Should Programable Ignintions Be Banned?

[Mark Watkins]

I would like to see a return to stock ignitions, UNLESS, the kart iginition people could provide a spec $100 ignition.

I was told by a CLUB RACER that he just spent $1200 on a box, modem and software. Isn't that just a little bit excessive.

The large successful classes tend to be pretty economical and pretty tightly constrained by the rulebook. I am hoping SKUSA and the other karting groups write very tight rules concerning 80cc ignitions and engine development.

My rules would be:
stock bore/stroke (this will keep people away from RPM's big bore kits...)
8.5cc of combustion chamber volume(ends piston cracking)
stock ignition(now you can buy a spare motor instead of an ignition box)
open carb 28.6mm or smaller(This opens the door to outrageously expensive carbs like the Walbro and Tillotson...)
spec pipe (it works for Super Box, why not here, and you can pretty effectively control excessively high engine RPM's)
cylinder mods open (this saves us from those STUPID IKF dq's for a scratch on the port)
Burris M15b tires(cheap and hard-time to learn throttle and brake control)
no front brakes

Those worried about jimmee'd ignitions boxes might consider having their region require an ignition box pool or having their region buy boxes to hand out at the races.

Better yet, how about finding an electronics wizard to build a tech device for stock ignitions. Can't be any harder that developing a multi-curve, reprogrammable, no-lift shift unit.

Your in cracked prisons, blown bottom ends and failed head gaskets,

Mark

[Gary Kozuma2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Watkins:
[QB]I would like to see a return to stock ignitions, UNLESS, the kart iginition people could provide a spec $100 ignition.

I was told by a CLUB RACER that he just spent $1200 on a box, modem and software. Isn't that just a little bit excessive.

Hello Mark from beautiful Loma Linda, yep that's a lot of dough but not as much as the aggregate cost of top and bottom end replacements and any related failures.

But the cost of a non-programable spec ignition would be much less. Also, the revs could/would be controlled by the ignition. My understanding is the high revs is what leads to a much higher failure rate.

[John Denman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Watkins:
I would like to see a return to stock ignitions, UNLESS, the kart iginition people could provide a spec $100 ignition.

I was told by a CLUB RACER that he just spent $1200 on a box, modem and software. Isn't that just a little bit excessive.

The large successful classes tend to be pretty economical and pretty tightly constrained by the rulebook. I am hoping SKUSA and the other karting groups write very tight rules concerning 80cc ignitions and engine development.

My rules would be:
stock bore/stroke (this will keep people away from RPM's big bore kits...)
8.5cc of combustion chamber volume(ends piston cracking)
stock ignition(now you can buy a spare motor instead of an ignition box)
open carb 28.6mm or smaller(This opens the door to outrageously expensive carbs like the Walbro and Tillotson...)
spec pipe (it works for Super Box, why not here, and you can pretty effectively control excessively high engine RPM's)
cylinder mods open (this saves us from those STUPID IKF dq's for a scratch on the port)
Burris M15b tires(cheap and hard-time to learn throttle and brake control)
no front brakes

Those worried about jimmee'd ignitions boxes might consider having their region require an ignition box pool or having their region buy boxes to hand out at the races.

Better yet, how about finding an electronics wizard to build a tech device for stock ignitions. Can't be any harder that developing a multi-curve, reprogrammable, no-lift shift unit.

Your in cracked prisons, blown bottom ends and failed head gaskets,

Mark

---

Amen bro. Like usual, you said it all.

One of the things we have found with 5 different OEM boxes is that they do not retard after advance peak. That does not mean there aren't a few that do.

I have built a signal generator that produces a sine wave to emulate 0-20000 RPM for a CR80, and measures output signal timing changes in 18 microsecond increments.

[Ronnie Swyers]

Ok everyone...I confused.
How much gain is there between a stock 99 Honda CR125 box and a PI for the same motor. Enough to make a difference...right. Ok. Now how much difference is there between a PI curve #1 and a new and improved curve? I have never heard any HP #'s from anyone. Why? Is there really that much difference? I ran 1 ignition curve for almost a year. I continued to get faster by tuning the small pieces in the carb and the steel bars around me. I changed curves and didn't see any quicker times from it. And...what's the cost to get one reprogrammed... 25 to 50 bucks, once or twice a year! I spend $4000 a year in tires...what's $50!

