Pinto Upgrades

[RobLav]

The CRB cartel strikes again!

[MotorCade]

To be clear - my only upset with this rule is the SCCA's manner of handling things. I honestly don't think QS or SCCA is doing anything nefarious. SCCA's typical "behind closed doors" committees and way of handing rules via PN instead of spec is what contributes to perceptions like this.

I imagine that there is an equivalent amount of shared responsibility to go around for why this happened. A number of us (BBR, me, and a bunch of others) have been very vocal about wanting to bring older cars 'up to speed'. We believe it will help the class attract new blood. More responsibility goes to the guys who spent the money to do the development builds, and even more responsibility goes to the guys with the capital and knowledge invested to create the parts. Not least of which, I imagine Wiseco has some engineering hours in their stuff, and QS probably has a good bit of dyno time and build time that isn't captured. Not to mention the knowledge value. Being in that my day job is in engineering at an OEM, there's almost always more sunk cost than we ever figure on our hip pocket sketches.

Personally, while SCCA has a tendency to handle things poorly, I see this as generally a very positive move for all of us, and I don't want to look the gift horse in the mouth too closely. It's a big step in the right direction, and a lot of good people worked hard for it, even if there are elements to gripe about.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Why do people think racing, SCCA Road Racing, is a large enough market for any product or service, that multiple vendors will create cheaper prices and better service?

That's exactly what I DON'T think. But the CRB is further restricting the market to what appears to be a bespoke set of pistons (probably an existing product trimmed down), driving up cost and eliminating vendors from the market.

I'm not suggesting it'll get cheaper but nothing is cheaper than existing product on the shelf.

[R. Pare]

I'm not suggesting it'll get cheaper but nothing is cheaper than existing product on the shelf.

Then go and spend your own dime purchasing these existing pistons, have them assembled into a motor, dyno them, collate the information, and present it to the CRB for approval.

[racerdad2]

IMHO the Frog deserves major kudos for campaigning for this change for many years ????

[Peter Olivola]

That's exactly what I DON'T think. But the CRB is further restricting the market to what appears to be a bespoke set of pistons (probably an existing product trimmed down), driving up cost and eliminating vendors from the market.

I'm not suggesting it'll get cheaper but nothing is cheaper than existing product on the shelf.

You do realize there are engines, legal engines, with decked blocks that can't use off the shelf pistons, don't you?

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Then go and spend your own dime purchasing these existing pistons, have them assembled into a motor, dyno them, collate the information, and present it to the CRB for approval.

Because most of us Pinto guys are on a tight budget. Choose 1 - CRB approval or racing.

As I posted before, people are buying these products and using them. People are building cheaper illegal motors.
Even people with the funds don't want to spend money on the process.

As I explained in my letter to the CRB we need to change the process.
Everyone knew this long rod option would NOT have a major power influence.
But lots of time and money have been wasted on a process, not on racing - which is what we want to do.

Is there really anyone out there that thought these approved changes were going to yield killer Pintos?

We have a divide between what the racers want (changes) and what the CRB wants (a process).
Or is the unspoken truth that Zetec racers don't want the Pintos to catch up?
Every talks about improving the grid counts, but do they mean it?
"We want more racers but you have to double your budget."

Reminds me of a landmark case here in Santa Barbara. A hotelier was trying to get his project approved by the City and the City staff kept changing their mind on insignificant parts of the project. He became so tired of delays and cost of the process that he started a campaign and got his hotel project on the voters ballot. The ballot measure passed overwhelmingly. The people were tired of the delays. They wanted change. Council members lost their re-elections, board members got fired and the hotel was built as promised by the developer. The process was ultimately changed as well.

[racerdad2]

Just talked with Quicksilver. New pistons have been ordered. Expect them to be back in stock in 3 weeks. The new pistons are standard bore. Very reasonably priced.

[R. Pare]

Maybe you noticed that in that landmark case, the citizens took it upon themselves to get the hotel approved.

