Pinto Aluminum Head

I'm curious if anyone else is growing concerned about the pinto aluminum head appearing between now and the runoffs. I was never a strong proponent of allowing the head until it was available for testing but I also thought it was suppose to be available early in the year. Had I known by mid July it still wouldn't be available I would have made a lot more noise about it being legal in 2007. At this point in the season I'm not crazy about having such a big unknown thrown into the mix. IMO there isn't enough time to get a good equalization established. I would prefer it if the aluminum head is banned until after the 2007 runoffs. How does everyone else feel about it?

Here's my thinking..... It'll cost between $6k - $8k for a rebuild and aluminum head. I'm quite certain to be competitive you'll have to upgrade. That means a big chunk of change before the runoffs. I for one will skip the runoffs and spend the money converting my car to zetec before I'll invest that much. At a time when many FC drivers are seeking options other than SCCA (see Weitzenhof and Coello posts) it seems we should do as little as possible to drive more competitors away.

One other thing to consider if you are contemplating the runoffs is if the head becomes available and you have the $'s to buy one will there be sufficient supply and time for you to buy one and have a rebuild completed. It could come down to only a select few having them.

I sent an email to the advisory committee chairman a week or more ago but I haven't heard a thing back.

All good points Chas, if I had any say, I would want it held until the 2008 (National points)season.
Keith

Ditto to Keith's post.

I told Terry Ozmets in January we should strive to set the rules in stone by July 1 each year. We all thought the heads would be on motors by April-May. It didn't happen. Now it's an expensive crap-shoot.

On the other hand, I don't believe the head will be that much of a gain what with the weight penalty.

I'm still saying if a top shelf driver shows up with a top shelf prepared zetec, on an unchanged Topeka course, it won't matter if a pinto has an Aluminum head or not. :skull:

Chas,

The competitive uncertainty,pinto,aluminum,zetec was the tipping point in us not spending the $ to go to "Holy Topeka".
We started the year intending to qualify with a minimum and do runoffs,decided in July to save $ and bag rest of SCCA year.
I may finally get my wish and go back to running mid-pack in MY Swift. Same thought process as you earlier decision.

Mid-pack... not. Always the sandbagger. :ha: The only reason you ever start mid-pack is so you can have fun nerfing your way to the front. :thumbsup: :beer:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

Ditto to Keith's post.

On the other hand, I don't believe the head will be that much of a gain what with the weight penalty.

I'm still saying if a top shelf driver shows up with a top shelf prepared zetec, on an unchanged Topeka course, it won't matter if a pinto has an Aluminum head or not. :skull:

---

I'm not as confident about the weight penalty. In the 4 1/2 years I've been racing my VD FC I've never been within 20 lbs of minimum weight (1214 lbs post race at Beaver Run with 1/2 gallon of gas, 1221 at the Sprints). I'll take the 25 lb penalty and the expected 6-8 hp gain any day. Even if there is no HP gain I'd have to buy it for the weight savings and CG advantage.

I was refering to my national career not regional demolition derbies

Chas,

From what I've seen at f2000 weight is irrelevant the torque difference at rpm gives the zetec an insurmountable advantage on a stop and go track. Put in some serious high speed "gut checks" and a good pinto can compete. My initial plan was to put an aluminum head on the swift and borrow a Zetec test and proceed. Star Mazda fixed that budget.Tim Minor came to the same conclusion after one weekend at Oaktree at VIR and converted his car.

Jim,

I'm sorry to hear you and Cole won't be coming. I've gained an enormous amount of respect for Cole and was looking forward to racing with him. Frankly I'm on the fence about topeka and certainly will not go if the aluminum head shows up between now and then. I'm doing enough to qualify then will see what SCCA does to make topeka enticing. I'm not optimistic.

Chas,
Get off the fence and come to Mid-Ohio this weekend or Lime Rock in August. You will only be fighting for top ten with pinto but 30-40 cars with the cleanest racing(on the track) I have seen in 15 years. Great competitive fun with minimal nonsense damage.

