rod bearing failure, followed by all the other parts swapping position.

I'm sure it can be done, but might be a bit more costly than first glance.

Best to all, Merry Xmas,
Bill

You really need a "soft" limiter.

Of,course a max rev warning light is not or intended to be a rev limiter. That will need to be done in the ECU

[S Lathrop]

As far as I know there is a working sample of the rev limit / tattletale. Don Armenoff is the guy who knows the details.

Maybe we should take a good look at what his people came up with.

It still require that each competitor have a separate system control the rpm on his own engine. The device that Don has only tells if the limit has been exceeded for a given period of time. It will not interfere with the operation of the engine.

George raised caution about having these engines run against a rev limiter because of the stress involved can easily kill an engine.

Unlike inlet restrictors, limiting engine rpm should do a lot to extend engine life. Everybody's engine will run the same as it does now. And it may make other engines like the Honda a competitive option.

[bill gillespie]

OK Gary, put a built 'Busa in it with 10's And 12's front and rear, and we'll talk...lol !

[Stan Clayton]

Disclaimer : I am not currently an owner, builder, or driver, BUT:

I completely destroyed my mega dollar short stroke Cosworth FA engine by hitting the rev limiter one too many times.....I was using a Motec M800 with a sophisticated limiting program, but it still destroyed the engine in short order.

It is critical that the rev limiter be coded by the best engine builders you can find, because a racer is going to use the limiter as a shift point....ask me how I know this...

You need a really sophisticated system of spark and fuel management to get a soft limit that will not dynamically retune the engine, resulting in main bearing failure, followed by rod bearing failure, followed by all the other parts swapping position.

I'm sure it can be done, but might be a bit more costly than first glance.

Best to all, Merry Xmas,
Bill

Bill, you need to understand that what is being discussed above is NOT a rev limiter...it is an RPM "tell-tail" that merely reports over-revs. You can still over-rev the engine (with all the negative consequences that go along with that), but it will be up the the post-race impound folks to walk around and inspect all competitors to ensure their compliance.

You want a proper rev-limiter? Just use line B.1. of the P2 engine rules:

[ghickman]

As far as I know there is a working sample of the rev limit / tattletale. Don Armenoff is the guy who knows the details.

Maybe we should take a good look at what his people came up with.

It still require that each competitor have a separate system control the rpm on his own engine. The device that Don has only tells if the limit has been exceeded for a given period of time. It will not interfere with the operation of the engine.

George raised caution about having these engines run against a rev limiter because of the stress involved can easily kill an engine.

Unlike inlet restrictors, limiting engine rpm should do a lot to extend engine life. Everybody's engine will run the same as it does now. And it may make other engines like the Honda a competitive option.

I'm open to it. Don's talked to me about it and it seems good to me. I guess the Indy Lites guys were using them at some point.

I think Don said he was going to test it out in a few weeks at one of the Florida races.

[ghickman]

OK Gary, put a built 'Busa in it with 10's And 12's front and rear, and we'll talk...lol !

That's my Pikes Peak car Bill....you can have it after that though.

[bill gillespie]

Bill, you need to understand that what is being discussed above is NOT a rev limiter...it is an RPM "tell-tail" that merely reports over-revs. You can still over-rev the engine (with all the negative consequences that go along with that), but it will be up the the post-race impound folks to walk around and inspect all competitors to ensure their compliance.

You want a proper rev-limiter? Just use line B.1. of the P2 engine rules:

Sorry Stan...I actually thought both approaches were being discussed......I'm out.

[Mike B]

(FYI...the gsxr guys recently requested 41s on kaw....but after talking to kaw guys agreed to move it up to 42s.)

Jerry

I'm a GSXR guy and I don't recall making that request. What GSXR guys are you talking about? Did you mean just the JDR GSXR guys?

[Jnovak]

Bill, you need to understand that what is being discussed above is NOT a rev limiter...it is an RPM "tell-tail" that merely reports over-revs. You can still over-rev the engine (with all the negative consequences that go along with that), but it will be up the the post-race impound folks to walk around and inspect all competitors to ensure their compliance.

You want a proper rev-limiter? Just use line B.1. of the P2 engine rules:

Just an interesting point to make. I am sure that many of you know that a car that I designed and built won the Runoffs at Daytona in F500. Now this car is powered by a 600cc GSXR600 MC engine. We have to run with a flat plate restrictor that was 31 mm in diameter. What this does is to restrict the rev range downward about 1000-1500 rpm. We don't need a rev limit because the car goes slower if you rev it higher than about 13,500..

Now let me tell you about the motor. It was an eBay motor that cost $1650 and has NEVER BEEN APART OR ON THE DYNO. It has been in the car for 2 seasons. Now we did learn to programs the ecu but we used fuel pressure as a quick adjustment tool. We have a wide band Lambda sensor on the car and we study the data. The ONLY part on the engine that is different is the oil pan. Never any covers off the motor, not even a valve adjustment or anything else. Oh enough crying and whining about our pitiful restricted motor.

Again 2 complete seasons on the motor and a win at Daytona. BTW the car went an official 158.988 mph in the speed traps at Daytona. Oh let's call it 159 mph, and NEVER ON THE DYNO.

[Jnovak]

I'm a GSXR guy and I don't recall making that request. What GSXR guys are you talking about? Did you mean just the JDR GSXR guys?

Yes and a few others.

[ghickman]

If I may make a suggestion :

If you implement anything, start off with a rev limiter only. Least expensive, easiest to install, and probably the easiest to inspect. Run them for a couple years to see what actual effect it has on participation, then revisit if necessary.