My racing days began in showroom stock racing in S.C.C.A. You want to see parts and electronic pieces that appear stock but are not!! Go run showroom stock guy's. Or just find my old 1991 Camaro and start measuring things and comparing it to the one you drove to work everyday.. you'll see. So by banning the PI's and forcing the guy's with $$ to have one made will just increase the cost. Now we are back to the same situation as before, the difference between a stock box and a PI, vs. a PI curve #1 and the new and improved.
This may sound like a strange way of decreasing cost's, but why not open up the tire war. Just like S.C.C.A. Tire companies would sponsor drivers or teams to showcase their tire. The teams or drivers that are not sponsored would have the chance to join that tire companies contingency program getting some amount of $$ for a win in class, regional championship etc. Any of you S.C.C.A. guy's know what I'm talking about. Are there any reasons that this wouldn't work in Karting? Well, I'm sure there will be many reasons, but there are also many good reasons that this could work. Ok, I have to catch my breath now, I'm off the intended subject....

Ronnie Swyers www.RSwyers.com

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: Ronnie Swyers ]

[Bob Chiras]

We tried the stock ignition path and the PI path. Let me share the results and you decide the path of lease expense

We bought 6 years of stock boxes so that we could have the different curves offered by the different years, $160 each. For some of the boxes we needed different rotors and stators about $350 for the combination, we bought three different jug and head combinations to use when tuning with the different boxes. $400+ per combination we bought three pipes at $250 each and three stingers at $125 each. Now we are ready to run stock boxes. We also had to buy the software needed to program the programmable boxes so that we could get the stock curve data that is contained in the stock boxes. That we bought from a guy who did not know how to use if for $800. (He paid more).

We now have a programmable box, with one RCE Pipe and one RCE stinger Box was $450, pipe $250 stinger $125.


Stock cost $4485
Programmable cost $825

By the way we averaged on motor failure per weekend as we used stock boxes. With the PI boxes we average zero failures per weekend.

You select the low cost path. Another question to consider with a stock box whar year box is stock for your motor.

A lot of 125 Hondas are 97 bottoms, jugs are from 95 to 2001, heads are 95 to 2001, stators and rotors are a variety. What year motor does the racer declare the motor to be for the purpose of selecting the box?

[John Denman]

Ronnie, I can share with you the maladays of Showroom Stock. I have run SS (as well as Firestone Firehawk) and even have a few Impound Tags. Took home a Mazda RX7 in boxes from Atlanta twice. (Amazing what you can do with anti-freeze....)

PI does not raise peak HP. You can get peak by setting the ignition to its best point at the optimal RPM manually. PI does allow the usable power peak to be extended, and increases power on either side of the peak.

The biggest advantage comes with the retard side after advance. Puts more heat in pipe and adds up to 500 RPM of overrev. Drop two teeth on the back sprocket with no loss of top end, just more torque to the wheels. Less shifting in those odd corners due to a wider power band.

If you pay $25 for a curve, you get a $25 curve. One curve works perfect in one motor, but detonates in another. For this and a few other reasons, most curves only utilize about 80% of the capability that a PI offers. OK so this is almost splitting hairs at maybe .1 second to get that 99% curve. To get the last 20% capability takes the ability to re-program and is almost as sensitive as jetting.

For most, there are other points of set-up to get that .1 second and more.

I have seen some spend over $1000 on dyno time to get the perfect curve only to find that at the track it rattles the piston.

So why do we push these Moto motors beyond their limits when it would cost less to run a real kart motor?

I don't have a problem with PI in the SP and even S1 classes at the SKUSA level. In fact I would like to see SP limited only by weight, cc's and safety and let it become Formula Libre.

But in the lower classes, the cost to be competitive would be a little lower. Cost factors are pretty simple; the less expensive gadgets allowed, the less to be gained by spending big bucks on the accessories. Sure it could be spent elsewhere, but not for as much gain.

Imagine if we were allowed fuel injection for example. At first the big bucks teams would have it, and slowly become dominant. Then everyone would have it, and where would we be? More money for marginally better performance that eventually offers no competitive advantage since everyone has it.

