FC rule change proposal

[Bob Wright]

At the risk of attracting hate mail, letter bombs, and all sorts of other Wrath-of-God incidents, I just sent the following to the CRB.

The idea is to continue to update the class to more modern components. The ferrous brake rule is a throw-back to when aluminum brakes were prohibitively expensive, which is not true today.

Be for or against, but please direct the coments to the CRB to get any impact. And...this is my push as a SCCA member and does not represent any official position of the F2000 Championship Series.

To members of the SCCA CRB:

Formula Continental brake calipers:

I propose the following rule change for Formula Continental: Recind rule B.1.f Brakes unrestricted (with below restrictions) Brake rotors and calipers must be ferrous and replace: B.1.f Brakes unrestricted except: calipers must be either ferrous or aluminum and rotors must be ferrous.

Most other SCCA classes allow aluminum brake calipers. Currently there are only two suppliers (AP and ICP) for the LD 19 and LD 20 type ferrous Caliper specified for FF, S2, and FC.
1) There are numerous suppliers of aluminum brake calipers giving competitors a wide choice of both caliper and brake pad at a potentially much lower price than the AP or ICP ferrous caliper.
2) Multiple car constructors have indicated that with a radially mounted caliper (unavailable in ferrous material), the cost of manufacture of wheel uprights is drastically reduced, something they would like to put in production.
3) AP has aluminum calipers (parts # CP3696-6E0 and CP2577-14E0) as less expensive bolt on alternatives to the existing LD 19 and LD 20 ferrous parts so that no existing cars are excluded from a potential upgrade.
4) Current braking capacity is determined by the tires, not the brakes, so the only ultimate performance advantage gained by the change is un-sprung weight due to the lighter aluminum part.
5) Estimated cost of a set of AP aluminum LD 20 calipers is potentially under $1000, not much more than a set of tires, depending on quantities imported into the USA by a distributor.

Robert Wright
Membership # 47526

[R. Pare]

2) Multiple car constructors have indicated that with a radially mounted caliper (unavailable in ferrous material), the cost of manufacture of wheel uprights is drastically reduced, something they would like to put in production.

ICP radial mount calipers have already been available for 13 years for the LD20. Price without the adapter bracket is $200 each, $225 with.

[RobLav]

I'm all for aligning the FC brake rules with the F1000 brake rules...

Now, how about some new Pinto engine rules? Like lighter flywheel and longer conrods? or allowing the Cosworth YAC head, possibly with intake restrictor?

Or, for that matter, how about sidedraft webers (with intake restrictors) on the zetec rather than the expensive injection?

[enjoythetrack]

I propose the following rule change for Formula Continental: Recind rule B.1.f Brakes unrestricted (with below restrictions) Brake rotors and calipers must be ferrous and replace: B.1.f Brakes unrestricted except: calipers must be either ferrous or aluminum and rotors must be ferrous.

When you have a formal letter done let me know as i'll gladly sign it too.

[Stan Clayton]

Steve, although Bob may have actually sent in a "letter" (i.e., a piece of paper), an email is quicker, cheaper and more reliable...and just as effective.

The addresses are bod@scca.com and crb@scca.com.

Stan

[David Ferguson]

What problem are you trying to solve? -- not giving ICP any money? They continue to support our classes (S2, FC, FF) by providing the products we need at a price you're willing to pay (i.e. less than $1000 for all four calipers).

Opening up the rules, will just increase the cost of racing. Not the price of a set of calipers, but the price of 3 or 4 sets, while you try to figure out which one give the perfornance with available pad compounds, best modulation, pad life, etc.

We've got a level playing field now -- let's keep it that way.

David Ferguson
Sports 2000 Competitor

[John LaRue]

While you may be able to purchase a set of Wilwoods for the same or less than the ICP's, you sure won't get the good ones; Alcon, Brembo, AP for those figures. Everyone racing has calipers and they will have to replace them or at least give the aluminum stuff a try to see if there is anything to be gained. Considering the number of existing cars that would face the change versus the likely number of new cars that will be built I don't see the rationale. I do see it as one more reason to leave the car in the garage. If you do it for FC, you may as well do it for FF as well.

I am all for keeping up with the times, but in this instance I do not see any logical basis for the change.

[Bill Kincaid]

I don't see the logic on this either.

If you want to spiff up the class, why not consider more HP, as Rob suggests? You can get 160 HP from the Zetec in less than 10 minutes by taking out the restrictor and remapping the ECU. I am told by knowledgeable people that you can get 160 HP from a Pinto for less than $1000 and with no detriment to motor life.

