Pinto / Zetec Parity 09

[Purple Frog]

The '08 Runoffs are History.
It is sort of, almost, maybe, the "off season".
Time to stir it up.

Not to take anything away from Niki. He is a very well deserving National Champion. He even did a fair job of showing his talent at the Road America F2000 race.

Which reminds me... the Runoffs are going to be in Niki's home park next year.

Looking back... Apexspeed started out as F2000.com before the demand to help all formula classes expanded it's coverage. So, if there is going to be a move to get rules parity in FC, Apexspeed makes sense as the forum to get it done.

I admit a bias. I'm human. For background to those who may not know, for the past two seasons I have been the technical director for the F2000 Championship Series. I am not an owner in that series. I do not speak for the Series in this thread. But, it has afforded me the priviledge to watch 26 more large field, highly competitive, F2000 races than if i had just stayed in the swamp. The owners of the Series are serious FC/F2000 guys. They are interested in what the SCCA decides, but they will decide the Series rules for '09 based on what they think is good for the Series. Can't fault them on that. It can be argued that they had the highest participation in an open-wheel pro racing series in the U.S. They are doing a lot very well.

All that said, when the zetec was introduced into SCCA/FC there was a promise of parity at the very least. I believe in the SCCA there is not parity between the multiple flavors of the pinto and the zetec. Many believed the SCCA and built new zetec cars, or converted their existing cars to zetec. I also believe if something is going to be done about it for the '09 season, it's time.

What to do? I'm not sure. I'm open to ideas.

I do like the promise that the experimental larger restrictor and better map that was tested earlier this year showed.

I do like the idea of all FC cars carrying an 1190# minimum weight.

I do like getting the pinto a lighter flywheel.

The harsh reality is that these rules really only seriously effect chassis built 97/98 or later, and Swift DB-6s. (that assumes that DaveW's zetec is now a 95/08 model. ) In reality those are the cars that have serious National Championship potential. Those of us with old Reynards, 96 and earlier VDs, etc., really are sort of out of this hunt.

If nothing is done, i fear it spells an end to the class as we have known it.

[jim morgan]

There you go again picking on old outdated uncompetitive DB-6's.

[Joefisherff]

PF is dead on that if something is going to change now is the time to do it. Not wait until the season starts or right before runoffs. Art Smith proposed a sound test plan a year ago to test for parity including dyno runs, chassis dyno runs, on track tests, etc. to really measure the performance. Mike and PF have built a great series and I think SCCA could learn from it based on the numbers, the close racing and enthusiastic participants. Have you approached the engine builders about this? If so what are their thoughts?

[Peter Horvath]

Froggy, the only thing you're saying is that if the Zetec cars can't beat Coello next year, they'll stop coming, either to Road America, the F2000 Series in general, or the Run-Offs.
Clearly, the Zetec cars won't beat Coello at Road America. Especially if Andersen won't have any cars in the series next year.
The solution? Don't take the series to Road America.
You know that Vaughn and I had the only Pinto at Mosport and NJMP. Just ask me not to show up any more, and you've solved the Pinto "problem". That'll be a lot easier than testing new manifolds, flywheels, restrictors, and weight.

[rickb99]

I do like getting the pinto a lighter flywheel.

I like that idea too for FC. But Frog, there's still the fundimental issue with the Pinto and that's engine LIFE.

As was pointed out to me on numerous occasions throughout the year, the 'shortage' of Pinto's running The Series is totally a function of massive track time that wears the Pinto out too fast.

I'd still like an 8 or 9 Lb flywheel but is that the saviour of the Pinto in the series?? Aren't there some other 'things' the Pinto would need for any hope of survival?

If you say it will extend the life, 46 people will post that there's a need for 46 months of testing to prove that.

Please give us all you can and have this resolved with Topeka by Oct 30th. We'll be into engine tear down about then Not that we're headed for The Series. But legal engine life improvements would be good to know.

[DaveW]

Looking back... Apexspeed started out as F2000.com before the demand to help all formula classes expanded it's coverage. So, if there is going to be a move to get rules parity in FC, Apexspeed makes sense as the forum to get it done.
All that said, when the zetec was introduced into SCCA/FC there was a promise of parity at the very least. I believe in the SCCA there is not parity between the multiple flavors of the pinto and the zetec. Many believed the SCCA and built new zetec cars, or converted their existing cars to zetec. I also believe if something is going to be done about it for the '09 season, it's time.

I do like the idea of all FC cars carrying an 1190# minimum weight.

I do like getting the pinto a lighter flywheel.