Yep this is exactly the way I see it.

[Northwind]

[QUOTE=Jnovak;493971]Just an interesting point to make. I am sure that many of you know that a car that I designed and built won the Runoffs at Daytona in F500. Now this car is powered by a 600cc GSXR600 MC engine. We have to run with a flat plate restrictor that was 31 mm in diameter. What this does is to restrict the rev range downward about 1000-1500 rpm. We don't need a rev limit because the car goes slower if you rev it higher than about 13,500..


What I find interesting is that we don't hear about the F-600 guys complaining about how their engines are running with a flat plate restrictor. Why is that? Is the shaped restrictor really worth chasing. Since no one has posted a cost for these devices I will take a guess at about $125 a hole for the shaped restrictor versus $15 for a flat plate restrictor.

I really would like to see all the dyno data that people claim to have and costs for components to be able to make an informed decision on how best to move forward with this issue. What this class needs is a rule that brings the Greatest Good to the Greatest Number of competitors. If we look at the F 1000 drivers as a group, we are not arrive and drive competitors. All the drivers I have met are very intelligent race engineers also. These people are probably capable of making an informed decision with presented facts. To have a few people making decisions on what this class should be doing could be considered arrogant. Sure this thread gets ugly at times but there is some information and ideas being brought forth. Let's expose the factual information, generate some proposals, and move this along with a survey to expose the Greatest Good. Like many people have said this needs to be handled and done right.

[JerryH]

I'm a GSXR guy and I don't recall making that request. What GSXR guys are you talking about? Did you mean just the JDR GSXR guys?

I believe there were 15 or so letters sent to the crb with that request just prior to the 37.5 restrictor announcement.

Jerry

[Stan Clayton]

I'm a GSXR guy and I don't recall making that request. What GSXR guys are you talking about? Did you mean just the JDR GSXR guys?

I believe there were 15 or so letters sent to the crb with that request just prior to the 37.5 restrictor announcement.

Jerry

Open the January Prelim minutes of the CRB and scroll down until you get to "Taken Care Of". All the letters are referenced there.

[ghickman]

Open the January Prelim minutes of the CRB and scroll down until you get to "Taken Care Of". All the letters are referenced there.

Stan
Unless I'm missing something the names listed have a referenced number tied to them. It doesn't go into detail what there request or complaint was. So really this doesn't tell us anything.

[ghickman]

[QUOTE=Northwind;494013]

Just an interesting point to make. I am sure that many of you know that a car that I designed and built won the Runoffs at Daytona in F500. Now this car is powered by a 600cc GSXR600 MC engine. We have to run with a flat plate restrictor that was 31 mm in diameter. What this does is to restrict the rev range downward about 1000-1500 rpm. We don't need a rev limit because the car goes slower if you rev it higher than about 13,500..


What I find interesting is that we don't hear about the F-600 guys complaining about how their engines are running with a flat plate restrictor. Why is that? Is the shaped restrictor really worth chasing. Since no one has posted a cost for these devices I will take a guess at about $125 a hole for the shaped restrictor versus $15 for a flat plate restrictor.

I really would like to see all the dyno data that people claim to have and costs for components to be able to make an informed decision on how best to move forward with this issue. What this class needs is a rule that brings the Greatest Good to the Greatest Number of competitors. If we look at the F 1000 drivers as a group, we are not arrive and drive competitors. All the drivers I have met are very intelligent race engineers also. These people are probably capable of making an informed decision with presented facts. To have a few people making decisions on what this class should be doing could be considered arrogant. Sure this thread gets ugly at times but there is some information and ideas being brought forth. Let's expose the factual information, generate some proposals, and move this along with a survey to expose the Greatest Good. Like many people have said this needs to be handled and done right.

I agree with everything Dan says

But to add to this:
Somehow keeping dyno data for the Kawasaki with a 37.5mm shaped restrictor from our view (because I was told it was data that belonged to a P2 competitor that paid for it) seems very odd and seemingly clandestine...don't want us to view it.

Unless this data is published for all of us to view and make an informed decision to me the data doesn't exist.

[JerryH]

Northwind is correct. we need to post the dyno data here. the ad hoc committee data has been circulated around quite a bit.....but no FB competitor I know of has seen the p2 restrictor data....from either engine. George could post them, now that he has the kaw results. We must confirm that the cam timing is still stock on the p2 dyno runs....because p2 rules allow that to be changed....our rules do not.

If anyone hasn't seen the unrestricted data graph of both engines (from Georges work for the ad hoc committee), he could post that too.

I think scca should keep an email data base of all drivers....and directly seek the opinion of every driver in any given class to make these kind of decisions. They should also give them the data needed to make an informed decision. There are way to many classes for the crb to deal with to do things the way we do them now. I can't imagine being in their shoes....even with the various advisory committees filtering the letters that come in. You can't have a rep from each class on the committees....to many classes...and even then it would only be one opinion.

No decision will make everyone happy.....but the goal should be to keep the majority happy....without giving anyone an unfair advantage. That is not happening.

Jerry

[Stan Clayton]

Stan
Unless I'm missing something the names listed have a referenced number tied to them. It doesn't go into detail what there request or complaint was. So really this doesn't tell us anything.

It answers Mike B's question, which was my intent.

[JerryH]

The rev limiter that Gary Hickman was talking about earlier can be a soft cut..... by retarding the ignition timing..... rather than cutting spark to alternating cylinders, which is the other alternative.

Retarding timing 10 degrees or so should not hurt the engine....but the engine will stop pulling.

Jerry