Mass-produced engines only

[Mike B]

So that it doesn't get buried in the SIR discussion thread (which is now a discussion of limiting engine years), I'm starting this one so we can discuss it separately and put it to bed.

I think this one is easy so I'll take a crack at it.

Where "x" = a given volume of imports or sales, based on what Jon Jeffords digs up. Maybe Hasty Horn has some input.

The only engines permitted must come from a motorcycle model that is street certified in the United States and available through US retail dealers. That model must have achieved a minimum sales (or import) volume of x for the specific year engine used.

As I interpret this, buying an engine from a Canadian source would be permitted because it's probable that the motorcycle in question, while sold in Canada, is street certified and available in the US.
I think it's important that the sales or import volume is for the specific model year to prevent an insider from procuring a 2010 prototype (could happen... ).

Commence to criticizin'.

[RobLav]

I'm fine with that Mike. How about 500?

[Mike B]

I want some empirical data before committing to a number. I don't know if 500 or 5000 is reasonable.

[Jon Jeffords]

I've left a message with our Competitive Evaluation guru to see if he has sales figures for specific models of the big four going back ten years.

AMA Superstock requirement is 400 units. Reference page 30:
http://www.amaproracing.com/prorace/...07%20Final.pdf

[Jon Jeffords]

Still waiting for some of my phone calls to be returned. From what I've learned over the past week, here are some observations relative to volumes, cost, and power output:

1. Although it is not probable, it does seem legal for a 990cc MotoGP engine to be used in FB, per my interpretation of the current FB rules. Reported power is in the range of 240-250 BHP. If you've ever seen some of the race cars brought to Road America by doctors and lawyers from Chicago, you would agree this loophole should be closed!

2. Here are some pertenant specs on the five bikes that were approved for the 2007 1000cc Superstock class:

- Honda CBR1000RR / 178 BHP / $11,499
- Kawasaki ZX10R / ??? BHP / $11,249
- Suzuki GSX-R1000 / 185 BHP / $11,399
- Yamaha YZF-R1 / 180 BHP / $11,599
- MV Agusta F41000R / 174 BHP / $22,995

3. The Ducati Desmosedici RR reportedly achieved the 400 unit sales mark in the US. It puts out 200 BHP. Cost: $65,000. Note: it was NOT approved for 2007 AMA Superstock racing. My guess is it was not approved based on the following AMA rule:

"Compliance with homologation requirements will not guarantee AMA Pro Racing approval. Homologation may be withheld or withdrawn for any reason AMA Pro Racing deems in the best interest of competition."

[RussMcB]

Good info. Thanks for doing the leg work.

[Jon Jeffords]

Some updates:

- Motorcycle manufacturers do not reveal sales/import volumes for specific models.

- I spoke with an AMA Pro Racing representative this week, who indicated that a manufacturer (or manufacturer's agent) must submit paperwork directly to the AMA stating they will meet the 400 unit import requirement.

- For 2008, the AMA import requirement will be increased significantly, to something around 2000 units.

- In the event an exotic expensive "hyperbike" is produced, the AMA will use this rule to keep it out of their classes: "Compliance with homologation requirements will not guarantee AMA Pro Racing approval. Homologation may be withheld or withdrawn for any reason AMA Pro Racing deems in the best interest of competition."

Based on the above, I suggest FB engines be limited to those taken from Honda, Suzuki, Kawasaki, or Yamaha vehicles that are certified to be street legal in the US. Unless we require the engine manufacturers to submit paperwork to SCCA, we can't really enforce import volumes.

Side Note: looking through the Formula1000.com registry, I noticed everyone listed on the spreadsheet are using Japanese engines from the above "big four." There are, however, three engines listed that are illegal:

Suzuki GT-750 (two stroke)
Blackbird (1137 cc)
Hayabusa (1340 cc)

[Nicholas Belling]

1) Follow AMA pro racing rules on engine compliance. ama minimum import requirements.

2) outlaw any motors that ama specificially guidelines as illegal.

3) impose "Compliance with homologation requirements will not guarantee SCCA FB Class approval. Homologation may be withheld or withdrawn for any reason SCCA deems in the best interest of competition." But to clearly state that prior to having non compliance on a new motor that it must be stated lets say before Jan 1 of each calendar year.. that way competitors no wether they can go out and get and fit a new motor or not for the new year..

4) in Regards to Traction Control.. I saw if its in the ECU, and since ama allows is then leave it. its fair advantage to anyone who deems to want to then run a legal motor setup.. to hard to police people having TC disabled.. Lets just say its to easy to make honest cheaters out of competitors.. That will do anything for an edge.