The harsh reality is that these rules really only seriously effect chassis built 97/98 or later, and Swift DB-6s. (that assumes that DaveW's zetec is now a 95/08 model. ) In reality those are the cars that have serious National Championship potential. Those of us with old Reynards, 96 and earlier VDs, etc., really are sort of out of this hunt.

If nothing is done, i fear it spells an end to the class as we have known it.

Froggy, the only thing you're saying is that if the Zetec cars can't beat Coello next year, they'll stop coming, either to Road America, the F2000 Series in general, or the Run-Offs.

I like that idea too for FC. But Frog, there's still the fundimental issue with the Pinto and that's engine LIFE...

...Please give us all you can and have this resolved with Topeka by Oct 30th. We'll be into engine tear down about then Not that we're headed for The Series. But legal engine life improvements would be good to know.

-------------------------------
Froggy: Agree completely
-------------------------------
Peter: I retracted my comment on Pinto-engined cars not running in the 2009 F2000 C.S. Apparently I had that wrong.
-------------------------------
Rick: Life and rebuild cost was the #1 reason I converted. #2 reason was the ability to easily re-map/change restrictor plate and keep up with any possible variations of the Pinto engine. So far equivalence has not happened. A top-line Pinto is still noticeably superior.
-------------------------------
IMO, the Zetec engine has not been brought up to the level of the best (Coello, Tomasi, etc.) Pinto engines. If this remains the case, I (and other Zetec FC drivers) will have little chance to compete for a Runoffs win, especially at a power track like Road America, and we will likely not attend. I do not go to the Runoffs just to attend. I want to have a legitimate chance to win.

Therefore, assuming others agree with my sentiments, unless the Zetec is made equivalent to the Pinto, as more cars are built or converted to Zetec, FC attendance at Nationals and the Runoffs will decline. The Zetec was allowed into FC with the premise that it would be, as of last year, equal to the Pinto, and with the hope that it's inclusion into FC would increase FC car counts. As I said above, this equivalency has not yet occurred, and it can be seen what has happened to car counts (not only due to this, of course). If equivalency does not happen, Zetec owners/drivers will have been disenfranchised by the SCCA, and may seek other venues than SCCA Nationals. I may very well be one of them.

[Stan Clayton]

I like that idea too for FC. But Frog, there's still the fundimental issue with the Pinto and that's engine LIFE.

If you want longer life out of your Pinto engine, the prescription is very simple: rebuild it to OEM stock clearances instead of 'race' clearances. The Pinto was designed to produce ~90 hp. To get it up to the 140+ we see coming off the dyno engine builders set the lower end clearances (bearings, piston-to-wall, etc.) very loose, comparable to the worn out condition in a street car that would call for a rebuild. In other words, your Pinto engine is nearly worn out when it comes off the dyno.

I'm not going to guess what current Pinto race engine builders are doing, but here's how I set up my Pinto engines' lower end clearances when I was building them for myself from '92-'95.

Part Name / OEM Clearances / Stan's Race Clearances
Main bearings / .0006-.0016 / .0015-.0017
Rod bearings / .0006-.0026 / .0022-.0025
Piston to wall / .0010-.0020 / .0025-.0035

In contrast, the Zetec is delivered with (I'm told) even tighter OEM clearnaces, and according to a 'well known Zetec engine builder' actually makes an additional hp per 1000 race miles for the first several thousand miles of its life as the engine loosens up a bit. By the time a Zetec gets as loose as a Pinto starts off, it will have been tossed and a new one inserted in its place.

Of course, if you build a Pinto's lower end to OEM new specs you will give up a few hp, but since most of the hp in these engines is in the head anyway, it should not be a big hit.

I'd still like an 8 or 9 Lb flywheel but is that the saviour of the Pinto in the series?? Aren't there some other 'things' the Pinto would need for any hope of survival?

I hear tell that the F/SRAC are working on that.

[Douglas Kniffin]

In my humble opinion... it seems to me that our lap times are barely comparable with the early 2000's club racing pace. The cars are more sophisticated, the engines are more powerful but we are slow which is a function of spec tires that have to last an entire weekend which isn't a bad thing. The class and racing deserves to be at an improving pace, not a slowing pace. Why not:

Take the restrictor off and go back to the original map and give the Zetec some real punch. Make that the Zetec class. Allow the Pinto and all the older cars to compete in a Pinto class. That will allow the more serious top flight racers to seriously throw down and when the Pro show rolls into town, the local 97 VD pinto guys can come out, participate in a big show and have a fun time.

As was noted, the series only saw one or two pinto's throughout the season. No real body count will be lost with the increased power even in no one showed up to racing in the pinto class.

[Beartrax]

Mike,
Did any regular F2000 competitors run a Pinto this year? (even Brendan had a Zetec )

Is Dave W correct: Are Pintos out of the series for 2009?

[racer27]

Mike,
Did any regular F2000 competitors run a Pinto this year? (even Brendan had a Zetec )

Walking the Paddock at NJMP, I only saw 1.

[Scott Gesford]

The 3 races I did there was 1 pinto at each.

[Steve Demeter]

Gentlemen,

How many top flight Ztecs, besides Chas are running seriously at club races.

That is what the comparison to the Pinto has to be. Not just a few data points, but lots of data before making any sort of changes.

remember that as has been stated many times that the engines make their HP in different rev ranges and the torque curves are different. IIRC it has been stated that if a Ztec has similar peak HPP to a Pinto, that it will out torque the Pinto to death.

Bottom line is that the true data needed needs to be from wheel to wheel racing by the best of both engines in top flight chassis with top flight drivers to get the final tweak.

Remember that horsepower sells engines and that torque wins motor races.

But when all is said and done, I am in favor of having true equivalency but it must be true with neither engine handicapped.

[Wren]

How many top flight Ztecs, besides Chas are running seriously at club races.

John Larue, a previous run-offs winner and multiple sprints winner, has been running a zetec seriously in a brand new Citation chassis and has come to the same conclusion.

Davew will be out in his car with a zetec as well. The information is there.

[Peter Horvath]

Well that's just great. You called my bluff. No more Pintos in the F2000. Problem solved. Like Doug said, the body count is low (just me and Vaughn).
You can open the floodgates now. How about 200 horsepower? Let's see if your gearboxes last as long as your engines.
But if Pintos are allowed in the F2000 series next year, how on earth are you going to increase the Pinto car count by increasing the Zetec horsepower?

[Bob Wright]

Series rule changes (if any) have NOT been decided as yet for the 2009 season. We're nailing down the schedule first- stay tuned.

[Douglas Kniffin]

Peter, what "pro" quality pinto's still exist on the east coast to be drawn to the series? I'm pretty sure that list would be less than you could count on one hand as most all have been converted. Why should the series be arranging itself to meet the needs of a group that doesn't really exist.

The whole "Parity" concept was valid at the beginning when there was a group of pintos and a group of Zetecs. It seems that 3 years later there are no longer a significant body count of "Pro" level Pintos in existence which are willing to travel and race week in and week out on the east coast.

I think the subject of parity is important in club racing where the well of cars is much deeper and wider but, I'm pretty sure Froggy is talking about Pro racing where there are in essence, not a significant number of Pinto's to draw from anymore.

Additionally...Adjusting a map and restrictor still allows vertical movement easily from pro to club and club to pro for those who want to play in both fields.

[DaveW]

Series rule changes (if any) have NOT been decided as yet for the 2009 season. We're nailing down the schedule first- stay tuned.

OOOPS...

I had heard or read that Pinto's were not going to be allowed for 2009 during the year, but of course it was not official. Sorry.

[Peter Horvath]

A fair point, Doug.
But let me ask you: how many more Zetec cars are out there, not competing, just waiting to get into the series, as soon as (fill in the blank):
as soon as the Pintos are gone,
as soon as the weight comes down,
as soon as the restrictor plate comes out.
So what are they waiting for?

[rickb99]

how many more Zetec cars are out there, not competing, just waiting to get into the series, as soon as (fill in the blank):
as soon as the Pintos are gone,

?????

Was not the biggest field of Pinto's at VIR with a Pinto entry list of two? Man, that's a real threat to the Zetec's

How many Pinto's were on the podium in The Series during 2008?

On the other front:
How many Zetec's ran SCCA FC Nationals in 2008?
Did any of them take a podium?
Have any 'top shelf' drivers run a Zetec in FC Nationals? Where'd they finish?
Were there any Zetec's at the Runoffs in the hands of a 'top shelf' driver? Where'd they finish?

If The Series goes to a new map, will that be allowed in SCCA FC? If NOT, will there be a little flag on the engine that pops up and says 'I have a Pro Map for more HP'?

[Douglas Kniffin]

I was just speaking to the generic question about how to handle parity. I don't pretend to know that the series is even looking for in terms of growth. I'd guess not as they have very solid fields so stability is more likely the plan.

What I was saying is that I think the parity issue is closed on the pro level as there are close to no pinto's so why not pump up the power and let them rip like real pro cars, not 1999 speed continentals.

[Purple Frog]

Guys this thread IS NOT ABOUT THE PRO SERIES !!!! It is about SCCA parity. So quit the pro series talk. (Doug, Horvath, etc.) The pro series folks know how to run a series and are very capable of doing it good. The question is, Can SCCA get the FC parity fixed? If SCCA doesn't get it fixed, the pro series will be the only game in town for Zetecs.