Please tell us just what you and the club membership have done to address this issue other than complain on this forum.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

You do realize there are engines, legal engines, with decked blocks that can't use off the shelf pistons, don't you?

You mean do I understand the rebuild process? Shaving a piston so it doesn't exceed the deck height and raise compression?
Yes.

And you do realize that engine builders find the rules they participate in writing vague and open to interpretation?
(aka the spec Miata plunge cut fiasco)

And when I hear that Zetecs are being rebuilt with MZR blocks because no good Z blocks are available it makes me wonder who's rules are these anyway? Do they apply to everyone? or just those that choose to comply.

[DaveW]

IMO, we have to remember that the SCCA, as long as these are SCCA classes, have to provide fairly strict rules so that folks don't feel like they have to go out and buy the (name your part) of the day to run at the pointy end. That is what happens with anything, like tires, that are allowed to be relatively "free" from the rules. Of course, people do it anyway with tires, shocks, suspension designs, car designs, etc., which are not totally spec'd. It has historically been the aim of SCCA in formula classes to allow innovation, but to limit the engines much more strictly than almost anything else in order to make the playing field at least close to level.

The alternative is to allow non-spec'd engine parts which would make the engines even more unequal than they currently are. I think that's a really bad idea. There are already places to run out-of-spec engined cars. I think they should run in those classes, leaving the FC rules tightly controlled so that things don't get out of hand.

As an aside, I switched to the Zetec engine after 2007 because it had the prospect of all of them being more equal to each other than the Pinto's. After 1998 I found that unless you had one of the super-engines like Niki's, you struggled to run up front, and mine was good, but not "super." So I saw the handwriting on the wall, and switched.

[Peter Olivola]

You mean do I understand the rebuild process? Shaving a piston so it doesn't exceed the deck height and raise compression?
Yes.

And you do realize that engine builders find the rules they participate in writing vague and open to interpretation?
(aka the spec Miata plunge cut fiasco)

And when I hear that Zetecs are being rebuilt with MZR blocks because no good Z blocks are available it makes me wonder who's rules are these anyway? Do they apply to everyone? or just those that choose to comply.

Your blatant whataboutisms don't do your argument any favors. If there are illegal motors, protest them. Compliance is a shared responsibility.

You complain about cost, but have you compared the cost of fully prepped QS sourced pistons with the cost of off the shelf fully prepped pistons?

Your willingness to shift the cost to those with otherwise legal engines so you can get something cheaper is another negative against your argument.

Clearly, you want what you want and the devil take the hindmost.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Maybe you noticed that in that landmark case, the citizens took it upon themselves to get the hotel approved.

Please tell us just what you and the club membership have done to address this issue other than complain on this forum.

It took the developer to go an alternate path. Then the citizens had a way to expressed their opinions. Before that there was no way for the citizens to show their opinion except for appearances at City council meetings.

You're right. I need to help change the process.

I wrote a letter to the CRB last October. 9 pages. I focused on explaining why car counts where down and mentioned the Zetec and parity in 1 paragraph only. I campaigned other members to support my letter and IIR about 10 other people wrote letters expressing support for my proposals. I'd gladly share it.

The CRB response was 'looking at other options, taken care of' because this long-rod proposal was also made.
So they picked one.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Your blatant whataboutisms don't do your argument any favors. If there are illegal motors, protest them. Compliance is a shared responsibility.

The protest process costs money. Whether something illegal is found or not, you become that guy that no one likes.
If it's so important for someone to win that they cheat, that's on them. You and I will never solve that.\
That's the ultimate golden rule in racing.

Yes, compliance is a shared responsibility. You make sure you're in compliance, I'll make sure I'm in compliance.
Enforcement is not. Think of it like income tax. We all work within the same set of rules.
But how many people report tax cheats? How many report disability cheats? Or able bodied people with handicap placards?

Your willingness to shift the cost to those with otherwise legal engines so you can get something cheaper is another negative against your argument.