Oh wait, but then we might want wider wheels...

[Bob Wright]

This is a proposal that was delivered to the CRB- send them your vote, for or against.

I have an observation about this (and in fact any other modification to a formula): Why is it immediately assumed that everyone now MUST change to aluminum brakes? In club racing everyone makes choices all the time based on budget considerations- does everyone have ceramic bearings in their uprights? They're legal, but I don't. Does everybody have a Pennon diffuser and an aluminum dif carrier? The point is that this is not a required change and will not affect ultimate braking capacity. It will not put ICP out of business-their brakes are competitively priced and work so there's no issue there. The proposed rule, as Roblav correctly points out, is the same as FB.

[S Lathrop]

Bob;

If your rule change was adopted, I think that 5/8th vented rotors and Brembo F3 calipers would prove to be slightly better. Now that combination would run about $800 to $1000 per corner and would require some one to build some very special parts.

If you want to run at the front, these parts would not be optional.

At the end of the day what is gained?

Yes ICP has a dog in this fight. But maybe ICP will be the source for the very special rotors, spindles and brake hats that are not available from your car manufacturer. Brembo gets $2000 from all the front runners that want to be sure that no one has an equipment advantage and ICP gets $2000 for a seemingly simple rule change to supply the otherwise unavailable parts.

I rank this proposel with 8 & 10 inch wheels for FC.

Isn't this just another rule change that will further separate the front from the rest of the pack?

Any one have a price for the calipers, rotors and brake hats for the FSCCA?

[Bob Wright]

Steve- I'll add... what's the price for FB brakes to run at the front- $4,000 and its not an option?
Send your comments and your vote to the CRB, its a member driven organization.

[S Lathrop]

Yes, Bob, $4000 will probably be correct. That may not even be enough. I am not starting there but I anticipate that that will be the case.

I think that the FB rules were written with the intention of keeping the cost down by having equal size pistons. Beware of the unintended consequences of legislation without proper research.

As far as I can see, only AP makes equal size pistons in a F3 like caliper. Those are the calipers uses on the FSCCA. My guess is they are $500 each.

All the calipers used on F3 type cars have differential bore calipers.

The rub is that some one will have to design a caliper that mimics the performance of a differential bore caliper. I am going to start with a Wilwood caliper but I anticipate that we will try many other options including our own stuff.

The problem is the restriction to equal size bores. The high performance pads wear rapidly and really need the differential bores to give consistant performance. In qualifying this won't be an issue but over a race distance it will make a big difference. Can you guess what a 6 or 8 pistion caliper would cost? The pistons could be arranged to give the pressure distribution of a 4 piston differential bore caliper and keep the same pad size. But FB is limited to 4 pistons so some other trick will have to be employed.

I and a lot of other people argued that FB and FC brake rules should be the same. Or that the calipers should be 2 pistons max. In the rules writing committe there were 2 schools, the FC with MC engines group and the formula car version of DSR group. The DSR bunch carried the day. That decission among others has added thousands to the cost of FBs.

There is absolutely no reason to carry this ill concieved rule back to FC.

[enjoythetrack]

(Humor... truth... humor... you decide. Life is too short to not have fun )

i typed up a nice, kinda long reply and realized a few guys would not be happy with The Idea while others would be. Then perhaps another guy or two would chime about another Idea and we'd find more people being unhappy while others might support The Idea.

The Idea gets stuck in parliament, or congress, or whatever governing body bestows their blessing on such things like Ideas and makes Rules. We await more clarification, perhaps, as The Rules need to be defined strictly due to The Idea. Eventually someone might want to paper clip in yet another Idea and have it tag along with the the first Idea in belief it will keep strict equality... and naturally as a way to ensure the original Idea was bound by a secondary Restriction.

The Restriction caused hassle for those who desired the original Idea and so The Rule basically dies in congress.. but got a really nice "Thanks for your idea, we'll keep it under consideration" letter from the Governing Body.

----------
Note to self, no more double ristretto shots after 12am (a drink twice as thick as espresso. Basically, as thick as latex paint and makes Jolt cola or those newfangled energy drinks seem tame by comparison... double ristretto yum! )


Definition: Today's espresso is a 1.25oz - 1.75oz beverage that is brewed under the proper conditions of 190-200F water, at least 130 psi of pressure which would force said water through finely ground fresh coffee, extracts more oils, aromatics, and flavor than any other coffee brewing method. A very opaque, thick and dark liquid, capped by a staggeringly yummy and super tasty red-golden dense froth, also known as crema is the result.

