FC rod rule update recommended

[Art Smith]

it is recommended that the FC connecting rod rule be updated to the form used for Kents. the update would be administratively sound and provide competitors a compliant means to improve bottom end service interval.

for reference the FFord rule is included below:
12. Kent Engine
j. Connecting Rods
Any ferrous connecting rod may be used provided it meets a minimum weight of 630 grams and has a center to center length of 4.925 +/- 0.020 inches. (Note: Weights include cap, bolts, and small end bush, but not big end bearing shells).

the current FC rule reads:
15. Ford NE series and Pinto Engines
h. Full connecting rods may be standard Ford, Cosworth, Oliver, or Crower. The approved Crower part numbers are SP93230B-4 or SP93230PF-4. Any rod bolts may be used. Floating piston pins may be used. Standard rod length must be 5.00 inches (+.005” -.010”). Machining is permitted to remove metal from the balancing bosses to achieve balance only. Tuftriding, Parkerizing, shot peening, shot blasting, polishing, etc., are permitted

the recommended update would read:
h. any ferrous connecting rod may be used provided its length between the small end and large end is 5.00 inches (+0.005" -0.010") and when installed is compliant with 15. f. wrist pins are unrestricted provided no modification is made to the piston for installation and when installed is compliant with 15. f.

as an aside, floating pins are already unrestricted. the recommended update would extend "unrestricted" to pressed pins and explicitly exclude modification to the piston for installation.

for reference:
15. Ford NE series and Pinto Engines
f. Pistons shall be standard Ford Mahle, AE Hepolite, CP, or J&E. Pistons must be unmodified in any way except for balancing and as detailed herein.
The following combinations are permitted:
1. Mahle piston P/N 80HM6102LA with rings, pin, connecting rod
(with bolts), but without bearings:Minimum permitted weight = 1332.5 grams.
2. Mahle piston P/N 85HM6102DA with rings, pin, connecting rod (with bolts), but without bearings: Minimum permitted weight = 1240 grams.
NOTE: This piston may have either casting #90V108 or #90V118.
3. AE Hepolite piston P/N 21426, casting P/N 21426 (AE Hepolite) with rings, pin, connecting rod (with bolts), but without bearings: Minimum permitted weight = 1240 grams.
4. CP piston P/N IV 2.0 LTR with rings, pin, connecting rod (with bolts), but without bearings: Minimum permitted weight = 1240 grams. Part number and Ivey logo stamped on wrist pin bosses.
5. JE piston P/N M-6102-B200 with rings, pin, connecting rod (with bolts), but without bearings: Minimum permitted weight = 1240 grams.
NOTE: M-6102-B200 piston assembly is now made by JE and is visually different. I.D. Marks: M-6102-B200, Ford racing logo. All marks pin stamped on wrist pin bosses.
Rings are unrestricted provided that:
A. One oil control and two compression rings are used.
B. No modification is made to the piston for the installation of the rings.
Localized machining of the gudgeon pin bosses to achieve balance and weight by simple machining; all external surfaces, dimensions, and profiles shall remain standard with the exception of the top surface of the piston crown which may have simple machining to achieve balance, and as required in Section 9.1.1.B.3.d.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[RobLav]

If this is done, it ought to be part of a more complete Pinto upgrade.

[racerdad2]

Yes, please !

[2BWise]

If this is done, it ought to be part of a more complete Pinto upgrade.

Agreed.

Personally, I'd to follow this section up even further and mirror the 1600 rules for pistons as well. Away with the standard bore size.

[HayesCages]

Gist of that change would be a super light piston and small end of con rod and all the weight at the big end?

Edit: And what Steve stated below: "any rod manufacturer" ...and perhaps Ti. pins ;-)

[Steve Demeter]

I will take what I can get. I think the entire Pinto upgrade / Ztec return to original intent needs lots of study to insure it is done right the first time.

This rod update will allow improved reliability at reduced cost as other manufacturer's rods would become legal and the market would not be captive to one maker .

[Art Smith]

90% of the merit of the proposed FC rod rule update can be achieved immediately through administrative relief (ie: no hardware changes required for compliance) from an outdated and poorly written rule. the use of vendor part numbers cost competitors money AND stand in the way of potential innovation. rules that are not verified or unverifiable should be eliminated to facilitate real compliance verification and remove competitor uncertainty. what are all the permitted processes under the umbrella of "etc" and are heat treating/cryogenic treating included in the minds of all race officials across the country?

it's my sense that a vote for consolidation of the proposed FC rod rule with the grand fix-all be-all proposal that may or may not be submitted for consideration is a vote for maintaining the status quo. anything approaching a working majority on what's currently wrong, where we should be headed, and how to get there isn't likely to happen in my lifetime. far too much time is being invested in the "how to" and not enough time is being invested in defining/quantifying the "is condition" and the desired "end state". 175hp Pinto's that will do three races seasons of eight weekends each reliably that cost $5000 and can be treated like a lawn mower engine aren't in the cards. in math class over constrained problems seldom had a solution and this situation won't either until the set of objectives gets rational.

the form of the proposed FC rod rule has been shown to work for Kents in FF. while I understand the engineering merits of the concern about titanium pins, the use of titanium is explicitly precluded in FF/FC. see rule below:

2. General Construction Restrictions
NOTE: Contained herein are the 1986 Formula F chassis construction
requirements, revised January 1, 2013. All new Formula Continental and
Formula F cars are to be built to these specifications. Any class-specific
differences are stated explicitly. For cars registered prior to January
1, 1986, see section B.21. The use of carbon fiber and/or Kevlar reinforcement,
titanium, beryllium, metal matrix composites, ceramics, high
strength composites and similar materials is prohibited unless specifically
permitted. The use of the word “unrestricted” in any section does not
indicate the allowance of these prohibited materials. The use of non-metal
materials for seals, bearing and bearing liners, thread locking systems,
windscreens, mirrors, instruments, wiring, electronic systems, electrical
systems, hydraulic and oil and cooling systems, etc, are permitted unless
specifically restricted.

[racerdad2]

I think that restriction applies only to the chassis. .. that said, "I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. "

In all seriousness. The long rod - short skirt piston and allowing the over bore just make sense.

[rickb99]

........In all seriousness. The long rod - short skirt piston and allowing the over bore just make sense.

Has made sense for at least 6 or 7 years, or since the first time I read Frog's post about such a thing.

But now, try to find ANY ONE who will write up the proposal and submit it to the SCCA. Nobody wants to take responsibility for getting it rolling.

The FC drivers in ICSCC have an easier path to rules changes and could do it almost over night. BUT without the SCCA taking action, it would mean all cars modified would be ineligible for SCCA racing. And we like that option three time a year Majors in Seattle and Portland plus the Rose Festival

ALL PARTS are readily available at Esslinger:

http://www.esslingeracing.com/

[Art Smith]

"In all seriousness. The long rod - short skirt piston and allowing the over bore just make sense."

must be getting slow since it's never been intuitively obvious to me why scrapping the complete inventory of 2-liter Pinto rods, pistons, pins; all of the short deck blocks; and at least some of the sleeved blocks currently being used makes any sense at any level to anyone that currently owns 2-liter Pinto engine(s). those in the Zetec conversion business, engine preparation business, parts business, shipping business, advertising business, ...................


Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[racerdad2]

My thoughts are this. It is the opinion of many that many of our old Pinto powered cars are parked because the engines can't compete & they simply dont last as long as they could. The new rods, pistons & over bore would allow the serious Pinto guts to cone out to play with the Zetecs. And, for guys like me, give us the option to upgrade our engines with a bit more hp & longevity. Which, was the big draw for Zetecs. The change needn't be mandatory. I'll run my old Pinto til she's to tired to run.

Keep in mind, this club racing. The club needs more entries. Old Pintos are a real bargain. Giving people a better engine 'option' just makes sense.

Or.... race the cars together on track but run in separate classes. Zetec. Pinto 'upgrade'. Pinto 'standard'.

Instead of parking our cars. Let's park our egos. ... its amateur club racing. Come out and play

Apologies to all !

[2BWise]

I'll run my old Pinto til she's to tired to run.

Keep in mind, this club racing. The club needs more entries. Old Pintos are a real bargain. Giving people a better engine 'option' just makes sense.

Instead of parking our cars. Let's park our egos. ... its amateur club racing. Come out and play

Amen to that! That's what it's all about right there.

[rickb99]

...... Old Pintos are a real bargain.....

Until it's time for a complete rebuild. Then, $3,000 to $5,000 doesn't sound so sweet.

[racerdad2]

Exactly why I'd like the longer life options

[Steve Demeter]

Rick,

Been racing Pinto powered cars since 1995.

Only time a rebuild even got as high as $2500 was when the block had to be sleeved.

It did get to $3000 one time when a piston broke at the pin boss and the rod exited through the side of the block, requiring a new short block.

Most of the time I did it myself and had someone competent do the valves. I must have been doing something right. Won MO CFC regional championship 5 times in 6 years.

[tahoez]

just give us a Honda OR MAZDA MZR it is not fair to pintos to be blueprinting i.e. rebuilding zetecs and nothing for pintos

[Purple Frog]

I think since 2002 every reader of this forum knows where I stand on this issue.

I do know the FSRAC has been wrestling with this issue for well over a year. Letters dribble in almost every month asking for "pinto relief". I can tell you all nothing will be decided unless the proposal is presented with dyno numbers from one of the known engine builders.

Currently the biggest issue is that with the right combination of upgrades the pinto would turn out to have higher HP and torque numbers than the Zetec. Currently in P2 the pintos are highly disadvantaged and are being given basically free reign. They will probably creep up to 185+ HP in P2. It can be said a lot is being learned from these P2 developments.

In my opinion the duty cycle of pinto rods has not been an issue since the legality of the modern rods (Oliver, Crower, etc.). And the engine builders I have spoke to report no shortage of rods.

I have always pushed for the Eslinger kit that provides 5.7 rods and Wisco racing pistons that move the wrist pin .7" farther up the piston. My argument has been to eliminate the piston slap inherit in granny's original pinto piston design, thus extend ring life by cutting down on all the rocking and rolling. And, yes, I have seen these kits installed in pinto blocks that had previously been decked for the old setup.

The engine builders seem to think the 5.7 rod might creep the pinto up past the zetec. I think there is no doubt that the longer rod would provide a longer ring life and that is the pintos critical weakness to arriving at a longer duty cycle. In 1998 I inadvertently bought a long rod pinto in a car I purchased from a "regional champion", and I can report it was a monster.

The current thought I hear from engine builders is that the simplest solution would be to allow the pinto one point increase in compression. This most likely would be arrived at with a slightly domed piston, or a combination of new head gaskets and smaller combustion chambers, or up to .040 pistons. Since pinto guys are already running fairly high octane race fuels, it would mean no change in the fuel they use. With this additional compression it is thought that adding a carb with bigger venturis or maybe a cam would place the pinto in the same range as the current Zetec.

The FSRAC is willing to help pinto owners, but their hands are tied unless they receive dyno numbers. Sort of a Catch 22. It appears no pinto owner will invest in upgrading a pinto and putting it on a dyno, and the club isn't going to provide relief without dyno numbers.

I am pessimistic that there will ever be a solution to the "pinto issue".

One must recognize that at this point in history almost all the modern chassis built since 1998 have already been converted to Zetec. There are very few pinto powered modern cars. Most the Pinto cars are basically vintage and don't play in the Majors Series. It is a fact of reality the rules are written to control front running cars at the national level competing in the Runoffs.

[rickb99]

...... It appears no pinto owner will invest in upgrading a pinto and putting it on a dyno ....

Frog I thought when this was discussed in depth about 3 years ago, some one WAS in the process of doing just that??

Curiously, I know of one guy in ICSCC who just might do something like this in conjunction with Ivey. He has already run a big cam and dual side drafts then gone back to normal. Heck for all I know he may have run the longer rod in that engine.

[J Weida]

What are the current H.P. numbers of the zetec with after market injectors and the block sleeved and decked and blueprinted ?? We all know the pinto s current H.P. . The problem is with the zetec and the changes that have been allowed .

[HayesCages]

I think that is answered in this thread:

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64501

[Purple Frog]

Probably 152 to 154.

I will say that the sealed engines coming out of QS and Elite are all less than 2 hp difference between al of them.