I don't quite get what you're saying. The largest burden is on legal engine owners. I want to maintain a legal engine, but I want changes that allow use of existing products.

[Wren]

I wrote a letter to the CRB last October. 9 pages. I focused on explaining why car counts where down and mentioned the Zetec and parity in 1 paragraph only. I campaigned other members to support my letter and IIR about 10 other people wrote letters expressing support for my proposals. I'd gladly share it.

The CRB response was 'looking at other options, taken care of' because this long-rod proposal was also made.
So they picked one.

It's not the CRB's job to ensure compliance of the cars at the race. That's on the stewards, entrants, and other competitors. If you know other competitors are cheating and you don't do anything about it, you are part of the problem. The accusations about zetecs are so tired. I'm involved with one of the best zetec cars in the country, it doesn't have methanol, an MZR block, altered cams, and it isn't blueprinted or anything else that isn't in line with the GCR. If someone is doing those things, protest them.

And no, zetec guys aren't worried about having the pinto guys catch up. That's ridiculous. It's beyond imagination that horsepower accounts for the differences between the cars.

Dave has done an excellent job explaining why having an open engine class with just some spec rules is a terrible idea. It's been proven in plenty of classes. I don't know if it is true right now for FC, but it is true for other classes and has been the death of them.

[Peter Olivola]

The protest process costs money. Whether something illegal is found or not, you become that guy that no one likes.
If it's so important for someone to win that they cheat, that's on them. You and I will never solve that.\
That's the ultimate golden rule in racing.

Yes, compliance is a shared responsibility. You make sure you're in compliance, I'll make sure I'm in compliance.
Enforcement is not. Think of it like income tax. We all work within the same set of rules.
But how many people report tax cheats? How many report disability cheats? Or able bodied people with handicap placards?



I don't quite get what you're saying. The largest burden is on legal engine owners. I want to maintain a legal engine, but I want changes that allow use of existing products.

Enforcement, including mechanical compliance, is most certainly a shared responsibility. Officials have much less information about your class than you do. If you are expecting an official to initiate a mechanical teardown on the basis of a complaint from another competitor you're quite mistaken.

Whether by protest or RFA, the bond must be posted. In the case of an RFA that's an expense of the organizing region. If you think someone is running an illegal engine you can enlist other competitors to help defray the cost. If you can't that would be an indication that your suspicions might be unfounded.

You also appear to be miffed that your CRB request wasn't adopted. You're only entitled to an answer, not automatic acquiescence. This is a club of many members with diverse experience. It isn't reasonable to expect agreement on a request just because you think it's the right way to go. Nor is it an example of black helicopters when you don't get what you want.

[R. Pare]

I wrote a letter to the CRB last October. 9 pages. I focused on explaining why car counts where down and mentioned the Zetec and parity in 1 paragraph only. I campaigned other members to support my letter and IIR about 10 other people wrote letters expressing support for my proposals. I'd gladly share it.

The CRB response was 'looking at other options, taken care of' because this long-rod proposal was also made.
So they picked one.

I want to maintain a legal engine, but I want changes that allow use of existing products.

Did your letter you submitted contain any hard data that the CRB could consider, or just a laundry list of complaints and opinions? If no hard data for them to consider, it is no wonder that they picked one that had data.

[BrianT1]

We have a divide between what the racers want (changes) and what the CRB wants (a process).
Or is the unspoken truth that Zetec racers don't want the Pintos to catch up?
Every talks about improving the grid counts, but do they mean it?
"We want more racers but you have to double your budget."

Be careful about these myths about the zetec, they are not some super engine that makes everyone set track records and is only there to beat up on the Pinto guys. The reality is that they were a more modern engine that was a good alternative to the Pinto, it allows for longer cycles between rebuilds and doesn't shake the car apart during a race.

I have only ever seen them in 98 and up Vandiemens, current Citations, Mygales and Pipers. You are not going to find a 97 or older Vandiemen, especially a 95 Vandiemen that would even come close to keeping up with the current cars even if the current cars were running a pinto.