Hey Chas,

I agree 100% with all your points, however, I'm a little shocked with the sudden concern.

While I was trying to digest the zetec/pinto situation we were smacked with a new head for an engine that was supposed to be fazed out. That happened around February.

When I looked at the "penalty" of 25 lbs. it was almost a joke because most drivers with the pinto are coming in around or above the 1215 lb range. If you shave off the 20 lbs. you'll be able to add the weight back in a low cg area and make more power! What about the guys who are coming in around 1235? Now they drop an aluminum head on, make more power, lower the cg and hit 1215!

What about the Runoffs? I feel for the guys who are going to have a major curve ball thrown when the aluminum head shows up and the competition curve gets shifted.

I think it should be made available for usage for the 2008 season after some serious equalization testing has been done, similiar to the zetec mapping.

IMVHO.

John

the pinto is now a regional engine

I believe the additional weight will make little or no difference, I believe, with my experience in the 1600 conversion the CG change will more than make up for the weight difference. What I have a real tough time believing is the acceptance of design differences in the aluminum head providing an approximate 8 hp difference between that and the cast iron head. We now either have 3 engine variants to equalize or as has been stated, we have relagated the pinto to the regional class which was probably the intent. I experienced no shortage of cast iron heads nor any longevity issues with the cast head and I thought reliability and availability were the rationalizations historically used to justify change. The late arrival of the head does seem to make a good case for excluding it from this years runoffs.

Jim,
I had planned to race Mid Ohio this week but couldn't get enough time off from work. Your comments about the pinto vs zetec are interesting. There is a belief among some national zetec drivers that with stickier tires the pinto is not at such a disadvantage (higher cornering speeds & maintaining momentum help the pinto). I'm hoping to get up to Watkins Glen this weekend. Fahan is registered and since he and I have a lot of experience racing each other it should be a good test of parity. I'm sure whoever loses will think they have the disadvantage.

Remember that the Sports 2000 class decided Not to let the Zetec in and they will be running Pinto engines at Regional and National levels for a long time.
The projected demand for the Aluminum head was not based on FF2000 needs only.;)

Chas, The proposal seems appropriate and I applaud your efforts. I can see this as absolutely devastating the turn out at Runoffs due to the factors you cite. They will be challenged as is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D.T. Benner

Remember that the Sports 2000 class decided Not to let the Zetec in and they will be running Pinto engines at Regional and National levels for a long time.
The projected demand for the Aluminum head was not based on FF2000 needs only.;)

---

Excellent point Doug. I wonder though how the S2000 guys feel about the potential to have a new head just before the runoffs.

As always if you have an opinion one way or the other you should let the Comp Board know how you feel. crb@scca.com

Im not racing Nats or the RO's.
I was not in favor of the new head.In fact not too many regular FC drivers that I know were for the change?:confused: I think that it was pushed through by builders and rule makers, not car owners or drivers.

The added weight is a joke/non issue.

Any word on when the new cyl head will be out?

If I was on a Nat leval, budget/skill I would have the new head at the RO's. Its a no brainer, I already have an 18 wheeler, go out on stickers every session, test for a week prior and freshen the engine for this event anyway. So why would I pass up such a "cheep" advantage?

I don't see how the new head could be baned now? Your only hope may be to plea that not enough have been produced at this time so the "select" drivers that have it will have an unfair advantage? In other words it is not "truly" available to the public yet?

Good Luck

I was also completely against this aluminum head and wrote that to the F/SRAC. To me, it is a copy of an old and relatively poor design.

I had also recommended that we find another head that is already made - something like the Cossie Y head. That head at least is a 4 valve design that is more similar to the new Zetec. And we probably could have used the same size intake runners and ECU/map as the Zetec. Last time I checked the price, that Cossie head (and cam towers) was about half the price of the new Pinto aluminum version.

Re-edit: I received some good info - the aluminum head is NOT a copy of the old iron head. It has revised ports and valve angles.