If we get parity, SCCA will have more entries, as will the F2000 Series. A rising tide raises all boats.

Stan, Hate to tell you, but your stuff about the pinto bottom end clearances is not to point on engine life. The bottom ends do not wear out or break very often. It's the top ends that can't take the high hours. Cylinder bores, piston shape, ring wear, valve guides. Those are what wear fast on pintos. Compare a zetec piston to a pinto piston, 30 year newer design.

So students, get back on subject.

[ChuckU2]

OK. Since we are discussing equality in the CLUB ranks, I've got a few things that might be considered.

It appears that most consider all Zetecs are essentialy the same, and they must be as per the rules. All pintos are not the same, so which one(s) are the Zetec supposed to be equal to? Pinto cars can use any ignition system, timing, carb jets, and other various "tweaks" allowed by the rules to get the most from the engine - in a Zetec all these are "spec" items. Suppose you did something to the Zetec that would "trick" the ECU into thinking things weren't as they really were and got a different spark timing or different amount of fuel delivered to the engine...not legal. But isn't that the same as is legal on a Pinto?

At a high speed track like Road America, doesn't that huge intake/airbox hanging out in the breeze cause a lot of drag that doesn't exist on a Pinto? Once again, within the rules, the Pinto car can change the air inlet configuration to optimize, while the Zetec intake system must be "spec". These kinds of differences would never show up on any dyno, it would require real world testing at a whole bunch of tracks.

The increased weight for the Zetec has got to go. I am 6ft and weigh 175lbs and I had to put 40lbs of lead in my car just to be legal. That's 3% of the minimum weight. Well I guess I could start eating more.

I will say that the equalized car fits much better in FC than the unrestricted one did in FA.

The cars are similar, but I don't know if you could even make the Pinto cars and Zetec cars equal. At any given track on any given day, one or the other will always be preferred. Equality - good luck.

You can paint an orange red, and it won't taste like an apple.

[rickb99]

If nothing is done, i fear it spells an end to the class as we have known it.

Frog,
I reread your initial post about noon today because something troubled me. And, it was indeed the fact that you were expressing concerns about SCCA FC. Not about The Series and cross over with SCCA.

What to do, I have no clue. Of all the people involved, you may be closer to this entire issue then most other people (with the exception of the engine builders). You're seeing both sides of the street.

As I recall, you reported on a meeting that was held where the issue of the remap of Zetec was considered absolutely needed to avoid fuel starvation (I think) in some RPM range. How this effects its match up with the Pinto in SCCA I don't know. But again, if I recall correctly there was 'little' overall impact.

I'm guessing many (over the long term) SCCA racers would be willing to give up the Pinto for the enhanced reliability of the Zetec even without a perfect match. But a few 'top shoes' won't because their goal is to indeed be 1st and 2nd is just another lose. So equality is essential to long term viability of SCCA FC.

Therefore, it's back to the old story which you've been preaching for many years. Give the Pinto a lighter flywheel and better piston/rod geometry (I know some may disagree). That extends the viability of the Pinto. Then do whatever remapping of the Zetec that's necessary to bring parity. Maybe even have a long course and a short course restrictor plate? Who knows.

As Chuck said they will never be perfectly equal. And there will always be some who want 2 years of testing data. But over a season of running at all different tracks each will have its advantages at various venues. And, as quick on the draw as the SCCA is on rule making, it's no problem to 'adjust' to get that equality over 1 year or 2.

Isn't the real problem with all of this a lack of Zetec's running in SCCA to get a better picture of what's going on equality wise?? Is there anything in Nationals finishing orders with known drivers that indicates the Zetec is really handicaped?

Take the BEST 6 SCCA FC drivers in the country. 3 with Zetec's and 3 with Pinto's and turn them loose on a couple of tracks. Same day, same conditions (on FC tires) and see what happens. It doesn't matter what chassis they have, they are the best in their cars. If after runs at 2 or 3 different style tracks an obvious and blatant advantage shows up. Adjust.

[Douglas Kniffin]

I'll amend my comments to purely SCCA club racing. I think continuing to tweak the equalization is a fine endeavor but, to quote a great race engineer from Long Island "Its a fart in a windstorm". There are to many variables in club racing. As Chuck alluded too, a pinto isn't a Pinto..for that matter...a Pinto in July is nothing like that same Pinto engine after its been tweaked trackside at the Runoffs. All the tires are different, right down to the "special tires" which get pulled out for the Runoffs. The amount of power and power delivery variation between a Pinto and Zetec isn't what makes or breaks a winner in regular club racing 99.9% of the time. Bottom line...equalization is a lost cause.

With maybe one exception...

If you could bring in OBAMA as a consultant with his wealth equalization formula. I'm sure he could figure out a way to take from those who succeed and give it to eveyone else.

[ChuckU2]

If you could bring in OBAMA as a consultant with his wealth equalization formula. I'm sure he could figure out a way to take from those who succeed and give it to eveyone else.

Now you're on to something...horsepower redistribution! Like Obama told Joe the plumber - "I just want to help those who are behind you". With socialized racing everybody wins!

[Stan Clayton]

Stan, Hate to tell you, but your stuff about the pinto bottom end clearances is not to point on engine life. The bottom ends do not wear out or break very often. It's the top ends that can't take the high hours. Cylinder bores, piston shape, ring wear, valve guides. Those are what wear fast on pintos. Compare a zetec piston to a pinto piston, 30 year newer design.

Last I checked, Mike, the cylinder bores, pistons and rings were all in the lower end.

And yes, the head requires even more frequent attention, but I deliberately left that topic aside.

The point is that the Pinto is not only at a design disadvantage to the Zetec in many areas, as you point out, but is also being asked to make 50% more power than its OEM design output. The loose clearances required to make that power lead directly to accelerated wear compared to the Zetec, which is running well inside its design parameters (remember...Ford sold the SVT Zetec 2.0 rated at 175 hp with a 100,000 mile warranty).

Lighter valves and roller tipped, close-tolerance rockers would eliminate much of the valve stem and seat wear we see now, and would do for head longevity and reliability what good rods and forged pistons did for the lower end.

I'm guessing many (over the long term) SCCA racers would be willing to give up the Pinto for the enhanced reliability of the Zetec even without a perfect match. But a few 'top shoes' won't because their goal is to indeed be 1st and 2nd is just another lose. So equality is essential to long term viability of SCCA FC.

Does anyone seriously think a few 'top shoes' stick to the iron pinto because a fresh one makes one (1) hp more than a fresh Zetec? A couple of top engine builders tell me that a pinto loses a hp every 2 hours of run time, which tells me that's not the answer. Within the Club racing scene those drivers don't need the added longevity of the Zetec because they put fewer hours on their motors, and since they have competitive power even after several hours of practice and qualifying, they have no demonstrated NEED to spend the $20-large for the Zetec package, good as it is.

And that was out intent...to retain the viability of the basic pinto for as long as folks want to run them.

As Chuck said they will never be perfectly equal. And there will always be some who want 2 years of testing data. But over a season of running at all different tracks each will have its advantages at various venues. And, as quick on the draw as the SCCA is on rule making, it's no problem to 'adjust' to get that equality over 1 year or 2.

"Perfect equality" is a very difficult standard to meet. We have very good engine parity now, and it will improve with upcoming adjustments. That said, the engine parity program will never account for chassis, tire, aero, damper, etc., differences, not to mention track knowledge, setup skill and let's face it, driver ability.

If it did, we could dispense with the Runoffs and just declare whomever SportsCar picks as National Champion...

Stan

[Joefisherff]

Now you're on to something...horsepower redistribution! Like Obama told Joe the plumber - "I just want to help those who are behind you". With socialized racing everybody wins!

Thanks to his redistribution of racing assets I have been awarded Niki and Anders cars. Thank you Mr. Obama for helping to make up for me always getting it from "the man" and no Stan that's not directed at you! Ha!

So Stan want to let us know what those upcoming adjustments are?

[John Caldwell]

I might as well throw in my two cents worth. We ran all 14 races of the F2000 Series this year, 8 races in our Pinto and 6 races in two difference ZSports Zetecs.(I'll take this opportunity to thanks everyone from the F2000 Series,we had a great time. I'll also put in a plug for the ZSports guys They were great to work with!)
Excluding one qualifing session because of mechanical issues our average starting position in the Pinto was 15th. Our average starting position in a Zetec was 9th.
Excluding mechanical dnf's, late spins and crashes for all cars, our average finishing position in our Pinto was 12th. The average Zetec finishing position was 7th.
At Road America we overlayed our Pinto data with Noah's Zetec. The data was virtually indentical, the exception being that we were 30lbs. under weight for that practice session.
I certainly don't claim to be an expert and definantly don't have as much experience as most of the people on this site, but the Pinto and Zetec still have differences. I don't believe the top end ( speed ) advantage of the Pinto is enough to overcome the acceleration ( torque ) out of the corners the Zetec possesses. You can't get far enough ahead to overcome the disadvantage out of the next corner.
Note: When I reference WE I mean myself and Bobby " The Driver" .I'm sure he will agree with me because he still needs my sponsorship help.

Thanks for your time,
John

[Chas Shaffer]

I stayed off the net for a few weeks and sure enough the debate has begun again...

