Yamaha vs. Suzuki vs. Honda vs. Kawasaki vs. ???

[RussMcB]

I'm curious to hear if any of you have opinions about the pros and cons of different engines to be used in an F1000 project.

My main reason for asking: I have a Kawasaki street bike, and therefore would be inclined to use a ZX-10 engine - kind of a brand loyalty thing. However, it seems that I hear mostly about R1's and Gixxers being used in DSR and F1000 projects.

Any inherit disadvantages or advantages to any of them?

[RobLav]

The 2004 and newer ZX-10R will be a good engine. Also, the 2005 and newer GSX-R1000 is too. As simple as it might seem, I bought a 2006 R1 because the price was right and I like my Yamaha piano.

[akilcoyne]

[quote= I like my Yamaha piano.[/quote]
That was funny...

[RussMcB]

I agree! I almost spit on my keyboard.

My daughter has a Civic, and I might get a Honda generator, so that means I should race a ... ?

[Daryl DeArman]

To be different what about an MV? Or a Triumph Triple? The triple is narrower, lighter, generally with more torque than a 4? With the HP wars going on between manufacturers how much of it is just hype?

just a little thinking outside of the box...hey it's not my project or my dollar

[sidney]

I'm leaning toward the new CBR. With the increase in compression, they seem to be back in the mix. The problem I see with that is where do I find a wet sump pan for a 1000RR?

Also, if you look at the torque curves, this seems to deliver some better numbers across the board in stock trim. Not sure what the changes to the exhaust, airbox, etc. do to the equation. Again, I think one issue may be finding supporting hardware for the project. Plenty of stuff out there for R1s and Gixxers.

[RobLav]

I'm glad you guys liked my humor. But there is some seriousness to it. Clearly, Yamaha paid very close attention to detail in building my piano, and I had an 03 R1 bike a couple years ago which was much more refined than my last Kawasaki. Sooo - I like Yamaha.

In converting my RF99 to R1 power, the R1 sprocket height is very close to the left rear upper A-Arm forward leg. But I've got it figured out now in a CAD drawing.

Financially, it makes more sense to convert than to sell and buy new. The narrow track RF99 is a great candidate for conversion. It has triple Penskes, and it can readily take wider wheels and tires while remaining within the max width F1000 dimensions. And at the track, if something happens, it's easier to find parts. You won't have to buy a bunch of spare parts (like A-Arms) - like for a Stohr, Gloria, etc to carry around. And narrow track RF99 / RF00 suspension parts are very available.

My rear box design is made of square and rectangular steel tubing with stressed aluminum skin with 5 double paneled stressed bulkheads. I'll probably start fabricating in a week or so.

[Anonymous Lee]

The only problem with Honda is that they rarely get dropped by their riders, subsequently car kits are hard to come by. Plus their horsepower numbers are low.

Yamaha has better mid range torque but they loose out in the top end horsepower’s

Both Kawi and Suzuki are roughly the same motors regarding power.

Most people use the Suzuki car kit, but a quick search on EBay show’s you that the Kawi motors cost less.

[Daryl DeArman]

A little digging and I found:

http://www.bikez.com/statistics/index.php

MV--174.3 HP @ 12000 rpm
86.3 ft/lbs @ 9000 rpm

R1--172.58HP@ 12500 rpm
78.6 ft//lbs@ 10900 rpm

[glenn cooper]

MV, huh? Man, someone has got an unlimited budget!
Seriously though, there's not enough of those things out there to even hope to come by one, and if ya did, how long are you prepared to wait for a cam cover gasket?
The reason there are so many Suzis and R1's have to do w/ availability/affordability.
Not just of used low mileage engines, but parts as well.
For DSR or F1000, these are the engines to have.
Full disclosure - I just happen to have a modded '05 R1 engine/car kit for sale.
GC

[formulasuper]

I would check availability of dry sump parts for a particular engine before deciding. The Suzuki engine mounts the dry sump pump where the original water pump was and uses an electric water pump. Of course there are some of the DSR guys that swear you don't need a dry sump system. I'm still not convinced on that idea, however it would save some weight.

[ajs]

Just curious, would a Ducati 996 motor work? They do sound pretty cool.