But I still won't buy one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D.T. Benner

Remember that the Sports 2000 class decided Not to let the Zetec in and they will be running Pinto engines at Regional and National levels for a long time.
The projected demand for the Aluminum head was not based on FF2000 needs only.;)

---

The S2 community can only seem to agree that no change is better than any kind of change. With their national car count getting dangerously low, the arguing about how the vintage cars are hurting national car count has broken to the surface. With other alternatives for FC cars (pro, F1000, etc.), a similar debate is inevitable. This man's opinion anyway.

jg

It will help my car with both weight & handling. If my ;) 'illustrious racing career' :o doesn't come to a close before my next rebuild, I'll get one.:thumbsup:

....here I come, Mark...:D

So, has anyone heard a recent delivery date estimate on the new head? I sent a comment to the CRB requesting a wait until next season for the reasons stated above.

Jay Messenger
(one of those nasty S2 guys)

I have sent my notice to the CRB requesting they disallow the AL Head for 2007 runoffs.

OK, I'll say it again.

We need to know the intent of SCCA. I was of the understanding that SCCA wanted to phase out an old engine and phase in a new engine. They need to look at the way the uprated / cortina phase in/out was implemented.

They set the rules to favor the new engine and left the rules alone. The whiners stopped whining by the time the season started. This lasted a long time until the aluminum head in FF. Guess what. They implemented the aluminum head (with no weight penalty) and again the FF class is stable.

So, why make it so hard on everybody in the FC class. I say phase in the Zetec with restrictions this year and open up the restrictions in the following years so that we are the same speed as the Mazdas on the straights. This would kill the issues of Mazdas being fast in the straights and slow in the corners and would get us all back into an equal class.

Furthermore, the way the class gets stronger is to allow the "formula" used in the PRO series to be the same or similiar to the club. Then, pro guys come to run with us and that makes our class stronger and we can go run with the pro series making it better. Plus, we get the advantage of pro cars being sold into the club after a few years and this keeps our numbers up.

Remember this is a formula car class. That means YOU SET A FORMULA AND YOU LEAVE IT ALONE. The rest will work itself out. I do not want to be in a production car type class where I lobby for 100 lbs less to make out of date car competative. If this was the case, then the rocker arm FC's should be looking for a differnt formula to make their cars competative with the new 2006 cars.

So again, Choose the formula and leave it alone. For sure, I don't like the SCCA helping me spend my money in a direction that is not positive and does not have a clear vision.

Note: when SCCA tried to allow the dual port head into FV, all the FV guys got together and said no to SCCA. They did not want SCCA spending their money that way. I suggest that we do the same. I think the FC guys need to get together and set our own rules (because this is our club and our class). I favor the Zetec engine phased in over a two year period (first year is up in October 2007). I suggest they stop development of the pinto (sorry Doug Learned) Then, lets get on the same page with the pro series and have some great EQUAL racing.

Keith

The short answer is the engine builders will have them first week of august.
It is a run of 50.if we want to delay this it needs to happen before 7/31.
Once they are out there it would not be right to not run them.

I feel compelled to weigh in on this discussion. I spent over an hour and a half today talking directly to many parties, so I’ll put out what I think I heard.

Whether you like it or not, the Aluminum head rule went into effect last January. Some people invested a lot of money based on the rule that was in writing. I’m sure, although I have not confirmed it with him, that Doug Learned has well into 6 figures invested into bringing the head to reality. Sandy at Quicksilver and Steve at Elite both have confirmed that they have customer engines in their shops waiting on the heads. (Note, that some of these customers do not intend to enter the Runoffs.) These are all good folks that made serious and expensive decisions based on a rule that was put in writing months ago. It could be argued that Doug, Sandy, and Steve are some of the strongest long, long time supporters of our class. Definitely not in it for the short run, nor quick buck.

The Aluminum head, using existing known theory, will create more HP because the port runners will be more efficient. No one has seen it on a dyno yet, so it is just theory, but solid theory. Valve angles, cam shaft location, etc., etc. will be the same as the cast iron head. Because of the expected increase in HP, when the CRB passed the rule change they applied a weight penalty to cars using the head to compensate for the HP gain and potential lowering of a car’s center of gravity. I for one was against the weight penalty, having wanting it to be applied just as the Aluminum head rule was changed for FF a few years back. The CRB thought the weight penalty was needed.