That is what PI is turning in to.

The key point is that it is difficult to tech ignition. That difficulty may change over the next year.

[SHAYNE SHIPLEY]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brandon Schroder:
[QB]I THINK AT THE ENTRY LEVEL YOU SHOULD KEEP YOUR STOCK IGN. TO HELP SAVE THE NEW DRIVERS SOME MONEY.BUT AT THE LEVEL I COMPETE AND MOST OF YOU OUT THERE (SKUSA AND IKF ETC.)LEAVE IT OPEN.LIKE SKUSA HAS SAID IN THE PAST THIS ISNT FOR EVERYONE.SORRY BUT I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME NOW AND YOUR NOT GOING TO DO THIS ON A $1000.00 BUDGET,AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL TO GET RECOGNIZED TO MOVE ON TO SOMETHING BIGGER.SHIFTER KART RACING IS STILL VERY AFFORDABLE COMPARED TO OTHER MOTOR SPORTS.

THESE ARE JUST MY OPINIONS.

[John Denman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Chiras:
We tried the stock ignition path and the PI path. Let me share the results and you decide the path of lease expense


Stock cost $4485
Programmable cost $825

---

So your saying that you spent $4485 just on ignition boxes, then bought a used PI for $825?

Let me know when you need more parts, I may just decide to get into the kart retailing business!

I havent gone through the 125 stuff yet, but I have tried 5 different years of CR80 boxes. No I did not buy them new but from a bike junkyard, total cost for 4 (we had a 95 model) $100.

None of the curves in these boxes have a true post-advance retard built in they just go flat. They do have different advances, most notably at between 3000-9000 RPM. They also have somewhat different advance peaks. On a CR80 the stator cannot be adjusted radially, but a little bit of peak change be made with spacing (or offset keys).

Differences in times on the track were about .1 seconds across these boxes. Bolted on the SPI box (good stuff) and with the "C" curve found .5 second gain. Dropped on tooth on rear. Had to retard it a bit for the mild detonation it had, and found another .1 second. (For some reason the "B" curve was really flaky and had to re-program it)

We will focus on 125 next year and have not yet selected a PI. We have found over 20 manufactures, with decent systems including programming software ranging between $400 to $3500.

[Ed Weathers]

I've asked this question on other forums and never gotten a response. Who's going to tech the ignition boxes? Do you think that every club or Region has the help let alone the expertise to tech ignitions? My bet is no. I would just about bet that there will be more people willing to sell me a cheater "stock box" than there are people willing and able to tech ignitions. If people want "stock" classes then clubs and organizations should offer those classes. Maybe the Rotax thing will proliferate, who knows. I do know that stock ignition isn't the way to go to save the racers money. Many may believe it but I'm sorry it's not true. Hey Ronnie how much more did you spend on cheater "stock" brake pads than you would of on just your average aftermarket pads when you ran SSGT.

[Terry Tilton]

I am going to be a little more "in your face" with my following comments, but , those of you who may be offended, please DO take offense!
First of all, programmable ignitions, data acquisition, etc. are not even allowed in the Multi-billion dollar sport of NASCAR! The ASA series finally uses fuel-injected, computer controlled motors, but again, the boxes are handed out on a random basis. This is how you tech a "un-techable" component.
And I love the sterling example of what a bad idea oem ignition boxes are by listing all the year model boxes someone had to buy, the stators it takes for each one, the pipes and silencers matched to particular cylinders to make it all work. Nobody put a gun to your head. You chose to buy all that stuff. God forbid you try to win with more driving skill and the same motor set-up from one race to the next. Its a shame that some peoples lack of confidence in their DRIVING ABILITY makes them feel the need to buy EVERY SINGLE THING UNDER THE SUN that might make them produce one horsepower more so that they can attain the fame, glory, and the huge pay-out$ that come along with winning a GO-KART race!!
Its ridiculous, funny, and sad, all at the same time.


[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Tilton ]

[Saro Marcarian]

I'm still a bit foggy here. Why should PI's be banned? What's the reasoning? What consequences are we trying to mitigate?

Here are some assumptions:

* More Torque = more wear at a given RPM
* More RPM = more wear at a given Torque
* PI = Wider spread of Higher Torque = more wear
* Wear = Cost = Bad

OK. PI is bad because aside from the inital cost we are now blowing up motors every weekend instead of every other weekend.