[R. Pare]

Of course there are some of the DSR guys that swear you don't need a dry sump system. I'm still not convinced on that idea, however it would save some weight.

The word back to us from a prominant MC DSR engine builder is that the stock sump engines are more reliable than those that are dry-sumped. Apparently the issue is keeping the gearbox and clutch properly oiled.

We had hoped that the rules would have mandated a minimum crankshaft height to negate any CG gains from dry-sumping - it would save everyone a lot of money.

[RobLav]

Richard,

My 2006 R1 engine leans farther forward than previous versions, resulting in the forward portion of the wet sump pan height to be about 3/4". I don't think you'd lower the CG much with a dry sump system.

[sidney]

Just curious, would a Ducati 996 motor work? They do sound pretty cool.

Best sound but you give up about 25hp to the Ricers.

[RussMcB]

The word back to us from a prominant MC DSR engine builder is that the stock sump engines are more reliable than those that are dry-sumped. Apparently the issue is keeping the gearbox and clutch properly oiled.

I'll bet there are a lot of people like me that can't quite comprehend how a bike wet sump system can keep oil pressure in high G situations when the engine is fixed "level" in a car chassis. It's even a further stretch (for my mind) to hear that the wet sump out performs the dry sump.

Personally, I think that's great news and I hope it's true. Richard (and/or anyone), help me understand how the wet sump can remain reliable. Is it simply well designed windage/scraper trays that keep the pick up immersed? Higher oil levels?

[Lee Stohr]

I would not say wet sump systems work better than dry sump on a bike, but wet sumps have proven that they work. A wet sump Yamaha has won the DSR National Championship for the last 4 years in a row. Loynings does the pan baffles. You do run a higher oil level. Pressure can drop in corners, but only to about 30 psi on Yamaha (left turns only). The Suzuki wet sump by Loynings was even better in corners. Dry sump adds cost which I thought was not the purpose of F1000. There is a rumor that dry sump may not allow the clutch and gearsbox to be oiled properly, I don't have experience on that. Dry sump pumps on bike motors generally only have one scavenge pickup, and an electric water pump is needed. The whole system gets complex, heavy and expensive. Accusumps also work well on bike motors.
I was a proponent of banning dry sump from F1000 to keep cost down, but I lost that fight.
Since a dry sump system, tank and electric water pump can cost more than an entire used bike engine, I don't really understand the logic of allowing it.

[Daryl DeArman]

Best sound but you give up about 25hp to the Ricers.

Everyone knows a Trumpet sounds better than a Duck...

The torque of the Duc is good...I'd forsee a problem with the rpms being too low and therefore for a given speed you are having to run taller gearing...negating that torque advantage.

Same with the Trumpets...they make more HP than a twin and more torque than the 4's. But the revs are 2K lower...

Because of the narrower powerband on the Japaneese 4's I'd guess their transmissions are also closer ratio.

[sidney]

I'd love to run a Duck, but they have a few things against them as listed above, plus, from a reliability standpoint, they are more art than function. Don't get me wrong, I love my Monster, but I'm not sure I would want all the headaches in the race car I have with the bike. The electrcial is a big nightmare.

Earlier in the post, someone mentioned Honda being down on power, but I thought the '06 got them back to par with Yamaha and Suzuki (170)?

Do I understand it correctly that most of the DSRs are now running the "stock" wet sump, or is there a special pan that has been developed specifically for cars? Thanks in advance for the insight.

Ian

[RussMcB]

I would not say wet sump systems work better than dry sump on a bike, but wet sumps have proven that they work. A wet sump Yamaha has won the DSR National Championship for the last 4 years in a row. Loynings does the pan baffles. You do run a higher oil level. Pressure can drop in corners, but only to about 30 psi on Yamaha (left turns only). The Suzuki wet sump by Loynings was even better in corners. Dry sump adds cost which I thought was not the purpose of F1000. There is a rumor that dry sump may not allow the clutch and gearsbox to be oiled properly, I don't have experience on that. Dry sump pumps on bike motors generally only have one scavenge pickup, and an electric water pump is needed. The whole system gets complex, heavy and expensive. Accusumps also work well on bike motors.
I was a proponent of banning dry sump from F1000 to keep cost down, but I lost that fight.
Since a dry sump system, tank and electric water pump can cost more than an entire used bike engine, I don't really understand the logic of allowing it.

Thanks, Lee. Very interesting. I'm on board with the low cost part!

You mentioned Loynings. Do you think he (and other builders) do anything special to help the wet sump systems other than the pan baffle? My reason for asking: I'd like to run a stock, junk yard motor with a pan baffle and perhaps an Accusump. It'd be great if that would be reliable without special (expensive) mods.

[R. Pare]

Russ:

The engine builder I obliquely referred to is the one Lee uses, so I guess he must be right!

My take is that when you dry sump it, the oil cannot get splashed to where it needs to go - apparently the stock oil passages do not really spray the critical areas correctly and splash lubrication is part of the manufacturers lubrication equation. Most likely that could be addressed with fabrication of the necessary spray bars, etc, as is done on dry sumped transaxles.

And Lee is right, the costs of the dry sump system in total is horrendous reletive to the performance/reliability payback. I can't understand why is is going to be allowed in F1000 either, if the stock system will do the job correctly with just some simple baffling added in the sump.

[HazelNut]

I don't really understand the logic of allowing it.

lee i think your statement might apply to the whole f1000 concept..........

this class will get just as expensive if not more expensive than running an FC, the older converted cars aren't RF95 are goign to handle as well as the current converted cars (rf99 and newer, i think this is proved in FC as the older cars simply aren't competative with the newer ones) and most won't be as good as a solid FC or an FA. The designed manufactured cars like the gloria, stohr, ect. will be solid cars that will probably be significant;y better than 90% of the converted cars basically obsoleting them but depending on the finalized specs mos tof these car really won;t be any quicker than an FC.


I love the Stohr DSR/CSR cars, great looking, very cool design features, they sound great and are fast as hell. Unfortunatly there just aren;t that many of them running around. Maybe other regions have better number but i don't think any are putting toghther 25 car fields.

My big question is what is the point of f1000? There are plenty of other options out there that require NO masisve fabiricating or re-engineering that will give basically the same bang for the buck. Case in point rob lav's RF99 conversion. I bet by the time he's done he could have bought a brand spankin new rf07 witha zetec that will run 10-15k mile s before a rebiuld for the money he'll have into the 99 conversion, and i bet it eventually won't be as fast. In a straight line he'll go a few mph quicker but i'd highly doubt it will produce lower laptimes.

in the long run all this class is going to do is further dilute the formula car fields with yet another class with 5 entires in it, and we'll all get piled into 1 group anyway so they can make room for more spec miatas...

[RussMcB]

Couple of things:

1) I think an RF95 with bike power can be done for $15,000 - $20,000. True, it won't be the fastest F1000 combo, but I can't think of anything comparable for that level of investment.

2) A bike powered car has to be faster than the same chassis with a Pinto, right? More HP & less weight.

[HazelNut]

Couple of things:

1) I think an RF95 with bike power can be done for $15,000 - $20,000. True, it won't be the fastest F1000 combo, but I can't think of anything comparable for that level of investment.

2) A bike powered car has to be faster than the same chassis with a Pinto, right? More HP & less weight.

how much is a prince conversion on rf95 chassis? You can pickup the donor car for 15k so add it up from there.

as for being faster. Yes in a straight line it will be faster with the additional HP. BUT i really highly doubt that a converted 99 is goign to be anywhere near as stiff as the FC/zetec seeing as making it an f1000 would remove the very large cast magnesium bellhousing/sump tank and replace it with bracketry. I might be wrong but it seems like its taking stiff platform and turning it into a flexi flyer.

[RobLav]

HazleNut, (Brendan?)

My RF99 will not be a flexi flyer. I can guarantee that.

My 06 Yamaha R1 with 250 miles on it cost $1199.00. I need an exhaust and a sump baffle.

I already have a Quaife from another car.

Selling the engine, bell, LD200, and gears will get me at least a very conservative $4K.

Selling my Stack steering wheel display system and replacing it with a standard wheel and a Yamaha R1 dash will put me way ahead.

The total transformation is much better than a financial even wash.

I've had my RF99 listed for sale for $20K. If someone wanted it, they would have bought it already. Frankly, I was hoping someone would want it to run the pro series. But that does not appear to be happening. The Zetec conversion will cost me at least a conservative $6K.

The RF98 and up cars will be better than the older cars.

I am wagering that my fabrication time and technique will create a reasonably competitive car, even against newly designed ones. And I am expecting to perform further development if required.

Basically, it's my car, my time, my desire, and my money. Therefore, I decide. And this is what I choose.

Robert G. Laverty

[RussMcB]

Also, you could argue that an F1000 car that weighs 180 lb. lighter will probably go around a corner faster. That's compared to a Pinto car. A Zetec car has to weigh even more, right?

[carnut169]

My dry-sump system ties the stock pickup to my oil tank. Why that would be inferior to the stock pickup sucking oil from the stock pan is beyond me. The external pump simply pulls oil from the pan back into the tank.
I decided to spend the $$ on a dry sump b/c once I purchased it its mine for a LONG time. I can have the pump rebuilt but with the time on the system doubt I'll ever have to. I have 0 pressure drop in the corners.
I'm not saying you NEED a dry sump system- many believe a good baffle system in your pan and some extra oil will do the trick.

I don't know why anyone would want to make a dry sump illegal- this is a race car! Its $$ I choose to spend when building the car to save $$ (and possibly motors) later. Any advantages in lower cg or less parasitic drag are lost in added weight.

[glenn cooper]

Hey Rob - $1200 for a '06 R1 engine w/ 250 miles on it?
Hell, I'll take 6 of those!
Seriously though, where did ya scarf that killa deal from?
GC

[RobLav]

The engine was from a guy on Ebay. I did a "Buy it Now" on item #

190026799764

and took a pleasant drive in Eastern Long Island to pick it up. His EBay name is:


shmarek
and I recommend the guy (real name is Junius). He buys the wrecked bikes at auction in NY and sells the parts - I told him I would provide some referrals. Tell him I sent you.

[HazelNut]

that is a hell of a deal on a r1 engine. And quite frankly that is a deal on your 99. I'm really suprised it hasn't been snapped up. If i didn;t alreayd have an rf99 i'd take a look at your car for sure.

last winter i was kicking around the idea of parting a rt5 atlantic (engine and ft200) and converting it to MC power. In my conversations with a well known and respected engineer the general consensus was that we'd never be able to make a cradle structure as stiff as the origonal castings, and any attempt would require reworking the entire rearend of the car. Granted if you want to re-engineer the entire rear of the chassis perhaps you'll be able to get it right but it not a small fabrication project by any means. Its definatly not a quick and dirty (or cheap) retrofit. Hell how many years and generation did it take for Van Diemen to produce the current generation cars?

either way i still revert to my previous point that formula classes are already diluted as hell and another option will just dilute things even farther.

Hey on the bright side I guess we'll all come home with a trophy every weekend.

[formulasuper]

that is a hell of a deal on a r1 engine. And quite frankly that is a deal on your 99. I'm really suprised it hasn't been snapped up. If i didn;t alreayd have an rf99 i'd take a look at your car for sure.

last winter i was kicking around the idea of parting a rt5 atlantic (engine and ft200) and converting it to MC power. In my conversations with a well known and respected engineer the general consensus was that we'd never be able to make a cradle structure as stiff as the origonal castings, and any attempt would require reworking the entire rearend of the car. Granted if you want to re-engineer the entire rear of the chassis perhaps you'll be able to get it right but it not a small fabrication project by any means. Its definatly not a quick and dirty (or cheap) retrofit. Hell how many years and generation did it take for Van Diemen to produce the current generation cars?

either way i still revert to my previous point that formula classes are already diluted as hell and another option will just dilute things even farther.

Hey on the bright side I guess we'll all come home with a trophy every weekend.

Buhkwheet, Is that rt5 as in Ralt RT5?

[carnut169]

Hey on the bright side I guess we'll all come home with a trophy every weekend.

not if you build one and show up in the SE. Then, you will go home w/o a trophy.

[RussMcB]

not if you build one and show up in the SE. Then, you will go home w/o a trophy.

ooo, snap. You just got told.

My guess is HazelNut meant RT-4, but the rear structure is pretty much the same in both, and there isn't anything special about it. There aren't really any "castings" that I can think of. The engine and trans are stressed, but the rest is pretty straightforward. I'm pretty familiar with the back end of that car and I don't think it would be too difficult to get similar stiffness. But, I'm not an engineer ...

[glenn cooper]

But how many regions can (will??) admit that they hand out F'ing stenciled ceramic bathroom tiles for trophys?!!!!!!!
Cheers, GC

[carnut169]

I'm with ya Coop. Those things sucked. Alabama Region did a great job w/ plaques @ Barber...

[HazelNut]

not if you build one and show up in the SE. Then, you will go home w/o a trophy.

As for the car that the conversion idea talkign about. i believe it was a ralt rt5 maybe an rt4. Hell it might not even been a ralt! It was resident (and unused) in the engineer i mentioned shop and they were looking to sell it. It was an older atlantic and it had a pretty large cast section in the back of it. As for the exact year make model, not totally sure i though it was an rt5, i could be wrong. Either way i was told it would be difficult to get it back to where it was supposed to be if the origonal running gear was to be replaced with MC power and achain drive.

i picked up a few trophies this season in my FC in the NE and at the only cooper race i was able to make (cleveland) i had a mechanical that took me out early in the race but cole was the only gold cup driver who out-qualified me. So i'd be more than happy to tangle with you lads down south.

As for biulding a car i'd preffer to leave my rf99 un-bastardized.........

[Phil Picard]

[SIZE=3]Will they be fun to drive? Probably[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Will they dilute the mix of the already hurting open wheel climate of the SCCA? Definitely[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Will the price escalate? As the noted engine builders find more power? YUP![/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Why is so much energy being focused on new classes when we really need to stabilize the open wheel community.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Oh I know … It’s a covert plot by all the tin top guys to get rid of open wheel so they get all the track time [/SIZE]

[RussMcB]

[SIZE=3][/SIZE][SIZE=3]Why is so much energy being focused on new classes when we really need to stabilize the open wheel community.[/SIZE]

I think in the case of F1000 there are a significant number of members (and manufacturers?) who want the class, and apparently they are greater in number (or better organized) than the members wanting to stabilize the open wheel community.

[Phil Picard]

[SIZE=3] Hmm… ok… I not challenging you here, perhaps you could explain to me how, I just don’t see it.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] Secondly, I don’t understand that when I talk to people about this they all seem to fall back on engine cost. I could be wrong here but in order to control cost, a significant part to do so is a stable platform. MC engines typically have a short production life as they are designed, they change frequently thus creating a technical moving target. It appears that crashed donor bikes of a particular brand are the flavor here for the guy converting an existing car. As I mentioned, and I’m reasonably sure you’ll agree that as builders find their way in these engines it will get very expensive. Are (or have) the powers of F1000 worked on attracting a MC manufacture to produce a “crate” spec motor? Or is that putting the cart in front of the horse. Is this a case of “build it and they will come?”[/SIZE]

[RussMcB]

[SIZE=3] Hmm… ok… I not challenging you here, perhaps you could explain to me how, I just don’t see it.[/SIZE]

Which part?

I think that the SCCA comp board recognized that there was enough desire for F1000 to justify a class. I don't know the details about that. I'm assuming.

I know that they have a desire to limit the number of classes and have taken some steps towards that. If anyone has strong feelings about the number of open wheel classes, they just need to convince SCCA that the benefit of reducing classes will outweigh the negative parts (like, how it would happen).

[SIZE=3]Secondly, I don’t understand that when I talk to people about this they all seem to fall back on engine cost. I could be wrong here but in order to control cost, a significant part to do so is a stable platform. MC engines typically have a short production life as they are designed, they change frequently thus creating a technical moving target. It appears that crashed donor bikes of a particular brand are the flavor here for the guy converting an existing car. As I mentioned, and I’m reasonably sure you’ll agree that as builders find their way in these engines it will get very expensive. <snip>[/SIZE]

You raise valid points. Just speaking for myself, I hope to be happy with a < $20,000 car (mid-90's Van Dieman and stock engine). I don't expect to be competitive with someone with an investment that is 2-3 times more than mine. I do think it will become an expensive class for front runners, not unlike most every other national class. My preference would have been to indroduce it as a regional class, but they must have heard good arguments for making it a national class.