5) I wouldnt impose a manufacturer predetermined selection.. leave it open book to all manufacturers that meet AMA rules, and scca approval if semi exotic and meets unit production run. The thought of restricting engine selection on such an open class I think would hurt the class in the long run.

6) Definitely in my opinion do not enforce an SIR.. that would cause IMO way to much headaches.. can you imagine teams then spending huge money on dyno time and testing to get there motors tuned just right.. while individuals less well funded are trying there best to run with teh fast guys but clearly are at a disadvantage..

[RussMcB]

6) Definitely in my opinion do not enforce an SIR.. that would cause IMO way to much headaches.. can you imagine teams then spending huge money on dyno time and testing to get there motors tuned just right.. while individuals less well funded are trying there best to run with teh fast guys but clearly are at a disadvantage..

I agree that the SIR isn't good for F1000 right now due to stock ECU incompatibilities, but I don't follow your reasoning regarding the gap between less funded individuals and teams with lots of money to spend.. If the SIR capped HP at 180, and I'm a low buck racer with an engine that produces 180, I would be thrilled if my competitors spent huge money to get a small advantage. I'd rather have that than they be able to easily buy a 185 or 190 hp engine when they become available. Then I WOULD be clearly at a much larger disadvantage if I am not able to afford to do the same.

[Wren]

it will take expensive dyno time to even get the engine to run again once the SIR is on there and then it will take a lot of time to be get the maximum out of it(could likely be some trashed engines in there as well).

SIR is bad for the class.

[Stan Clayton]

While I agree that permitting actual MotoGP engines in FB is contrary to the spirit of the class, and that the class rules in that regard could use some cleaning up, I do not support imposing draconian engine eligibility criteria. For one thing, AMA fulfills a role for the bike manufacturers similar to the role SCCA does for sports cars ... their club racing arm in the USA. But as has been pointed out here, the bike manufacturers want nothing to do with us and won't even return our emails or calls about crate engines. In a practical sense, how then can we expect them to comply with demands that they provide us documentation certifying sales figures?

Second, according to Jon's post above, there are just 5 models eligible for 2007 competition. What about lower spec engines from the same manufacturers? Or the V-twins like the Yamaha TL-1000, Honda RC-51 and Ducatti 998? It is not all all clear that these would be permitted under such a system. And who does the documenting. Let's not get in such a rush to pretend FB is a Prod class...

OTOH, I do support the new engines with TC and agree that a rules clarification is needed to specifically permit them. We want a continous supply of new engines to keep the class fresh and exciting, and not stuck with ever increasingly out-of-date engines, ala some other classes we all know and love.

Stan

[Jon Jeffords]

What I like about the AMA Superstock eligibility requirements is that they go hand-in-hand with the spirit of FB; that being high performance at a reasonable price as the result of high volumes, combined with a open-ended rule that tells manufacturers to leave their high-priced low-volume "class killers" on the showroom floor.

Stan: I failed to mention that the AMA does allow older vehicles going back to 2003 to compete. Due to continuous improvements in engines and chassis, however, nearly all competitors update their bikes on an annual basis.

Traction Control (T.C.): I will step out on a technical limb and state that, due to the hugely transient nature of T.C., the algorithms developed for a 400 pound one-wheel drive motorcycle will be disappointingly inadequate when applied to a 1000 pound two-wheel drive FB.

Regarding SIR's: there is already a well-participated thread for this topic. I respectfully suggest that this thread be limited to the topic of "which engines should be allowed in FB."

I'll leave the discussion of a model year delay to those who have a dog in this fight. Heck, my FF scares the bejeebers out of me; I'd faint behind the wheel of an FB going through the Kink.

[Jon Jeffords]

While I agree that permitting actual MotoGP engines in FB is contrary to the spirit of the class, and that the class rules in that regard could use some cleaning up, I do not support imposing draconian engine eligibility criteria.

Stan

Stan, would you support an "SCCA Approved FB Engines" list similar to the Formula Atlantic rules (reference Table 1, page GCR-178)?

NEWER ENGINES:
Let's face it: the FB front runners will be using engines that have been launched within the last five years. For engines that are 2003 and newer, the "SCCA Approved FB Engines" list could be taken directly from the AMA Superstock list, with the appropriate model year delay applied if need be. By plagiarizing the annual AMA approved equipment list, we get all the benefits without any of the red tape.

OLDER ENGINES:
Yes, it is possible for someone to run an older lower spec / street legal / high volume engine, however they will be at a serious HP disadvantage. Just to be safe, the "SCCA Approved FB Engine" list could include the likeliest high-volume engines back to say 1990.

[Stan Clayton]

Headed to a family function...back tomorrow. Stan