So please stop this Pinto vs Zetec argument. There are so many other factors that its a waste of time.

Brian

[Steve Demeter]

What Brian said. This thread is supposed to be about Pinto improvements, not another Ztec vs Pinto useless argument.

[RacerDave51]

...about time to unsubscribe to this thread for me. It's back to the sos--pinto vs ztec
I am glad to see the pinto got some upgrades. Not everything I wanted (.030 over pistons) but...
Cheers

[BeerBudgetRacing]

So please stop this Pinto vs Zetec argument. There are so many other factors that its a waste of time.

I know about all the factors and totally understand. I wasn't arguing Zetec V Pinto.
My comments were about rule compliance.
My comments were about Zetec Racers and whether they even care about changes for Pintos.

My experience is they do not. And more often than not, being the ONLY Pinto in a group, I am the ugly step child.
"Why do you drive that old thing?" is a common question.

So, does this attitude permeate up to the CRB? Am I and other Pinto owners just bothering them? You?

You and Dave converted this into a parity argument - which is what I think they call deflection.
Which brings me around to the conclusion that you either don't care and just don't want to discuss it.

In my letter to the CRB I talk about every conversation and proposal labeled as a 'parity' argument.
In 9 pages this is my total discussion of the Zetec:

These are my only comments about parity. In my efforts to get Pinto drivers out to race, I have heard it all. In
general many owners are still angry about the Zetec and the fact that since its introduction the average Zetec
has increased power as builders have honed their craft. When the Zetec was approved, it was under-developed
and compared to a fully-developed maxed-out Pinto. The spirit of the introduction of the Zetec was as an
alternative. Better life not more power. That wasn’t the result. The Zetec got better while the Pinto stayed the
same. The Zetec also changed the traffic pattern on track. Being a torquier engine, the Zetec exits corners
faster. While Pintos may have a top end advantage, that is only available on the longest of straights. When
you’ve been beaten at the start, and out of the corners, top end does not matter on the typical courses we race.

I want to get other drivers back on track.
I want to improve my car.
I want to reduce running costs where I can.
I want to improve my driving.

I don't give a flying leap about the Zetec guys other than the fact that they significantly influence what happens in the class. They are the front of the horse and us Pinto guys are the back.

So instead of being dismissive and argumentative, help us figure our how to make these engines and this class better.
Or was my earlier conclusion accurate?

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Enforcement, including mechanical compliance, is most certainly a shared responsibility. Officials have much less information about your class than you do. If you are expecting an official to initiate a mechanical teardown on the basis of a complaint from another competitor you're quite mistaken.

Whether by protest or RFA, the bond must be posted. In the case of an RFA that's an expense of the organizing region. If you think someone is running an illegal engine you can enlist other competitors to help defray the cost. If you can't that would be an indication that your suspicions might be unfounded.

You also appear to be miffed that your CRB request wasn't adopted. You're only entitled to an answer, not automatic acquiescence. This is a club of many members with diverse experience. It isn't reasonable to expect agreement on a request just because you think it's the right way to go. Nor is it an example of black helicopters when you don't get what you want.

I'm miffed at the process. My letter contain comments about understanding they probably wouldn't adopt my suggestions.
And it was a suggestion of an improvement PROCESS not just 'let us use these parts'.

You've confirmed it's cheaper to be the cheater. Bad process.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Did your letter you submitted contain any hard data that the CRB could consider, or just a laundry list of complaints and opinions? If no hard data for them to consider, it is no wonder that they picked one that had data.

No data (except for participation numbers and Zetec/Pinto mix), no complaints.

I explained that I wasn't going to be able to fund their 'usual way' and wasn't going to be able to get others to do it either.
Suggestions for an improvement process that would keep costs down. Every suggestion was to give more options for reducing operating costs and rebuild costs.

PM me your email and I'll send you a copy of the letter. You can then tell me why.

[Peter Olivola]

I'm miffed at the process. My letter contain comments about understanding they probably wouldn't adopt my suggestions.
And it was a suggestion of an improvement PROCESS not just 'let us use these parts'.

You've confirmed it's cheaper to be the cheater. Bad process.

Not having seen your letter, I'm reluctant to accept your representation of it. It has been my experience that such letters fail to consider all aspects of the process, focusing only on those parts that support the request. Using dimensions and not part identifiers will only serve to create a situation that fulfills your accusation of rampant cheating because the bond required to verify will increase substantially.

As for it being cheaper to cheat, If you're right you get the bond back. If you're not protesting someone you're convinced is cheating, you're contributing to the problem.

[eospeed]

And when I hear that Zetecs are being rebuilt with MZR blocks because no good Z blocks are available it makes me wonder who's rules are these anyway? Do they apply to everyone? or just those that choose to comply.[/QUOTE]




That is some serious misinformation there.

[FASTDAD]

Just talked with Quicksilver. New pistons have been ordered. Expect them to be back in stock in 3 weeks. The new pistons are standard bore. Very reasonably priced.

My letter is still in the que waiting for answer an answer about the part no. Any idea what the part no. is? And are they available thru Wisceo or only thru Quicksilver.

[DaveW]

"And when I hear that Zetecs are being rebuilt with MZR blocks because no good Z blocks are available it makes me wonder who's rules are these anyway? Do they apply to everyone? or just those that choose to comply."

That is some serious misinformation there.

I bet that is a result of hearing that MZR-engined VD's are allowed in the FRP F2K series and somehow equating that fact to "using MZR blocks to rebuild Zetec engines."

Is that even possible?

If it is, it's being done w/o regard to legality, and certainly, IMO, not by anyone running at the pointy end in FC or running in the FRP series

[kea]

Be careful about these myths about the zetec, they are not some super engine that makes everyone set track records and is only there to beat up on the Pinto guys. The reality is that they were a more modern engine that was a good alternative to the Pinto, it allows for longer cycles between rebuilds and doesn't shake the car apart during a race.

I have only ever seen them in 98 and up Vandiemens, current Citations, Mygales and Pipers. You are not going to find a 97 or older Vandiemen, especially a 95 Vandiemen that would even come close to keeping up with the current cars even if the current cars were running a pinto.

So please stop this Pinto vs Zetec argument. There are so many other factors that its a waste of time.

Brian

The truth is, the Zetec engine was allowed in the FC class, running with the Pintos, in a form that did not allow
"Blue-printing" or enhancement of it's output.
Or as SCCA put it, "The philosophy of the Zetec engine in FC is to allow limited engine rebuilds but no performance modifications to the engine"

An East Coast race series accepted the Blue-printed form of Zetec engine service a number of years ago, probably to save some engine builders who found their shops empty waiting the 3 years for those engines to return for service. Many of those "Blue-printed" engines with their increased power have made their way into SCCA racing. The SCCA rules still prohibit it and a number of other services being done to the Zetec, yet they do not bother to check, even at the Run-Offs.
There are those that like the Pinto and there are those that like the Zetec, but the truth is, unlike the early days when there was a good battle between both types, the Zetec engined cars have locked down the front of the grid.
Every time there is an engine change (like this for a Pinto), it seems to benefit an engine builder first and maybe a customer second.
Time will tell.

[R. Pare]

Guess I have to ask:

Just what are the illegal blueprinting modifications that are being done? And by which engine builders?

[John LaRue]

Paul -

I have re-read your letter; it was taken very seriously by the FSRAC and CRB when submitted as is every letter. I will be happy to discuss it in private with you if you like or you can call and discuss your concerns with any of the FSRAC or CRB; I will not reveal the contents thereof on a public forum as all letters and other documentation submitted to SCCA are treated as confidential.

Generally speaking the Club has to act in measured steps as once a rule is put into place it is difficult to pull it back if an error was made. It is a conservative process. The Pinto with the upgrades has the potential to be as good if not better than the Zetec. As far as QS supplying the pistons; this is not unique as the GCR is replete with specified parts. You or any other person can offer up a like piston to approval. I doubt you can do it for any less than this one is being offered, but you are certainly free to do so. Also, please keep in mind that FC is a formula class. Cars, engines, shocks, etc... are not guaranteed to remain competitive. Time and technology move on in the FC class albeit at a snails pace due to the maturity of the class and cars.

John

[racerdad2]

[QUOTE=FASTDAD;557785]My letter is still in the que waiting for answer an answer about the part no. Any idea what the part no. is? And are they available thru Wisceo or only thru Quicksilver.[/QUOTE

Quicksilver is the only supplier, as far as I know. They sell the pistons, rings and wrist pins. Std bore of 3.575 "

[Bob Wright]

Keith- I assume you are referring to FRP when you say "an east coast series" and I need to respond.

We did NOT change our rules away from SCCA Club. That is a wrong statement. Club wrote in some specific line items that allowed the builders to 'adjust' the specs found in the crate motor in perfectly legal manner so of course they did. See GCR 9.1.1.16, then read our technical specifications.

What we have done is adjust the map to make the motor start better which is why we have a different map. Everything else is the same as Club. Oh, yea- we added 10 lbs to minimum weight to compensate for the heavier radial tire so people didn't have to spend stupid money to shed 10 extra pounds.

[problemchild]

The CRB cartel strikes again!

What a great description!

Issues came and go, and the real agendas are sometimes impossible to follow, but .....
but the old boys club always gets their way.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I have re-read your letter; it was taken very seriously by the FSRAC and CRB when submitted as is every letter.

Thanks John. Just so others get a feel for my position, did it come across as Zetec/parity bashing, whining complaining or, as intended, a focus on restoring Pintos to the grid?

I would like to discuss it in the near future. I have found your feedback has always been genuine and helpful.

Paul

[John LaRue]

Paul,

There is a lot to your letter and while I think there are some voids I did understand that your objective is to drive the older Pinto cars back onto the grids. I assure you that everyone at SCCA would like nothing more than to have that happen. I look forward to chatting with you.

John

[RSiler]

I have been away from FC cars for way too long but am looking to get back in fairly soon because, for the money, FC cars are some serious bang for the buck. So, with the new pistons and long rods, what we are really looking at - from what I understand - is another increase in longevity but not necessarily much, if any, of a horsepower gain, correct? I may have missed this earlier in the thread, so apologies in advance, but is anyone estimating how many miles between rebuilds a Pinto will likely have with the new rods and pistons? Is there a power increase as well?

On a related subject, is the aluminum head the better option vs just going with the cast iron head but running the new cam? Forget the money involved, is the aluminum head going to give you better power?

This is a very interesting subject to me-thanks!

-RK Siler

[Monte]

Long Rod Motor will have a significant time increase between rebuilds. I would imagine at least double

[Purple Frog]

In all but a few cases the aluminum head provides a power boost.
Mainly because it was a serious attempt to copy the best iron heads available.
So, that said, if you don't have one of the really great iron heads, then the aluminum head will be the better choice (budget being no concern).
In all cases the aluminum head helps lower the center of gravity of that big iron lump behind your shoulders.

[EricP]

In all but a few cases the aluminum head provides a power boost.
Mainly because it was a serious attempt to copy the best iron heads available.
So, that said, if you don't have one of the really great iron heads, then the aluminum head will be the better choice (budget being no concern).
In all cases the aluminum head helps lower the center of gravity of that big iron lump behind your shoulders.

Cooling issues? I thought I ran across a thread that indicated that with alum head.

[Jnovak]

What a great description!

Issues came and go, and the real agendas are sometimes impossible to follow, but .....
but the old boys club always gets their way.

your very mistaken imo. The members of the fsrac are very serious about their jobs and they all love Club Racing.