So, only OEM boxes are allowed.

* OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer

As one guy stated, now we're on a hunt to find which combo of head, jug, and pipe work with what year of Honda ignition box (and possibly rotor, stator, whatever). Also, just how are you going to tech that the alleged 98 CR box is REALLY a 98 CR box?

So, now we say only STOCK boxes are allowed

* Stock = equipment provided by the OEM for the given year / model of engine.

Oh boy, now we're out there buying up whole ENGINES to see which one works best. However, we still can't (or don't) have a positive tech for stock boxes, so...

Granted, the above has been stretched a lettle, but I feel the folks making these points all have valid points. But, again, what are we REALLY trying to control? Cost via wear / failure?

If so, just open up ignition and spec a max carb venturi size or mandate a restrictor. Do whatever you want with the ignition. After a while, things just will not flow through the tiny inlet.

Others (Andy Szyszkowsky comes to mind as a frequent proponent) have mentioned inlet restriction as a fantastic way of evening things out so I don't claim that this is my idea at all.

What's my point? We need an engine CHICANE (the restrictor or small carb). When speeds through a sweeper get too fast, we don't ask the F1 drivers to slow down, do we? We put in a chicane before the sweeper.

They can have all the tire, wing, and engine they like, but here's this damned chicane they need to slow down for. We're not trying to make them make less horsies so they go slower. We just make them go slower 'cause there's no choice. Plus, it's easy to implement and tech. When a guy bypasses the chicane, you can easily tell - 'cause someone was watching, right?

The point here is that maybe the thing we're REALLY trying to control might be better addressed through some other, techable, enforceable, affordable way.

Thoughts?

-Saro

[Pete Muller]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Speed:
I see three ways to handle this.
1) Allow PI, without tech (open ignitions)

2) Get the OEM specs from Honda and find a test house to tech the units after each event delaying the offial results. (Not so good)

3) Have an aftermarket company (such as myself) manufacture a spec ignition (low cost) and provide equipment / procedure for tech-ing them.


I would choose number #1.

---

I'd agree... however, if SKUSA is going to allow open ignitions, then allow open ignitions: any external sensors anyone wants, including wheel speed, gear position, etc.

Ultimately, this will encourage development and create a competitive market in state-of-the-art ignitions systems.

PM

[John Denman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saro Marcarian:
But, again, what are we REALLY trying to control? Cost via wear / failure?

-Saro

---

Cost via;
Programming expenses and time
Failure
Wear
Added development (Head, port, pipe, carb, etc.) made possible

You are correct that right now there is no cost effective test for an OEM box.

Lets play a little hypothetical. Imagine there was a test box for around $800 that would check the advance curve, and take under two minutes connect and test. And a profile parameter was established that would limit the effectiveness of PI to not far from OEM, maybe .1 second max. That way you could still run PI, but the advantage is not that great.

Would there be a market for this test box? After all, it cost less than the average PI programmer HW/SW. Granted it would take some rules around it, but this is one way to meet in the middle for the haves and have nots. Just hypothetical you know.

[Gary Kozuma1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saro Marcarian:
I'm still a bit foggy here. Why should PI's be banned? What's the reasoning? What consequences are we trying to mitigate?

Here are some assumptions:

* More Torque = more wear at a given RPM
* More RPM = more wear at a given Torque
* PI = Wider spread of Higher Torque = more wear
* Wear = Cost = Bad

OK. PI is bad because aside from the inital cost we are now blowing up motors every weekend instead of every other weekend.

So, only OEM boxes are allowed.

* OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer

As one guy stated, now we're on a hunt to find which combo of head, jug, and pipe work with what year of Honda ignition box (and possibly rotor, stator, whatever). Also, just how are you going to tech that the alleged 98 CR box is REALLY a 98 CR box?

So, now we say only STOCK boxes are allowed

* Stock = equipment provided by the OEM for the given year / model of engine.

Oh boy, now we're out there buying up whole ENGINES to see which one works best. However, we still can't (or don't) have a positive tech for stock boxes, so...

Granted, the above has been stretched a lettle, but I feel the folks making these points all have valid points. But, again, what are we REALLY trying to control? Cost via wear / failure?