No one expected the head would be this late in production. Especially those with good money invested in the project. If everyone knew six months ago that the production was going to be this late, I’m sure the CRB would have made the rule effective for 2008 instead. But that is Monday morning quarterbacking.

Many of us have asked the CRB over the last couple of years to freeze the rules that effect that year’s Runoffs by July 1st, so that it will be a stable playing field going into the silly season before the Runoffs. A few years ago we didn’t especially like new rules being thrown at Jeremy Hill just weeks before the Runoffs. So we pleaded for stability from July 1 until the day after the Runoffs.

Yes, someone with a ton of money in theory could build a zetec, a iron head pinto, and a Aluminum head pinto, and test away at HPT, or some nearly equal track and then pick the best car for the Runoffs. Let’s be real, I don’t see anyone in the community doing that this year. I know of some teams that were prepared to test two cars with varied engines, but now none of those teams are going to the Runoffs, having chosen to run F2000 instead.

As I have stated in prior years (2004, 2005, 2006), Rule changes that effect a particular Runoffs, that are being considered late in the season, should only be voted on by those entered in that Runoffs. That’s the only fair way to handle it. Regional guys, or even national guys that are not going to the Runoffs (such as myself), shouldn’t have an influence in a rule that does not effect them.

If the rule goes unchanged and stands as it is, yes it is possible someone may be at the Runoffs with an Aluminum head. But they will have to race 25 pounds heavier with a not as of yet well tested part. A fairly risky proposition at best. History has shown us repeatedly that most Runoffs winners did it with the well tested combination they used all season, not changes made in the last month.

Do we really want to punish anyone who invested serious money, to honestly play by a rule that was in writing for many months now?

With all that said, I think based on precedent, in this case it would be best to leave the rule alone, as it has been for over 6 months, and let this thing play out.

this is a little off-topic (i think the rules allowing the alu head should be applied based on the adoption date, not availability-if they start to show up at the runoffs, they show up-however, i'm not planning on attending this year, and i think mike is right about th participants in the runoffs having a say in this)....i was watching a show on speed and the comment came up about problems with head gaskets on engines with alu heads and cast iron blocks. differing expansion rates, temps, etc. seem to indicate a higher likelihood of head gasket problems with this setup. does anyone have an opinion on this?

marc

Well I guess I am compelled to reply as well as I do have a dog in this fight of National FC racing.

Yes, I am sure Doug did make an investment but was this with the "promise" that the head would be made legal or that if the head met certain requirements it would be legal? Was it for a direct replacement head or one which was to be a substantial improvement over what is currently available? Why was it designed to make more HP and torque? Was this directed to instantly "disenfranchise" the guys with iron heads? And, is the stated 6-8 HP really offset by the25# weight penalty?

First, I too made an investment and sizable one at that in the Zetec and a new car with the "promise" that it would be competitive in SCCA club racing by 7/1/2007. Despite controlled testing which equalized the cars to "pretty much everyone's satisfaction" last November, the final weight penalty is not being removed. This being based upon pro racing results, not club racing or club testing.

Second, while I don't have any problem with new parts and pieces, to bring something as substantial as a new head without first knowing what it is going to do and what is necessary to make all things as equal as possible is asinine. As far as speculation and a "risk" of taking this new head to the Runoffs who are we kidding there? Those issues will be sorted out in short order and if it works they will be on, if not they won't. If it is questionable you will have to have both in the trailer.

Even if people have ponied up and paid for their new heads, they are not out anything other than perhaps the cost to freshen up their iron head for Runoffs. I don't think anyone advocated not allowing the heads to run, just not at Runoffs without appropriate testing. Those heads would simply be shiny and new for next season.

Third, why a 25# weight penalty? When the Zetec was brought in it was penalized 50# with further mapping and inlet restrictors so as to insure it would not disenfranchise the Pinto owners. If the aluminum head was brought in to help eliminate a head shortage why not phase it in under the same type of strict regulations so that it doesn't become a "mandatory must have" item to be competitive thus disenfracnhising the iron head pinto owners?

And finally, the aluminum head will still be 5# lighter than the Zetec. Between that and a 7# flywheel which sounds likely for 2008 it seems as though we (zetecs) might be the ones being disenfranchised. But of course, there are only a few of those cars running club and therefore it doesn't really matter.

If you get the sense that I am a little more than frustrated over this you are onto something. I made decisions and investments to participate in SCCA club racing this season based upon the results and representations from the test last November together with the published regs. I have run this season with the weight handicap understanding that things would get better 7/1. I can now see that was the wrong thing to have done.

John,
You and I agree on more than we disagree.
What seems like a long, long time ago there was a committee that moved forward a plan to migrate the zetec into FC. And I'm sure many involved thought the 2007 Runoffs were a long time off in the future when they were working on the plan in 2005. I remember, like you mentioned, that the parity date was to be July 1, 2007.
I'm not sure I could dig up all the old email discussions, maybe we could find it in old Sportscars or Apexspeed archives.
So we agree the weights should be equal by now. :) I'm not sure the CRB agrees with us.:(

The whole time the zetec migration plan was being designed there was no Aluminum head on the visible horizon. It's entry into the picture does add a big unknown to the original plan.

I did send in my single opinion to the CRB back during the Aluminum head debate saying I was in favor. I understood it would be close to equal in performance. Knowing that the zetec engine package was about 40# lighter than the pinto engine package, i thought a lighter pinto engine would help the COG characteristics of the pinto cars to be more like the zetec. Plus I remember being told it would be easier (thus cheaper) for the flow magicians to perform their art to aluminum vs cast iron. Maybe (probably) I was dreaming it would more likely more of us would get copies of the best head porting, that has historically only been available to a few. But in my letter to the CRB I didn't want them to add weight for use of the aluminum head. I thought it would be good irregardless of powerplant for the FC class to get a bit quicker, because of lap speeds of FMs and FSCCA cars at the time. Selfishly I wanted the FC to stay the most attractive class. I was thinking that if the Aluminum head did produce a few more HP, then the board would bump the zetec map up to match.

Now that time has passed and decisions have been made along the way, I dream a revised plan for 2008. OBTW, this is my personal opinion and not that of the F2000 Championship Series in any way, shape, or form.

What I would do if I were king for 2008:

The pinto cars with aluminum heads and 8 lb. flywheels and a min wt. of 1190.
The zetec cars with their aluminum heads and their 8 lb. flywheels and a min wt. of 1190.
Map the zetecs to match the best pintos in HP.
Then both cars would have basically the same engine mass, the same HP, close to to same rotating mass, and the same weight.

The aluminum heads and light flywheels on pintos would not be mandatory, just an option. Obviously one that serious national contenders would probably have to implement.

And as king i would mandate that regional CFC classes would run under the 2006 rules with cast iron heads.

While I was king I would probably allow the pintos the longer rods and shorter pistons. ;)

But, I'm not king, won't be king, don't want to be king.

None of this babble has anything to do with what the CRB should do about the Aluminum head in the time between now and the 2007 Runoffs, because I don't like to see rule changes after July 1. Remember, I also thought "the plan" was for zetecs and pintos to be equal on July 1, 2007. :thumbsup:

How did the aluminum head evolve to a performance enhancement? There are now 3 derivitives in FC that will either be equalized or (what a mess) those with the iron will be disinfranchised. This has never been the intent in my association with the club. Somewhere along the way we encountered scope creep on the project. This unfair situation really is not what we generally try to create with our club and not very desireable. If the iron head penelty is not dealt with then many will consider the garage for their racer or other venues. Really a sad state from my chair.

IMHO Frog is spot on with his comments. I might add one thought; I believe growth and inovation in some form is very necessary for the health of a race formula/class/call it whatever. It is generally my objection to spec classes- they eventually die as something "new" comes along because they're by definition static. The Zetec, Alu head, new pistons/rods all spark interest and buzz for the FC class. Racing is expensive, even when you do it on the cheap. A regional racer (almost by definition of what a 'regional racer' is) does not have to have the latest whizzy stuff to run a car successfully and economically and should not get all exersized because he's been 'disenfranchized' by new parts allowed into the class.

I personally do not have an objection to new parts and agree Bob that there are good things that come from change. I think this is a problem faced by 1600 which will bear out in the next few years and I have been an advocate of moving that class forward.

What my "objection" is to relates to the method by which these issues are being dealt with in club racing late in the season with no testing and/or the disregard of previous test results. I honestly think Mike has some good points about bringing HP up on the Pinto and then matching the Zetec. I also think that selling the head and flywheel to the iron head Pinto owners will be easier if they get something in the way of additional power out of their purchase. For the Zetecs it is a matter of keystrokes and perhaps a piece of aluminum for a new restrictor so I am in for more HP.

John- I concur with you on the method of introduction by the Club- It needs to be more carefully thought out when there are performance issues at stake.

This isn't an issue of new technology or business viability.

I started this thread to say we were promised a new head at the beginning of the season which we still do not have and I'm concerned if it appears between now and the runoffs many competitors will choose not to compete due to the financial strain and unknown characteristics of the head. It is my belief the rule was passed with the understanding it would be available early in the season. To date it has not been delivered. If I missed a deadline in my business by more than 6 months I'd expect to lose the work as well.

Now that my car is destroyed it's very unlikely I'll be at the runoffs but I still believe this issue should be addressed. Any business or person concerned about the club and class would support pushing the delivery of the head back to 2008 however it's foolish to think a business is more concerned about the club than their own interests.

I know Doug Learned and I doubt he ever got involved with the Aluminum Pinto head with the thought that he could retire on the profits! He cares about racers and it may take a long time just to pay back his investment and even longer before he make's a profit on it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chas Shaffer

...however it's foolish to think a business is more concerned about the club than their own interests.

---

Have you bothered to pick up the phone to ask him, Chas? I think you might be surprised at how concerned Doug is for the health of the class and the club. After all, a health class and a healthy club means a healthy business for him, or hadn't you thought of that?

This thread provides some of us with at times incredibly annoying, at other times outrageously funny irony. To think that some of you, while vigorously supporting change are now equally vigorously moaning about the lack of rules stability!

Did you think that Pandora's Box, once opened, could be closed at will? :mad:



Technology creep is not necessarily linked to disposable income creep. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Clayton

Have you bothered to pick up the phone to ask him, Chas? I think you might be surprised at how concerned Doug is for the health of the class and the club. After all, a health class and a healthy club means a healthy business for him, or hadn't you thought of that?

---

Yes Stan I have spoken to Doug. In no way are my comments meant to demean Doug's efforts. Please keep in mind I'm not saying the head isn't needed nor am I trying to have it banned permanently from competition all I'm saying is at this late date I do not believe it is in the club's best interest to have it enter into competition until after the season is over. I'm open to other opinions. Help me understand how it helps the club to have a new head 3 months before the runoffs when many of the divisions are ending their seasons. If you can explain to me how that benefits anyone except those selling the parts I'm willing to listen. I've already stated why I think it will hurt the club.

"Help me understand how it helps the club to have a new head 3 months before the runoffs when many of the divisions are ending their seasons. If you can explain to me how that benefits anyone except those selling the parts I'm willing to listen."

Doesn't help the club.

Helps the guy with the $$ to spend on the latest go-fast piece.

An extract from Club Racing Technical Bulletin TB 07-08:

"1. Section 9.1.1.B.1.c.32, p. 175, at the request of the manufacturer the CRB is making the following change based on the availability of the Fast Forward aluminum cylinder head. Change the section to read as follows: The use of the Fast Forward aluminum cylinder head is permitted in National competition beginning 11/1/07."