A double espresso (or espresso doppio) is a doubleshot - 2-3 oz. total volume. A ristretto is a short espresso, usually between .5 and 1 fluid ounce. A double ristretto is the same as a ristretto but you double the coffee grinds and double the volume. Side effects of drinking a double ristretto are, well, posts this this one.

Just Say No To Ristretto!


(Hope you enjoyed the above humor, or truth, or... [ding sound] G2G, time for another double shot...

[RobLav]

I gotta say Mr Rochlin, you made me laugh. Only you could write a note like that. Seeya next season.

[Thomas Copeland]

I don't see the logic on this either.

If you want to spiff up the class, why not consider more HP, as Rob suggests? You can get 160 HP from the Zetec in less than 10 minutes by taking out the restrictor and remapping the ECU. I am told by knowledgeable people that you can get 160 HP from a Pinto for less than $1000 and with no detriment to motor life.

Oh wait, but then we might want wider wheels...

Bill, stop giving them such a bad time...that's my job!

If we can use Pinto, ECU Zetec and carb Zetec all running equal at 160hp now you're talking spiffing up the class and opening it way,way up. Imagine the possiblities! It almost tingles!

That with some serious wheel sizes would change this class from the wuzzy formula it is now to the awesome kick-in-the butt one it could be. Anything else (or less) is just window dressing. Alass, they have eyes but they cannot see...

[Rick Iverson]

I don't see the logic on this either.

If you want to spiff up the class, why not consider more HP, as Rob suggests? You can get 160 HP from the Zetec in less than 10 minutes by taking out the restrictor and remapping the ECU. I am told by knowledgeable people that you can get 160 HP from a Pinto for less than $1000 and with no detriment to motor life.

Oh wait, but then we might want wider wheels...

WIDER WHEELS? Did somebody say wider wheels? I think that's another thread. But since you brought it up.......















Just teasing Fellas!!!

[Bob Wright]

gee, I don't know...160 hp Pinto- Wisco long rod/piston kit... 5 sp sequential gear box- Hewland has a bolt-on replacement for the LD200 (which, by the way has a 5 sp kit)...this could be fun...somebody should send a rule change request to the CRB...

Lets keep this thread focused on brakes...

Steve- I read you post a couple of times; I'm missing something here- The FC and FB brakes rules per the GCR are as I stated them in italics in my original post. Nowhere does it state they have to be either two piston, four piston or equal size piston. If a four or six differential bore piston caliper is so much better, why hasn't somebody made one in ferrous? There's no rule againt vented rotors, but most cars don't have them. (FE is a spec class and therefore probably not part of this discussion) You made a better mousetrap vs AP with your caliper- why didn't you make a four piston version for FC/FF/S2?

I'm genuinely trying to make the class more modern and better, so this discussion is important. If it is truely a bad idea, then we'll all vote it down. I'm not convinced yet.

[John LaRue]

Bob,

What are the positives which you see coming from this proposal given the fact that ferrous radial mount calipers are in fact available? What would aluminum calipers do for the class?

John

[S Lathrop]

Bob;

As Richard pointed out, ICP has been producing radial mount calipers for 13 years. All 1994 and subsequent cars have been supplied with radial mount calipers. I have just designed and produced uprights for radial mount calipers and I will tell you for certain that radial mount calipers do not reduce cost. Radial mounts require 2 additional machining setups thus increasing costs. Radial mounts do reduce weight and increase installation flexability.

If you are just proposing that we use aluminum ccalipers instead of ferrous calipers, you have not made much of a case. If you want free calipers, them what is really gained when every body has to spend a lot of money to keep up with the "Jones".

I was one of the many who fought to bring F2000 to SCCA. I had cars at the run offs when F2000 had to compete against water cooled Super Vees. These rules have served very well for over 20 years. I think we should make the minimum number of changes.

I am a manufacturer, I think. I don't remember when you quired me about changing the caliper rules. I think I have the only new FC design at the run offs this year. I have been producing FC chassis for over 20 years and have many podium finishes along with a national championship. But I must not be qualified as I speak English with a Hoosier accent and I don't have an engineering degree.

The Zetec engine is enough of a change for the competitors of FC to digest. Lets leave the rest of the rules alone.

This is still a popular class especially when you look at all the cars competing in CFC, FC and the pro series, all SCCA events. On the same weekend as the June Sprints there were 25 cars in Wisconsin and nearly 50 in Cleveland. Something close to 75 cars in the old Central division on the same weekend. Not many classes do that.

[R. Pare]

Bob:

F1000 rules do state equal piston sizes in order to keep out the expensive differential bore calipers, but do not mandate the number of pistons - you are correct there.

