With all due respect to Jay, I completely agree with Joel. I don’t think your opinion in favor of restrictors is shared by the majority of current class participants.Originally Posted by jchracer
With all due respect to Jay, I completely agree with Joel. I don’t think your opinion in favor of restrictors is shared by the majority of current class participants.
Last edited by Zcurves; 12.05.18 at 10:34 PM.
Thanks for clarification and reminder Stan. It's not what I wanted... Back then, I wanted more open rules... to see where development led. And here we are today approaching FA lap times. But that refuel map verbiage was due to the allowed piggyback units, which altered the the fuel maps. As I remember the discussion (foggy over time!), ECUs themselves were not supposed to get reflashed because it led down the potential path of engine destruction - to prevent going down the DSR engine cost path. In any case, the re-flashing of ECUs I spoke of in 2008 included ignition, which I felt clearly violated the rule at the time. This, of course, would lead to a protest discussion. But that's a can of worms that most of us don't ever want to go down.
Looking back, we somehow made the necessary compromises among our group to get them written. But enforcement by FSRAC/BOD were quite negligent in never asking about interpretation from our original committee. Of course, this is similar to our Supreme Court interpreting our Constitution via Federalist dead people, but not taking into account the Anti-Federalists points, who had just as much input into the compromises in our Constitution. Last point in my unintended sermon...the results of Gary's protest are phenomenally corrupt.
member advisory/throttle bodies
The member advisory in Sept Fastrack interprets stock to mean "all engine part numbers' have to match the year and make of the engine.
Surprise.......THE THROTTLE BODIES DO HAVE AN ENGINE PART NUMBER!
So.....even according to the Sept member advisory, throttle bodies DO HAVE TO MATCH THE YEAR AND MAKE OF THE ENGINE.
So does any resonable reading of GCR 9.1.1.G.4.C.
Rule creep like this can really hurt the class.
EVERYONE WHO THINKS THROTTLE BODIES and ECUs SHOULD MATCH THE YEAR AND MAKE OF THE ENGINE SHOULD WRITE A LETTER TO THE CRB........ASAP. I just sent mine.
For those of you who are not familiar with the process:
SCCCA.com........programs........road racing........rules........on that page there is a link to send the crb a letter. It is a form letter.
Jerry Hodges
Letter written.
Ciao,
Joel
Piper DF-5 F1000
I'll be writing a letter too.
Firman F1000
Apparently member advisories don't really mean squat, once the rubber meets the road.
Throttle bodies don't have "Engine Part Numbers", they have part numbers. Many might think I'm just being difficult or picking nits, but my intentis to be proactive, not reactive. Another kludged-up rule isn't going to help. ECU's matching the year and make but not the model? If the ECU matches the year, make and model of the engine used, is the desire to have stock programming? If not, how about stock internal circuitry? How is this going to be enforced?
i suggest that you blame the CRB and not the totally volunteer FB ad hoc committee which was given the task of slowing down the speed of the then current FB cars. The ad hoc decided that less power was much better than more weight. We all thought that less power was the better solution to slowing the growing lap speed of the FB cars. The 2 choices were less power or more weight. The added weight at that time would have been 100 lbs. Pick one.
On top of that the ad hoc only made the recommendation and the CRB made the actual decision. Perhaps you will prefer the next solution that is being discussed. Of course i am no longer involved in the process but i still hear from people.
Btw the f500 class has implemeted flat plate intake restrictors on every 600cc motorcycle engine used in the class with ZERO ENGINE RELIABILITY ISSUES ON THE MC ENGINES.
Last edited by Jnovak; 12.05.18 at 9:14 PM.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
Skinny people will hate me but I would have gone with the extra weight. Might have even made it 200 pounds. Easiest fix by far and solves more than one issue. If we had probably wouldn't have to be writing another batch of letters today.
Firman F1000
How are flat plate restrictors going to work on the 2017 Suzuki, when one set of injectors are in the air box? Intake design has changed since 2013 and I doubt George would be as willing to spend countless hours on his dyno again. Most teams would rather spend their limited racing budget on entry fees during the season than dyno time to tune for restrictors over the winter. If the BOD feels the need to revisit the subject, then we look at solutions then. No one is in favor of finding a solution that doesn’t currently have a problem.
actually i agree. The flat plate restrictors, on the 600cc motors, actually go between the throttle body and the head and fuel is adjusted with a fuel pressure regulator and the ecu maps do not have to be changed. The 600s have gone from no restrictors at 120 hp and from 32mm to 29 mm (current) and 106-108 hp using totally stock ecus which can be remapped if you want to.
I am not saying anything about FB. I am simply giving an example on a similar engine that works
After we won the Runoffs in 2011 with the Piper FB. We tried keeping up for 2 years but the new engines were simply too much for us and to upgrade was simply too expensive for us. Still love the class though.
Btw i am not advocating any position just stating some facts that i am very confident in.
Go FB!
Last edited by Jnovak; 12.05.18 at 10:42 PM.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
part numbers
When you go to a dealer to order parts, and they pull up the engine assembly on the computer, all the parts are listed by part number......including the throttle body. They are engine part numbers because they appear on the engine assembly parts list.
ECU programming must remain stock except for mixture flashing. This is easily checked through the diagnostic port using both factory and woolich devices.
QUOTE=Daryl DeArman;573031]Apparently member advisories don't really mean squat, once the rubber meets the road.
Throttle bodies don't have "Engine Part Numbers", they have part numbers. Many might think I'm just being difficult or picking nits, but my intent
Actually, they don't. They pull up the make, year and model and a whole list of assemblies come up. The "frame" has its own assembly, The front wheel its own. The throttle body its own. None of them under a larger "engine" heading.
It's entirely possible that the OEM parts numbering sequence and diagrams provided may not follow the same logic from Suzuki to Kawasaki, to Yamaha, to Honda. I think it's best to just refer to them as OEM part numbers to avoid any future problems. . . or bury your heels and deal with it if/when it becomes an issue. Again, I think it's best to learn from previous mistakes.
The GCR clearly states that fuel and ignition maps may be changed.
As to checking the ECU, I'm quite confident there are some folks out there, knowing the protocol used to check for modification, can write HEX code that will redirect that inquiry to produce the desired result, undetected.
Just bypass all the enforcement headaches, the expensive propositions trying to make a newer engine run and just open up the ECU rules. If a particular make/model proves too fast there are already tools in place to address that.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote