Quote Originally Posted by BeunMan View Post
As with any rule, you can be request to show compliance at any point during the competition. I think in case of engine noise they should do that, at the fines which the track gets are directly charged to the organizers (e.g. FSAE) which is not in the interest of ALL teams.
I do not know if that is the case with the US venues, as the MIS event regularly hosts NASCAR testing, which is incredibly loud, and the Lincoln event is held on an active airpark. There were several planes taking off, landing, practicing various maneuvers while we were competing. Even the loudest single cylinder cars were quiet in comparison.

The way I would like to see noise checked is where it matters most: on track with the car loaded up. This is the way that the SCCA (Sports Car Club of America) does their noise testing at the Solo Nationals event that is held in the same location as FSAE-West. From my understanding (I've never run a National event) they find a spot on the course where all cars are most likely to be at full throttle under the highest load and set up a mic 50' from the racing line. They then measure noise for all cars that go past. If a car is close (within ~5db), I believe they are warned after the run. This would make sense for the autocross event, where teams have 4 total runs with a slight break in between. If a team is close on a given run, then they are warned and they have a chance to talk with the driver/make changes to the car before the next run. If they go over, the run would be DNF'ed. IMO, for the endurance event, it would be best to provide some tolerance, and then anything above the tolerance results in a DNF (either for the lap or for the entire endurance event). 2 laps over noise and you're black flagged for Mechanical and done for the event. If you want cars to be quiet on track, this is a good way to do it. It's harsh, but it accomplishes the goal of quieting down cars. It would only take 1 event where teams DNF for noise before the word gets out and teams quit cheating the test by adding plugs to their exhaust for the current test then pulling them and running the competition loud.

Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Hayward View Post
Matt,

Looks like they could run the engine now without having to re-sleeve. Should offer similar advantages to the four, but with a narrower package (and maybe lower vibrations). I would love to know the base weight of one of the triumph engines. I am sure the judges probably disliked the idea of heavy customization to end up with an engine not much better than a standard 4 pot.

Definitely not as radical as building a powertrain around something like a BMW R65 engine. An aircooled boxer engine could make for an interesting change.

Opening up the options here doesn't hurt anyone, and definitely means more of the engines sitting around a wrecker will be suitable.

Kev
Kevin,

If this rule goes through, that would seem to be the case. I do not remember if their sleeves could be removed, but if they were able to (or have easy access for more engines) this would definitely seem to be the case. I think this is a good change for the competition. Singles are incredibly expensive, but something like a Suzuki SV650 can be had for 1/3 the price of a single cylinder, and you get the whole rest of the bike to scrap out as part of that deal.

I always thought something like the Honda Goldwing would make for an interesting engine for an A-Modified (SCCA class which is basically big FSAE car with almost no rules). Flat 4 (or 6 in the later versions), shaft drive right out the back of the gearbox, etc. There are a lot of unknowns in terms of aftermarket support, transmission strength, actual power capability (I've heard the top A-Mods are near 300hp) etc. etc. etc. Either way, still fun to think about.

-Matt