I will concede that parity is unobtainable, not for technical reasons but for political reasons. Too many business owners who make their living selling parts or engine services have influence over SCCA to ever get a reasonable parity equation and even if parity was achieved another part would get "back doored" swinging the parity out of wack and starting this debate all over again.

As long as parity is sought this debate will never end therefore the only option is to pick one engine package and state that it will be the future of the class and therefore made superior without question. Over a short period of time the majority of members will move in that direction and the few who don't want to spend the money will stick with what they have. It's no different than the mid to late 90's when every year we had to buy a new chassis to stay competitive. In this case if you want to be a serious contender you will have to upgrade your engine. We don't have different rules for Reynard, Crossle, Swift, Citation, Carbir, Tatuus, Piper, VD, etc. chassis's to keep them all competitive. If you have an 84 Reynard and want to win the runoffs you know you probably have to buy a newer car.

When Rick and I started the zetec proposal for SCCA Club racing we formed a committee and spoke to many different racers for opinions. The one person who had it right was Justin Pritchard. Justin said forget about parity just make the zetec a little better so all the serious guys will upgrade and in a few years everyone will have one. If we had followed that advice everyone would have a zetec and the class would be much stronger. Just look at the success of the F2000 series to prove it. In less than two years they went from having 2 zetec cars and the rest pintos to all zetec cars with one or two occasional pintos.

I propose the zetec be made superior through the use of a new restrictor and map combination as well as lowering the weight to 1190. The pinto already has it's upgrade path which is the aluminum head and Ivey pistons. Any new pinto parts should be scrutinized for performance increases and not be allowed if any performance advantage is possible. Pick your poison and let's go racing. The idea of three distinct engine rules packages will only serve to further splinter the class. We do not need to give the steel head a new camshaft or lightened flywheel. We need to set a firm course and sail in that direction.

At this point many if not most of the regular FC national drivers own a zetec. Off the top of my head I know that Tomasi, Belardi, Weitzenhof, Larue, Fahan, Robinson, Thompson and Rocco own zetecs. I believe most of the Arms Up guys have them and there are many more as well. Additionally many former SCCA National regulars who left for other series now have zetecs (Defer, Jordon, Nicholas, Gesford, Yorio, Minor to name a few). We should make it attractive for them to return to SCCA. It's clear where the direction should go we just need strong leadership to make that tough decision. There will be huge opposition from parts suppliers and engine builders but frankly I'm tired of letting people who make a living off our club drive it's direction while we pay for it. This will NOT obsolete anyone's pinto as the top guys already have better pinto engines than most. What it will do is set a clear direction for the class eliminating the uncertainty which is destroying the class while providing a very good engine package for the future and most importantly end this destructive debate once and for all.

[Chas Shaffer]

I might as well throw in my two cents worth. We ran all 14 races of the F2000 Series this year, 8 races in our Pinto and 6 races in two difference ZSports Zetecs.(I'll take this opportunity to thanks everyone from the F2000 Series,we had a great time. I'll also put in a plug for the ZSports guys They were great to work with!)
Excluding one qualifing session because of mechanical issues our average starting position in the Pinto was 15th. Our average starting position in a Zetec was 9th.
Excluding mechanical dnf's, late spins and crashes for all cars, our average finishing position in our Pinto was 12th. The average Zetec finishing position was 7th.
At Road America we overlayed our Pinto data with Noah's Zetec. The data was virtually indentical, the exception being that we were 30lbs. under weight for that practice session.
I certainly don't claim to be an expert and definantly don't have as much experience as most of the people on this site, but the Pinto and Zetec still have differences. I don't believe the top end ( speed ) advantage of the Pinto is enough to overcome the acceleration ( torque ) out of the corners the Zetec possesses. You can't get far enough ahead to overcome the disadvantage out of the next corner.
Note: When I reference WE I mean myself and Bobby " The Driver" .I'm sure he will agree with me because he still needs my sponsorship help.

Thanks for your time,
John

John,
Keep in mind that the Pro series uses a different map than the club and this is a club discussion. I would also suggest that no two cars are the same so perhaps the differences in gearbox, wheel bearings, shocks and other setup have some influence on your data. I have 6 years of data with the same car, 5 with a pinto and 1 with a zetec and I can not disagree with you more.

This just supports my arguement that we will never achieve parity and must therefore pick one package and ensure it is superior.

[BrianT1]

Stan,

What adjustments do you mean. Can you elaborate??

Brian

[Beartrax]

First of all, regarding "Guys this thread IS NOT ABOUT THE PRO SERIES" - Sorry Professor! Misinterpretted your post.

A lot of people are stating that parity is unobtainable, which I can respect. One engine was designed in the 60's (or earlier) and the other is a modern, fuel injected twin cam.
Why not, in the SCCA, run all the FC's together but designate FC-P and FC-Z subclasses? If it is a regional race and only 3 FC's are registered (perhaps 1 Pinto and 2 Zetecs) there are your 3 trophies. If it is a national and there are at least 3 P's and 3 Z's you order 2 sets of trophies for the FC class. What is that, another $150 for the organizer?

Just as the driver of an 84 Reynard knows that he might not have a chance against a 99 Van Dieman, Pinto drivers will recognize their chances in the Zetec field. You race what you can afford. I think the F2000 series had reasonable parity. Just specify a map/inlet/head/flywheel/overall weight package and stick with it. Depending on the torque requirements of the track a better driver in a Pinto may be able to beat an average driver in a Zetec.

My $0.02

[rickb99]

The one person who had it right was Justin Pritchard. Justin said forget about parity just make the zetec a little better so all the serious guys will upgrade and in a few years everyone will have one.

And that would mean that a whole lot of pre 1998 FC's would be retired and waiting to be eligable for vintage racing. Even though a LOT of Pinto National club racers do not have visions of the runoffs, they race and support their Regions National weekends! If the Zetec is 'the only workable package' how long to you think it would take to rebuild the entry numbers in the Regions National races back up?? It would pretty much mean, the cost of National racing in FC would increase considerably.

I don't believe the top end ( speed ) advantage of the Pinto is enough to overcome the acceleration ( torque ) out of the corners the Zetec possesses. You can't get far enough ahead to overcome the disadvantage out of the next corner.John

That's exactly what FROG has been saying for over a year. Which is why he is a proponent of the lighter flywheel and improved piston/rod (the later for reliability only) in the Pinto. If that really throws the equation the other way, rempa the Zetec.

[Chas Shaffer]

And that would mean that a whole lot of pre 1998 FC's would be retired and waiting to be eligable for vintage racing. Even though a LOT of Pinto National club racers do not have visions of the runoffs, they race and support their Regions National weekends! If the Zetec is 'the only workable package' how long to you think it would take to rebuild the entry numbers in the Regions National races back up?? It would pretty much mean, the cost of National racing in FC would increase considerably.

Rick,

There is no reason why that same person with a pre 98 car couldn't continue to run nationals. Chances are they wouldn't finish any worse. I won the runoffs last year and was top 5 this year with the same power disadvantage I'm proposing we give the pinto. Why is it OK for the zetec to be underpowered but when the same disadvantage is given to the pinto its now obsolete?

Additinally there is no reason why a pre 98 car owner couldn't install a zetec engine. I have a 97 VD pinto as well as a 2000 VD zetec. It woulnd't be that hard to install the zetec in the 97. The reason we haven't is that the pinto is a better engine package under the current rules but it may be worth doing if SCCA stated they would ensure the zetec was the engine of choice. It would add a lot of value to the car as well.

If everyone is so concerned about acceleration out of the corners why don't we just put the double disc clutch back on the zetec rather than lightening all the pinto flywheels. It seems to me it's much easier to add the weight to the zetecs than it is to ask all the pinto owners to do it. Plus it would add a lot of life to the zetec clutch which seems to have the shortest life of all the engine components.

[KVS84]

Pinto - CFC
Zetec - FC


-Keegan

[Stan Clayton]

Joe and Brian, the F/SRAC is evaluating two proposals; a lighter flywheel for all Pintos, and a new map and restrictor for the Zetec. The Pinto's flywheel is nearly 50% heavier than that required on a Zetec, and this, along with other internal factors contributes to the relatively poor low-to-mid range responsiveness of the Pinto. The new map and restrictor is to bring the Zetec engine's hp and tq curves even closer to those of the Pinto. The two proposals are part of the ongoing parity effort to bring the two engine packages as close together as is practical, which was exactly what we promised the FC community 3 years ago we'd do.

Chas seems to have lost track of that promise, and suggests that we should assign his personal favorite a distinct advantage. Not only that, but he goes on to say that the Pinto should be allowed no upgrades that might permit even the slightest increase in performance. Wow. You know, Chas, it takes a lot of chutzpah to lay out such naked self-interest for all to see.

Where I think you are wrong, Chas, is that we are a club, publicly committed to parity in this class, not some computer company fighting to snag market share from another at any cost. Last year we had 125+ individual drivers enter a Pinto-powered FC in at least one race, versus about half a dozen Zetec drivers. Double the Zetec drivers and it's still a 10:1 ratio. Yet you appear to seriously suggest we tell the guys who outnumber you at least 10 to 1, "Sorry...you're screwed. Sucks to be you!"