If so, just open up ignition and spec a max carb venturi size or mandate a restrictor. Do whatever you want with the ignition. After a while, things just will not flow through the tiny inlet.

Others (Andy Szyszkowsky comes to mind as a frequent proponent) have mentioned inlet restriction as a fantastic way of evening things out so I don't claim that this is my idea at all.

What's my point? We need an engine CHICANE (the restrictor or small carb). When speeds through a sweeper get too fast, we don't ask the F1 drivers to slow down, do we? We put in a chicane before the sweeper.

They can have all the tire, wing, and engine they like, but here's this damned chicane they need to slow down for. We're not trying to make them make less horsies so they go slower. We just make them go slower 'cause there's no choice. Plus, it's easy to implement and tech. When a guy bypasses the chicane, you can easily tell - 'cause someone was watching, right?

The point here is that maybe the thing we're REALLY trying to control might be better addressed through some other, techable, enforceable, affordable way.

Thoughts?

-Saro

---

Hello Saro, I was thinking the same thing as I left to do a little work this morning. So I see it breaks down like this:

Series Restricter Cost
Nascar Restricter plate Very low
Champ cars Turbo boost Fairly high
Formula 1 Engine volume unbelievably high

I know this is somewhat simplistic, it would be much better with other forms of racing, but I don't know all the restrictions off the top of my head. But the bottom line is maybe Saro has the solution if cost is the main concern. On the other hand, what we are doing now is more similar to F1, even though we also spec a Moto based motor.

Gary K.

[Gary Kozuma1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saro Marcarian:
I'm still a bit foggy here. Why should PI's be banned? What's the reasoning? What consequences are we trying to mitigate?

Here are some assumptions:

* More Torque = more wear at a given RPM
* More RPM = more wear at a given Torque
* PI = Wider spread of Higher Torque = more wear
* Wear = Cost = Bad

OK. PI is bad because aside from the inital cost we are now blowing up motors every weekend instead of every other weekend.

So, only OEM boxes are allowed.

* OEM = Original Equipment Manufacturer

As one guy stated, now we're on a hunt to find which combo of head, jug, and pipe work with what year of Honda ignition box (and possibly rotor, stator, whatever). Also, just how are you going to tech that the alleged 98 CR box is REALLY a 98 CR box?

So, now we say only STOCK boxes are allowed

* Stock = equipment provided by the OEM for the given year / model of engine.

Oh boy, now we're out there buying up whole ENGINES to see which one works best. However, we still can't (or don't) have a positive tech for stock boxes, so...

Granted, the above has been stretched a lettle, but I feel the folks making these points all have valid points. But, again, what are we REALLY trying to control? Cost via wear / failure?

If so, just open up ignition and spec a max carb venturi size or mandate a restrictor. Do whatever you want with the ignition. After a while, things just will not flow through the tiny inlet.

Others (Andy Szyszkowsky comes to mind as a frequent proponent) have mentioned inlet restriction as a fantastic way of evening things out so I don't claim that this is my idea at all.

What's my point? We need an engine CHICANE (the restrictor or small carb). When speeds through a sweeper get too fast, we don't ask the F1 drivers to slow down, do we? We put in a chicane before the sweeper.

They can have all the tire, wing, and engine they like, but here's this damned chicane they need to slow down for. We're not trying to make them make less horsies so they go slower. We just make them go slower 'cause there's no choice. Plus, it's easy to implement and tech. When a guy bypasses the chicane, you can easily tell - 'cause someone was watching, right?

The point here is that maybe the thing we're REALLY trying to control might be better addressed through some other, techable, enforceable, affordable way.

Thoughts?

-Saro

---

Hello Saro, I was thinking the same thing as I left to do a little work this morning. So I see it breaks down like this:

Series Restricter Cost
Nascar Restricter plate Very low
Champ cars Turbo boost Fairly high
Formula 1 Engine volume unbelievably high

I know this is somewhat simplistic, it would be much better with other forms of racing, but I don't know all the restrictions off the top of my head. But the bottom line is maybe Saro has the solution if cost is the main concern. On the other hand, what we are doing now is more similar to F1, even though we also spec a Moto based motor.

Gary K.