No one has made ferrous 4-pot calipers for FC because quite frankly there is no real need for them - the LD20 pad is plenty big enough for the energy levels being produced. S2 used to use the 4-pot LD65 calipers only because they were the only ferrous calipers available of a decent size that would fit over a vented rotor - necessary because of cooling issues with enclosed bodywork. Once we found that the LD20 pad was almost exactly the same size, the lighterweight of that caliper became the standard for a while.

There has never been a need for a bigger surfaced pad for FC, so why bother making what would be a much heavier caliper? Especially for a class that look to be dying at the Club level? Vented rotors are not needed either : we barely stress - thermally and mechanically - even grey cast iron rotors as it is, so the extra cooling capacity of a vented rotor would be a waste, and could actually force the pads to be worked in a temperature range too low to allow them to do their job well. In most cases, the available 2-pot aluminium calipers are a waste of time using ( they are way too flexible and/or not of very good design), so all that you have as a choice in aluminium are the much more expensive F3-type calipers. Since the class does not need a pad of that size, why bother unless you are looking for the absolute ultimate in braking efficiency? Most FC's are not developed anywhere near the level of efficiency where that sort of caliper would make a noticable difference - but once the door is opened and one front runner ponies up the $$ for the good stuff, anyone who wants to compete with him will need to do the same - regardless of whether or not the need is real or just percieved............

Oh yes : and unless the Pro series changes also, you will be forced to have both systems available if you want to run both series.

Cha-ching, cha-ching............

F1000 however, because of the greater power level and the potential for close to double the downforce of an FC, may indeed need a bigger faced pad, and very possibly a vented rotor, once the designs catch up to the performance level that the rules will allow.

And yes, there are ways to make a non-differential bore 4-pot caliper emulate the action of a differential bore caliper, but you really do not want to know what that will cost!

[Bob Wright]

OK...now this is starting to make some sense.

Richard- you confirmed and astutely expained what I understood to be the performance aspects of the existing brakes for FC. If I amend my request to the CRB so the FB/FC Brake rule is identical, then the only reason to change brakes in an existing FC car is weight (ICP has that covered and AP makes an identical LD20 caliper in aluminum which is cheaper and lighter than their ferrous version).

Going forward, it would allow a car constructor to have a wider choice of calipers to spec for new cars, but no real inherent advantage over the existing configurations. That's what I was aiming at with my proposal, not an expensive brake war.

[R. Pare]

Bob:

If you change the rule to allow alu calipers in FC, then you will also need to change the rule to allow only 2-pot calipers, or you will get exactly the escallation scenario that I described. Part of the lack of anyone bothering to develop an "ultimate" caliper for FC is that with the rules allowing only ferrous, any advantage you would get from multiple bores would almost assuredly be wiped out - at least in the minds of most potential customers, if not in reality - by the weight disadvantage.

If the weight disadvantage is great enough in reality with the traditional layout 4-pot caliper in ferrous, I know that I can get all of the advantages of a differential bore caliper by resorting to 5 equal-sized pistons against an LD20 pad, and avoid the weight issue. And if the advantage of such a layout proved true, and there was a demand, I would most definetely produce it, but I guarantee that it will be priced considerably north of $500!

Leave the rules alone if you do not fully understand what might be the possible ramifications.

[Steve Demeter]

If someone wants to change the rules, allow aluminium calipers.

No caliper would be allowed to have more than 4 pistons and they must all be equal size (LD-65 comes to mind) regardless of the caliper material.

I personally think that there would be some loss of stiffness going from steel to aluminium.

[Steven McWilliams]

FC does not need any rule change, maybe an update on a couple things, but if we start changine rules, then our cars will be close to running like Atlantics. Everyone wants to run this class as a Fast, fairly expensive class, if we want more rule changes to make us faster, the costs will keep going up,and up, and even less people will particate.

[Modo]

Yes, let me get my Zetec loaded and I will get right on it.......I thought there was a problem with class numbers........anyway back to the spirit of Ford racing....you see back in the sixties the British decided to have a racing class (ff) made with available car parts and a modest chassis design. It will be mid-engined and have independent suspension for handling like a race car and will end up light which will make the almost stock engine move the vehicle very rapidly. Now the British guys got tired of their neighbors making fun of their spending large amounts of money to drive what looked like a go kart, so they used a beefier barely (Ha!$) modified engine and added wings and called it Super Ford, our Continental.

Anyway, whatever you guys decide is fine with me. I guess I won't get those ICP's.........
Didn't we just force Chas to load a Zetec?? Would be nice to see the talent/Zetec/Super Cortina results from the runoffs