Not on my watch.

[rickb99]

Rick,

There is no reason why that same person with a pre 98 car couldn't continue to run nationals. Chances are they wouldn't finish any worse. I won the runoffs last year and was top 5 this year with the same power disadvantage I'm proposing we give the pinto. Why is it OK for the zetec to be underpowered but when the same disadvantage is given to the pinto its now obsolete?

It's fine with me Charles. Give the Zetec more power. Just give us Pinto's a flywheel and some pistons/rods to give us better life. All I'm asking is, don't do one without helping out the other.

Our 89 Reynard won't be challenging for the title at RA next year (nor can you pack a Zetec in one of those). But anything that helps us out at the club level would be appreciated.

I've never seen a Pinto owner deny that the Zetec 'might' need a little more on the top to equal the Pinto. On the other hand I haven't seen any Zetec guys suggesting the Pinto might need a lighter flywheel to equal the Zetec out of the corners.

[zach craigo]

John,
Keep in mind that the Pro series uses a different map than the club and this is a club discussion. I would also suggest that no two cars are the same so perhaps the differences in gearbox, wheel bearings, shocks and other setup have some influence on your data. I have 6 years of data with the same car, 5 with a pinto and 1 with a zetec and I can not disagree with you more.

This just supports my arguement that we will never achieve parity and must therefore pick one package and ensure it is superior.

Chas,
It has been our understanding that the ProF2000 series Zetec runs the SAME map and restrition as SCCA. We ran both Pro and SCCA in Zetec this yr.

[Purple Frog]

Chas,

I actually like your idea. But, you and i have yet to get ordained king. How many truly nationally competitive pintos are left out there.

I swear that i remember when I was on the "Silver Committee" that the plan was for the Zetec to be superior by '07 (or was it '08?) I even remember that making it through the first itteration at the CRB. LaRue and I have talked about it, but both of us have long ago deleted many emails and files and can't find the evidence.

Stan,

You're right about the "bottom-end". My error I guess. I always thought of the bottom end as crank and rod journals.

Keegan,

I see sense in the two class idea. It may be the only answer.

Zach,
The pro series map was slightly richer on the top end to cool the exhaust valves. QS has told me that change cannot be seen on the dyno as compared to the SCCA map. So for all intents and purposes the two maps were the same.


***

About 6 months ago I thought the best idea was to build an ultimate pinto, dyno it, then tune up the zetec to match. Now i realize there is that problem with the zetec air intake/parachute sticking out the right side. Even if the engine parity could be closely achieved, drag would be an issue.

Another thing I know in my heart of hearts. All zetecs should be sealed. Otherwise the internal tricks will get out of hand.

How many truly nationally competitive pintos are still left out there? I'm talking about cars that would show up at the Runoffs or Sprints. Other than Niki, all the top ten guys from the 03-04-05 M-O Runoffs grids have converted to Zetec. Am I missing someone?

My point being that Chas' "naked self interest" may be the best way to get back to strong SCCA FC fields. Could the SCCA lure back the likes of LaRue, Minor, Defer, Jordan, Camadella, DaveW, Tomasi, Belardi, Rocco, Fahan, Thompson, et al, if they actually had a chance of being competitive at a SCCA Road America race?

[DaveW]

Chas,

I swear that i remember when I was on the "Silver Committee" that the plan was for the Zetec to be superior by '07 (or was it '08?) I even remember that making it through the first itteration at the CRB. LaRue and I have talked about it, but both of us have long ago deleted many emails and files and can't find the evidence.

I found this in the archives (from Dave Gomberg):

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...5&postcount=23

It says, in part:
------------------------------------
When the FC Zetec proposal was put out for member comment, we got a range of responses from "NO - NEVER!" to "Well, maybe, but no immediate parity", to "Yeah! - But make them equal out of the box". Guess what? There is no way to please everyone in that spectrum of responses. So, we did pretty much what the FC Zetec committee proposed: we planned for an (approximately) two year phase-in using adjustments to the restrictor size, the ECU map and the weight penalty.

No one has run the new map (first adjustment) yet, so you can't judge it by what happened at Road America. The new map will be in place at least through this year's Runoffs. We will then make another adjustment effective 11/01/06 to close the gap somewhat. We may make a mid-2007 adjustment. We will make what we expect to be a final adjustment effective 11/01/07. (Please notice, I said "expect". We are not ruling out adjustments after that if necessary to achieve performance that is as evenly matched as we are able.)
------------------------------------

So, Zetecs should have been "equal" a year ago. Hopefully, we will get there before I retire from racing.

IIRC, "superior" was never the objective, although, since I now have a Zetec, I sure wouldn't complain if it were.